[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.

[anniegetyourgun]

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

[Southern Federalist]

The issue is original intent. I would say that you are the one reading the Constitution the way liberals do, ignoring the original meaning of its terms in context in order to invent all sorts of rights to fit your a priori libertarian notion of freedom. The original meaning of the First Amendment is the protection of political speech - not pornography.

And all the time the bounds of "expressive" free speech have been expanded far beyond anything intended in the First Amendment, political speech has been more and more regulated. This kind of discredits the argument that if we don't protect virtual child porn, the next thing will be political speech. The fact is that as the protection of pornography has increased, the protection of political speech has decreased.

I posted the following article a long time ago; since it has one response, maybe it would be all right to draw attention to it again:

Freedom of Speech: Is America at High Tide... or Low?

Madison's summary of what the 1st Amendment accomplishes, from the Congressional debates on the Bill of Rights:

The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will.

From James Kent's Commentaries on American Law:

The liberal communication of sentiment, and entire freedom of discussion, in respect to the character and conduct of public men, and of candidates for public favour, is deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the right of suffrage, and of that control over their rulers, which resides in the free people of these United States. It has, accordingly, become a constitutional principle in this country, that "every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments, on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and that no law can rightfully be passed to restrain or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press."

From Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

No one can doubt the importance, in a free government, of a right to canvass the acts of public men, and the tendency of public measures, to censure boldly the conduct of rulers, and to scrutinize closely the policy, and plans of the government. This is the great security of a free government. If we would preserve it, public opinion must be enlightened; political vigilance must be inculcated; free, but not licentious, discussion must be encouraged. But the exercise of a right is essentially different from an abuse of it. The one is no legitimate inference from the other. Common sense here promulgates the broad doctrine, sic utere tuo, ut non alienum laedas; so exercise your own freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety.

All citations are from The Founder's Constitution