Posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
hmmmmm what to do? free speech vs. states rights...I'm sorry I can't agree, free speech will always trump such state rights. Even the most vile of thoughts. I would work in the community to counter such disgusting crap but I will not allow gov't to have such power (granted I am not the all powerful Oz so I'm stuck with rants, protests, letters etc.). The law itself was good intentioned and needs to be re-written more specifically to counter actual child pornographers from saying their depictions are not real.
What is with the constant p#ssing contest on who's the most conservative? Not picking on you, but that seems to be the slam of slams on FR, up there with being called a liberal. [chuckle]
wasnt too long ago that the Catholic church decided the Protestant beliefs were "spiritual pornography," and I bet similar statements were made in the reverse. Thus, doctrinal books were banned under force of law.
Problem is that I fear the slippery slope. Once we have the government start deciding what speech is acceptable, and what is not, we've started the inexorable decline towards tyranny. And eventually, the government will decide that the preaching of Biblical Christianity is unacceptable to them. The marketplace of ideas can conquer pornography. But a tyranical government deciding what may be spoken, written and communicated is likely to decide that the Gospel is unacceptable.
The reason child porn is illegal is that minors do not have the ability to make such contracts.
But drawings don't have ages, or rights.
I do care that you think pedophiles have an unalienable right to virtual kiddie porn and I also care that you place the "right" of pedophiles to satisfy their perversity above the rights of citizens to govern themselves.
I also care that you seem to embrace a living breathing document when it suits your fancy. The original intent of the first amendment did not protect obscenity.
By the way, is the right to life a federal issue or a state issue?
Here's your slippery slope.
In 1973 SCOTUS ruled, in Roe v Wade, that first trimester abortions were a right granted some damn place in the Constitution.
A bit later SCOTUS ruled, in Doe v Bolton, the right to kill babies extended all the way to through the third trimester due to an illusory "health of the mother" issue also located in the same document, somewhere.
Today we kill'em on the way out and some Professor down at Princeton is lobbying to extend that to, oh lets say, two or three years after the birth of the baby.
How's that for slippery from the same slippery clowns who have ruled virtual porn protected in that same heavy breathing document.
Even "virtual" kiddie porn affects "real" children in these two ways. This is a fact in the real world that the Supreme Court chose to ignore. But it is still true.
This is not a "freedom of speech" case for thepornographers. This is a "freedom from honesty" case forsix Justices of the Supreme Court.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".
Click here for latest: "Memo to Yasser from Irv on Career Choices."
I would if I could but I never hear a peep out of the people that make up the movement anymore.
Good because the definitions seem to vary based on how insecure the person is.
I do care that you think pedophiles have an unalienable right to virtual kiddie porn and I also care that you place the "right" of pedophiles to satisfy their perversity above the rights of citizens to govern themselves.
Wow I talk about criminalizing thought as wrong and now I am NAMBLA's front man...quite a leap. Are we about to do battle...that seems to be a line in the sand.
I also care that you seem to embrace a living breathing document when it suits your fancy. The original intent of the first amendment did not protect obscenity.
No, I believe the 1st amendment was intended to protect political speech and gov't criticism and adams wiped his butt with it(sedition act). The 1st amendment has evolved over the years. Whether we like it or not, that is the way it is. Howl at the wind if you must but I believe slander/libel and starting a panic are the only forms of speech the gov't should be allowed to regulate. I'd be happy if the Supremes would stick to that since they seem to "find" new rights or ways to abridge rights every year.
By the way, is the right to life a federal issue or a state issue?
I believe it should be a state issue unless an amendment to the US constitution is passed.
Wow, a conservative test...I feel so...so... talked down to. Oh well.
Please give me a break. That's a favorite leftist argument. Conservatives shouldn't stoop to it.
In spite of what the left says, the federal government has limited authority. The commerce clause was intended to address two problems. One was that some states would not allow the goods of another state to pass through their borders. The other was that some states had a tarriff on goods coming into their borders from another state. That's all the commerce clause was intended to address. And that's all the federal government can legitimately address with the commerce clause. A fact that the federal government pretty much recognized up until the 1930's. (There were exceptions, but nothing in a big way.)
Don't ya'll see a wee bit of irony in this article? While the primary topic is child porn and the recent Supremes ruling, Ann's statements in the article which discuss pornography, in general, seem full of irony. She dated Bob Guccione, Jr. Bob Sr. owns Penthouse. Sr initially supported Jr's foray into SPIN magazine (emphasis on the music business) with some of his Penthouse fortune.
Wonder when Ann got so concerned about porn. Glad she did, mind you. Just wonder what took so long.
(And please don't flame me, I'm an Ann Coulter fan. Yet I also think it's necessary to question inconsistancy.)
Speaking as a Christian, and just a decent human being, digitally manufactured child porn is evil, disgusting, vile, wretched. It forebodes ill for our society that we are even discussing this, but I fear the consequences of censorship more.
So the filming was lawfull, but under the "Child Protection Act", since the actress was depicted as under-aged, the film could have been prohibited.
Anyone possesing it could be tried in court (with very severe penalties).
I have mpegs of the BATF officers being shot at Waco, should I stand trial for their murders ?
If not, then what is the crime of having pics of a sexual nature that never happened ?
Ann, I love your opinions. But you are out to lunch on this one.
If not, then what is the crime of having pics of a sexual crime that never happened ?
And that's all proponents of the SC majority are advocating....
So absurd is this ruling, public defecation and urination will now also be considered "free speech."
The masses are mired in confusion - and I know exactly where it comes from.
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.