[Viva Le Dissention]

Very true: no law means no law. Lost on lots of folks.

More importantly, though, I'm struck by the good professor's repeated emphasis of his idea that "it is immoral, so it ought to be illegal."

The key issue, though, is without discussion, debate, and viewing of such materials, society cannot judge accurately whether it is or is not immoral. That's the purpose of the 1st Amendment. In the "marketplace of ideas," the false and meritless ideas will be rejected by the public, leaving them to languish with such a small minority it is of no interest.

Let *anything* be distributed to the public; we will be the judge.

[BikerNYC]

Agreed. If this material is so bad, what will it do to those who view it in order to determine whether or not it is immoral and hence should be illegal?

I don't trust anyone else to make that decision for me.

[Badray]

"More importantly, though, I'm struck by the good professor's repeated emphasis of his idea that "it is immoral, so it ought to be illegal.""

With adult porn, I absolutely agree. With kiddie porn, using real kids - in photos, videos, or in real life - it's a different story and those involved should be punished.

But, my concern is the 'virtual' part of this. When do we cross the line from "thought crime" to a real crime. This troubles me as much as the concept of "hate speech". Again, I'm limiting this to when NO real child is involved in any aspect of the production or use.

[sirchtruth]

More importantly, though, I'm struck by the good professor's repeated emphasis of his idea that "it is immoral, so it ought to be illegal.

Why are you struck by this when every law ever made is founded on a moral basis?

[Houmatt]

Very true: no law means no law. Lost on lots of folks.

As is the first word in that sentence: Congress. If a state government or local municipality wishes to make such a law, they can do so.

A common mistake made by the people who follow the "free speech is absolute" myth.

Let *anything* be distributed to the public; we will be the judge.

Uh, no. We cannot allow certain things to be made available to the public, whether it be for reasons of legality (like child porn), or obscenity (bestality, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc.), or stuff that just should not be accessible to children (any softcore or hardcore adult film, e.g.).

That is the way it is, that is the way it should be, and that is the way I prefer it.

[Richard Kimball]

Very true: no law means no law. Lost on lots of folks.

Laws restrict speech in a variety of ways, and have never been challenged on Constitutional grounds. Should insider trading be protected under free speech laws? What about the selling of secret government research? Slander? Planting of deliberately false information? Are all non-disclosure clauses in employee contracts unconstitutional? What about the gag orders judges put on juries and witnesses?

One thing which concerns me is our current concept that only by defending actions which are indefensible can we protect our freedoms. That sounds like saying the only way we can protect our right to drive is to defend drunk drivers and the most reckless forms of driving. It's not popular to say it around here, but the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other.

Previously, such material was not available as much for fear of retribution from the public or censure as because of laws. Today, of course, there are only two sins in America, smoking, and disapproving of anything else anyone does. The really sad thing is that there is a market for this stuff.