[Valpal1]

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

Bump to that. It is ridiculous that pornography ("sexual" speech?) was ever given equal status to political speech.

Congress should redefine by statute that pornography, esp. child porn in any medium, is a non-political, non protected product used for sexual expression/entertainment and regulate and tax the hell out of adult porn and ban all child porn completely.

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

That this has to argued in our culture is pathetic.

[weikel]

They can't redefine it by statuate that would be unconstitutional if you want to outlaw porn you need a constitutional amendment and guess what that amendment ain't gonna pass.

[gdani]

It is ridiculous that pornography ("sexual" speech?) was ever given equal status to political speech.

So, you don't agree with the First Amendment -- which surely protects more than political speech?

[steve-b]

Congress should redefine

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

[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?