The Pro Porn Court?

WYLL.com, NEWSMAX.com, RFMNews.com, FederalObserver.com ^ | 4.17.2002 | Kevin McCullough

[steve-b]

But right now the burden of proof is on the police and prosecuting attorneys.

That is where it has always been under our system of law.

[Valpal1]

I'm an optimist, I still think real men outnumber faux men, and would in fact vote to regulate adult porn as a product and to outlaw child porn products completely.

Added bonus, support from politicians who scent a new tax revenue source.

2nd bonus, feminazi's will be caught with their panties down (again!) for not wanting to really protect women and children.

[steve-b]

Congress should redefine

The newest Senator from New York can call upon her spouse's expertise in that area.

[weikel]

Feminazis want to outlaw porn too and believe me its the wussy liberal effeminate men who oppose porn.

[Cold Heat]

You have this all wrong!

The nine voted against the thought police,nothing more.

[Valpal1]

Wasting resources?! It's a new revenue stream. YEHAA!

[Valpal1]

Outlaw porn? No, changing it's status from speech to product, and tax and regulate it is not outlawing it.

[general_re]

It is not speech, it's a product, commercially produced for profit, or self produced for personal consumption, or sharing with "friends" (barf!).

This is true. Pornography fits this definition to a "T". Of course, the problem is that a newspaper also fits that definition perfectly, although we are less inclined to barf if I give my friends my newspaper after I read it. :^)

Should newspapers be unprotected by the first Amendment also?

[Baseballguy]

The best part of this is you are allowed to be against porn, and make you views clear. It is what makes rulings like this so great since no one was injured. If God did not want us to have such lust and thoughts we would not.

Although I would never want to advocate any such travesty on children and view such stuff without context. We all have choices. Let us not perscribe only one thought for our nation. Its a land of free thinkers. I detest harm to women in movies. I wish that they would remove those types of movies but no I choose not to watch them. Therefore if no child is harmed or implictly exposed then no harm is done.

[kellynla]

The court ruled that as long as the depictions were not of actual minors it would be allowed. Hence, ex: a cartoon with nude children having sex or an adult having sex with a child is allowed. THIS IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Pornography is the work of the devil. Period. God gave us sex for one reason and one reason only. To procreate the race. Not for your or anyone's else's sick pleasures. I don't care how you dress it up allowing people to show children or anyone else exposed to the world is wrong, wrong, wrong. You and eveyone else that thinks this is protected by law can go ahead and believe what you want. Just don't try and sell that bill of goods to God when you hit the pearly gates.

[realpatriot71]

Morality comes from Almighty God. HE Sets the standards. His standards of obscenity are what matters. He is the Real Supreme Court.

Prove "He" exists and then you've got a point to argue on. Pray tell, how can one make a claim of an absolute morality coming from the existance of an UNknown being?

[truenospinzone]

They will use illusions to Gun Control and call of us who support morality and morals Control Freaks. This is a strawman. I doubt that anyone one of us who is opposed to this decision, is against Guns, but the libertarians want to make it seem that way.

Either you misunderstand the point of the comparison or you're purposely misrepresenting it. We are not implying that you are against guns. That, in fact, is our point. The argument that you are using can be used almost verbatim to justify hardline gun restrictions. That you can see the flaw in the argument when it is used to regulate something you approve of, but not when used to regulate something you oppose, is laughable.

[Wondervixen]

At risk of sounding like I'm siding WITH the decision, actual children are banned from involvement in any way shape or form.

Now, this brings to mind the questions at hand. Since actual children are banned, does this allow for adult porn stars to legally perpetrate the fantasy of adult males and lollypop licking, pony tailed little girls? Does it allow for skilled 3-D artists and sketch artists to render their works legally?

It just seems to me that allowing the perpetration of the fantasy is going to lead mentally unbalanced adults to go that way...Another liberal "great idea" that is frought with sickening side effects.

[gdani]

Prove "He" exists and then you've got a point to argue on

What are you trying to do - double the number of posts on this thread?

[Cold Heat]

I am shocked that you assumed that I support child pornography!

LOL! actually, I expected you would because you fail to see the wisdom in the supremes decision. I will not attempt to convince you. Suffice it to say that if they do not prevent laws against thought, YOU! may find yourself procecuted for yours one day.

[Valpal1]

While newspapers are produced for profit, the profit comes from advertisors, not subscriptions.

And they are not sole purpose products, being made up of various sections catering to various sectors of the reading public, etc.

And of course the letters to the editors and editorials, etc, all of which clearly come under 1st ammendment protections.

It should also be noted that newspapers are regulated in many ways (actual manufacture/processing, inks, copyrights, etc.) and they are taxed, as are the cigarette and alcohol manufactures, wholesalers, distributors etc.

While the editorial, news and opinion content have 1st Ammendment protection, the advertising content does not, because it is commercial speech.

Pornography could indeed be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, if good men willed to make it so.

Obscenity is exempted from 1st Ammendment protection, so I guess another avenue is to legally define virtual child porn as obscene and outlaw it that way, (with significant jail time).

[gdani]

While the editorial, news and opinion content have 1st Ammendment protection, the advertising content does not, because it is commercial speech

The First Amendment applies to commercial speech too.

[Almondjoy]

As I said on another thread relating to this I don't like it but it's the right way to vote.. you vote the other way against virtual vices and you'll find that it's illegal to take drugs on TV or you'll find that it's illegal to simulate a bank robbery or it's illegal to bungee jump off a virtual bridge in a movie. No No.. the justice's have it right on this one even if it does suck.

[truenospinzone]

Sadly enough, I don't think that you'd find much objection by many on this thread if the simulated depiction of drug use, rape, etc. was considered illegal...

[Almondjoy]

No comment really.. just wanted to say, well said!