[ShadowAce]

... speech is the beginning of thought."

This is the basis of their problems. They have it totally backwards. Thought is the beginning of speech--not the other way around.

What idiots.

[ctdonath2]

There is no question that the acts depicted, if actually performed, are heinous & immoral & illegal. Nobody here condones such actions. What SCOTUS observed, and which Ann misses, is the precident set by banning the depiction of illegal/immoral actions when the action did not occur in creating the depiction.

If you think SCOTUS was in error in striking down this law, then what if the law is changed ever-so-slightly to also ban "virtual murder"?

and what, then, prevents the prohibition of legitimate films that also depict "virtual murder"?

Some ideas are indeed dispicable. Society is right to shun depiction of such ideas. HOWEVER, there is no way to lawfully ban gratuitous depiction of evils and not wrongfully oppress practically identical legitimate depiction of evils. Sure, "Debbie Does Dallas" may seem unworthy of legal protection...but if lawfully suppressed, then how can Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" not be suppressed as well? "Jason X" certainly is no legitimate contribution to society...but if banned, how could "The Patriot" be allowed?

[maestro]

The Bible:.........The Epistle to the PHILIPPIANS Chapter 4, verses 8,9, and 10.