Court Strikes Down Online Porn Law

Associated Press ^ | March 7, 2003 | David B Caruso

[Houmatt]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The First Amendment is not absolute, and never has been.

Copyright infringement (such as plagiarism(sp?)), slander, libel, obscene material, yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, and death threats (especially those against the Prez) are all exceptions.

You gonna try to convince us our founding fathers was thinking about kiddy porn when they crafted the First Amendment?

Good luck. It's not gonna happen.

[An.American.Expatriate]

At least one of the founding fathers did not even WANT a Bill of Rights (Hamiliton). He reasoned that, since the powers of the Government were clearly laid out in the Constitution, any BoR would only serve to confuse. The Government was not given the power to regulate speech and therefore they can not do it.
The fact remains that the sentence biginning with "Congress shall make no law..." does not contain any possible exeption.
Copyrights have nothing to do with speech. They are a protection specifically forseen in the Constitution itself for protecting an author's right to his property.
As to slander, libel, etc... these types of speech also have specific consequences. A consequence which would endanger someone elses life, liberty or property is something which a STATE legslature can and should regulate.
This applies as well to pornagraphy (a State/Local matter).
So, I will NOT argue that the FFs were thinking of Kiddy Porn or anything else. They felt that it was none of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS business to be involved in a State/Local matter.

[garbanzo]

I kept reading and re-reading this sentence, trying to make sense of it.

It's not hard - teens may want information particular to them (especially on sex and health) but probably isn't appropiate for younger children. The problem with these laws is that they by their language cover more than simple pornography - they also cover reference material on sexuality that should have a good deal of protection. Making a teen have a credit card to get information on a topic seems a bit extreme to me.

[Houmatt]

The Government was not given the power to regulate speech and therefore they can not do it. The fact remains that the sentence biginning with "Congress shall make no law..." does not contain any possible exeption.

Then explain the United States Supreme Court, and Miller v California, for starters.

As to slander, libel, etc... these types of speech also have specific consequences. A consequence which would endanger someone elses life, liberty or property is something which a STATE legslature can and should regulate. This applies as well to pornagraphy (a State/Local matter).

Is it me, or are you actually suggesting people should be able to do whatever they please, as long as they do not harm anyone, because the Constitution says so?

If so, would you mind pointing out exactly where it says this?

[Houmatt]

It's not hard - teens may want information particular to them (especially on sex and health) but probably isn't appropiate for younger children.

Actually, I think you missed something.

In Thursday's opinion, the court said that in seeking to define material harmful to minors, the law made no distinction between things inappropriate for a 5-year-old and things harmful to someone in their early teens.

See, what is being implied here is a 5-year-old is a minor, but "someone in their early teens" is not. This is complete nonsense.

The problem with these laws is that they by their language cover more than simple pornography - they also cover reference material on sexuality that should have a good deal of protection. Making a teen have a credit card to get information on a topic seems a bit extreme to me.

Someone trying to obtain information on human sexuality is one thing. But the American Library Association, a long-time anti-filtering advocate, has a website aimed at teens that contains a link to a site called GoAskAlice.com, where the subject matter goes far beyond human sexuality, such as sadomasochism and bestality. What does one have to do with the other, and why should a child have access to such information?

[garbanzo]

The problem is in effective enforcement - it doesn't seem evident which materials should be made available to which groups in a practical sense. It doesn't make sense to me to treat early teens like preschoolers in terms of information to access - I think that was the point of the quote - even though both are legally minors, some broad exemption needs to be made between what both are legally allowed to access.

[inquest]

Any FEDERAL Law which in any way limits free speech is unconstitutional.

So if I were to publicly incite a crowd to storm the White House and kill the President and his family, I couldn't be punished for it?

[An.American.Expatriate]

So if I were to publicly incite a crowd to storm the White House and kill the President and his family, I couldn't be punished for it?

That is NOT the point. The first Amendment read, in part "Congress shall make no law...". This is a clear prohibition.

Congress CAN pass a law which protects the President and his family. Therefore, the instant your speech becomes action, you are committing a crime.

The Constitution was written to protect us FROM the government and limits the Government in what it is allowed to do. As we have seen with the first Amendment violations of Congress, as soon as exceptions are made to the "Congress shall make no..." clause, an avalanche of exceptions follow.

