Posted on 04/17/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by KMC1
Be afraid, be very very afraid. Last night on Fox News Channel on Brit Hume's Special Report, Brian Wilson reported on the comparison between the new TV show that mimics the Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court as they both ruled on cases dealing with "virtual child pornography". The TV version voted 7 to 2 in the same direction that the actual Supreme Court voted (6 to 3). It would have been 7 to 2 in the actual had Sandra Day O'Connor taken a little more of her medication that morning.
In Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (a pornography trade, lobbying, and activist group), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that images can show children having sex, children can be shown in nude or erotic poses, children can perform sexual acts, children can be shown having sex with adults, children can be shown having sex with their own or opposite gender. The only catch - as long as they are not actual children being shown. Sound Confusing? Well it is.
Yesterday's ruling basically opens the way up to allowing pedophilia, child porn, and child molestation to be a major theme of everything from movies to printed materials - as long as they can prove that, the children depicted aren't actually children.
Getting the Court to rule this way obviously thrilled the ACLU and other pro-porn groups across our nation. It obviously deeply cut the groups that are trying to stop one of our nation's most cruel vices from spreading. So what should we expect? More of the same from as best I can see it.
With the publication of the University of Minnesota Press book released three weeks ago promoting the idea that sex between children and adults is just neato keen, and now being followed up with the ruling from this court that children can be made legitimate sexual objects on screen, parents - be afraid, be very very afraid.
Load the shotguns, carry your concealed weapons and suspect every creep that talks to your kids in the grocery store. At the rate the U.S. is going you might just have to shoot someone to literally save the innocence of your own child.
Harsh rhetoric - hardly. Why is the pope this week bringing all the bishops from around the world to meet to discuss the issue of homosexual pedophilia (and a few isolated cases of heterosexual too) amongst the servants of the church? Why is the North American Man Boy Love Association still in business and doing better than ever before? What is the great defense as to why we should not allow children to be sexualized on film - even if adults are playing them or a computer generated them?
(Too be read with a whiny little voice while holding one's nose) "Because we might not get to see films like Traffic or American Beauty." I didn't see Traffic though I am aware that it was nominated for Best Picture the year it came out. But I did see American Beauty which was deemed 'Best Picture'. This little political perverted statement - made through the eyes of a Pretendlander as director - wished to paint the middle class conservative family in America as nothing more than twice adulterating, homophobic, pedophilic, drug addicted, twisted rot. The director's anger against the "right wing" was focused into an attempt to say, "this is how conservative middle class America REALLY lives". Pretendland loved it - that's way they rushed it to the Academy to be deemed "the best of the year". But church going America for the most part yawned as it came and went - it didn't represent most American families - and we knew it.
Pretendland has evidently wielded its logic to the halls of the Supreme Court. But what it has done in the meantime is make every child in America - more vulnerable to the stalking of men who wish to prey on little boys and girls.
I'm sorry Mr. & Ms. Justices of the Supreme Court - but you struck out on this one. Your reasoning was lame. Your decision was even worse.
Maybe you will wear it as a badge of honor that you made child porn the new "fetish du jour", but please take note, you weakened Americans today.
Thank goodness there is that 2nd Amendment! It's there just in case we need to protect ourselves day to day. You may be sitting there saying, "C'mon what's with all the 'protectionism'?" If that's you, well, never mind you won't ever get it anyway. For the rest of you, lock and load, and be very afraid, be very very afraid!
That is where it has always been under our system of law.
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.
The newest Senator from New York can call upon her spouse's expertise in that area.
The nine voted against the thought police,nothing more.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
What are you trying to do - double the number of posts on this thread?
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.
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).
The First Amendment applies to commercial speech too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.