Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech' (Ann Coulter) TRIPLE XXX

worldnetdaily ^ | 4/24/2002 | Ann Coulter

[anniegetyourgun]

I am an unashamed libertarian

I've noticed this is true of most libertarians - they have not shame.

BTW, what statement is kiddie porn making?

[anniegetyourgun]

Nevermind, I don't feel like going around the circular logic of folks who are so open-minded their brains are falling out.

[garv]

The pro-life angle comes into play when you assume that you can picket at a pornographers home, etc. As a pro-lifer I'm sure you're aware of restrictions placed on protesters at clinics and at abortionists' homes. The point was simply that your constitutional right to protest abortion has already been restricted so your faith in your right to protest may be misplaced.

[Black Cat]

Interesting comments from someone with your username...

[fellowpatriot]

So, is it any wonder how they're going to vote on the CFR gag rule?

[TLBSHOW]

Opps!

[ChadGore]

[Rule of Law]

It's not, but we're talking child porn here - that involves the depiction of minors in lewd acts. But, alas, I'm sure you won't find the word "pornography" in our founding documents. Our Founding folk never thought we'd stoop to this kind of vomitous slime.

How can we argue that liberals should follow the Constitution if we are not willing to do so ourselves? How can we refute their claims that the Constitution is a living document if we use the argument ouselves? When they use the argument that the Constitution should be ignored because our founding fathers could not have forseen X, how can we argue against it if we say that the Constitution should be ignored because our founding fathers could not have forseen Y?

It's not about being a libertine. It's about integrity. It's about sticking to our principles even when we don't like the results. This is one of those times.

[Redcloak]

Ok... I like Ann and I'm looking forward to the gratuitous Ann pics that are bound to be posted to this thread; however, she is out to lunch on this! The Supreme Court's ruling on "virtual" kiddie porn is not about protecting smut. It's about defining what government may or may not proscribe. Government may regulate speech, such as real kiddie porn involving real kids because the production of that speech harms children. It may also regulate other types of porn as obscene, albeit under some rather byzantine rules. The theory behind such regulation is that direct harm results from the speech in question. "Virtual" kiddie porn does not have the same element of direct harm that real kiddie porn does. A "virtual" child cannot be harmed; it does not really exist. As Rush said this morning, these are cartoons.

Whether American is "awash" in pornography or not is irrelevant. What we don't need is for it to be awash in senseless government regulation. Laws regulating speech or other behaviors should be based upon a reasonable interest by the government. Protecting real children from pornographers is a legitimate insterest on the government's part; protecting "virtual" children is not.

[eddie willers]

If you think you need a victim to demonstrate harm start shouting fire in movie theaters and see how far your "speech" rights extend.

What if I 'think' fire?

[anniegetyourgun]

I guess I'll not convince you that video showing adults sodomizing a 4 year old isn't speech.

[amused]

Fine annie, banning such harmful speech is for the good of society as a whole.

Well why do we allow hateful thoughts towards our fellow man? After all isn't racism and bigotry towards race generally harmful for society? Shouldn't we punish such thoughts especially when accompanied by actions? I'm serious. I don't like what the KKK, neo-nazis, black panthers, islamic militants etc. have to say about groups they hate. They encourage violence through their rhetoric. Why do we allow these thoughts?

That is the road you walk down. You may say we can make a distinction between the two(porn vs. bigotry) but our hate crime laws say otherwise. Slander/libel and creating a panic should be the only restrictions the gov't should be able to place on our speech. That covers hate crimes, campaign finance etc.

Child porn is illegal. Doctored & virtual depictions of child porn are disgusting. I would report any I saw to the proper authorities(I am daily bombarded by such sites)so they may sort out what has happened. But the way the law was written, it was lazy and broad. The court said as much when declaring the law unconstitutional. Congress is free to pass a more specific law. That is what we will have to wait for.

But when these are artificial depictions, we are essentially punishing the thought of the creator of such. As vile as many of us find it, just as many have problems with that sort of logic. If this law were upheld, you can bet your bottom dollar that this would be used as a precedent cited to defend hate crimes as constitutional.

[Rule of Law]

I guess I'll not convince you that video showing adults sodomizing a 4 year old isn't speech.

I am convinced that it is not speech. I am convinced that any state in the country that wants to make such a video tape contraband has the authority to do so. I hope that all of them have done so.

I am also convinced that the federal government has no authority to pass a law on the matter. The federal government lacks any generalized police power. All the Constitution allows the federal government to declare illegal is treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas.

[jwalsh07]

You also miss the point. Forget the law, the Supremes ruled that virtual child porn was protected by the first amendment thus rendering unconstitutional the laws passed in 24 states addressing this very issue. And pretend conservatives applaud this usurptation of power from a central authority.

Yuck!

[jwalsh07]

The Federal Government can make laws regarding interstate commerce.

[Dinsdale]

the Supremes ruled that virtual child porn was protected by the first amendment

You misunderstand the ruling. They ruled that the law was too vague, they did not make any sweeping ruling.

[Pokey78]

Ping for the ACPL.

[jwalsh07]

No Mr Dinsdale, you misunderstand the breadth and depth of the ruling. Read it again, they have made it quite clear that any of the states who have passed these laws will be overturned.

[ValerieUSA]

Say you have a pair of young looking 18 yr olds having sex for pay in front of your camera, but despite their careful razor work, starvation diets and youthful appearance, you just don't think they'll pass for preteens and sell to audience you intend to target. So you take the digital images of your neighbors' cute little kids playing in the yard, and you paste their heads on the bodies of your paid "models" (prostitutes). No child was sexually abused to make that image. The writers of the Constitution would be proud of your independent American spirit, right?

[summer]

bttt