[Timesink]

Thank God. This would have been the first step towards government censorship of all sorts of things that had nothing at all to do with child porn. (And the left-wing "for the children!" psychos take note: Real child porn remains as illegal as it ever was.)

[AmericanInTokyo]

Those who think the now-Constitutionally protected, nefarious material that is being allowed to prevail see little wrong with it, should have the intellectual courage right here and right now in Free Republic to stand up and post a sample of it right here.

Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this. If they can't, then they must know in their hearts that something is patently wrong and unacceptable about it and there is no socially redeeming quality to it.

[texlok]

And the left-wing "for the children!" psychos take note: Real child porn remains as illegal as it ever was.

They won't take note. Your talking about the same people who will censor all kinds of internet sites (everything from anti-government, racist, porn, etc.) because it's "for the children/women/minorities", etc.

[ladylib]

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a public school student "drug" user in Georgia appealed to them because his school said that a Luden's Wild Cherry cough drop is the same thing as a controlled narcotic? Do you think they would be smart enough to see the difference?

[iconoclast]

Thank God. This would have been the first step towards government censorship of all sorts of things that had nothing at all to do with child porn.

I think, next to my fear of censorship catching on in this country, is my dread of an elephant stampede down my street.