?? How would you interpret "We need to get rid of the President?" - is this a threat? Could it be construed as one? What will the government think in 10 years about that statement?

I remain by my assertion, "Congress shall make no..." is absolute and any and all laws which Congress has passed which in any way limit speech, the press, assembly, etc.. are null and void.

[cartoonistx]

If, as some desire, the courts should strictly interpet the laws of our land with an eye to the original intent of the Founders, cannot one argue that only political speech was intended to be protected from congressional interference? Just as the intent of "Freedom of religion" was to limit the ability of government to sanction or inhibit the faithful, the intent of "free speech" was to insure unfetered criticism of the government by citizens. Porn should, therefore, not be anymore protectable than human sacrifice.

[Roscoe]

The fact remains that the sentence biginning with "Congress shall make no law..." does not contain any possible exeption.

To freedom of speech. Pornographic pictures being sent across state lines ain't speech.

[An.American.Expatriate]

It may be possible to argue that only "political" speech was intended. However, I do not believe this to be the case. Free (meaning without restriction) Speech (communication) is also pretty clear in it's meaning.

If, for example, we were to restrict the "non-political" speech regarding homosexuality (also not protected under religion), this would impair (limit) the rights of homosexuals to talk about thier "preferences". While a lot of us may think this would be good, it is still am impairment to speech and it is unreasonable to think that the Federal Government has any business in determining what speech is allowed.

Attitudes amoung the people can change "at a whim" and what is today "bad" could very well be "good"/"okay" tomorrow. It was for this reason that the founder's did not want the Congress to legislate over "personal" matters.

On last point. At least as originally intended, it was indeed possible and desirable for the States / Local Governments to legislate in such matters (unless forbidden by the State Constitution!!)

[An.American.Expatriate]

While I agree that pornagraphy is disdainful, the law defines speech as "words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought". This is broad, and, although I too do not like the idea of my kids being expossed to it (via the Internet for example), it is not the Federal Governments responsibility to restrict the communication.

A state which does not desire that it's citizens be exposed to such things CAN (at least as it was originally intended..) restrict what can be "imported" into the state.

[Roscoe]

the law defines speech as "words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought".

What "law"? The Constitution doesn't have any such definition.

[truthserum]

Your argument has the attraction of sweet simpleness. After all, the text of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."

The only problems that arise are in the determination of the meaning of "abridging" and of "freedom of speech."

During the Bork nomination debacle, one ground on which the Judge was savaged was his writings in his professorial days about the very question of the meaning of freedom of speech. You see, some folks have actually struggled to determine what was meant by the phrase; some who have struggled have come to the conclusion that dancing naked on table tops, or laps, simply was not an activity that would be understood by those who crafted the First Amendment as protected from congressional disapprobation by it.

The sweet simpleness is dangerous, after all, if it occludes the search for real meaning.

[Kevin Curry]

. . . as I stated in my original post, I find the Subject matter itself very distasteful.

Yes, we know. You loathe what your beliefs and actions passively assist to spread like kudzu.

That makes it all better.

[Viva Le Dissention]

To freedom of speech. Pornographic pictures being sent across state lines ain't speech.

If you're trying to split hairs over definitions, these aren't actually pictures. They are simply a collection of 1s and 0s arranged in a pattern so that our little brains can comprehend it.

And if you think that's being picky, a few years ago someone in my home state beat a child porn charge because he argued that he wasn't in possession of "pictures" according to the law. He only had 1s and 0s.

[Roscoe]

If you're trying to split hairs over definitions

You won't even say where your imaginary "definition" allegedly came from.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Kevin, since you don't know me, how dare you presume something not in evidence!

I have been PAINFULLY clear on this. The FEDERAL Government is prohibited from abridging the rights to free speech, etc.

The People, in Congress assembled chose NOT to cede this power to the Federal Government. The People, at the state level CAN cede this right to a State Government or reserve it to themselves. In most cases, the "right" to abridge has been reserved to the people.

This means that WE have the responsibility to ensure that purveyors of pornagraphy (or other forms of "speech" with which we disagree) can not do business in our communities.

Unfortunately, WE, as a nation, have lost our moral compass and the idea of civic responsibility, died a long and quiet death. We are left in a vacumn. Our only recourse is to ask the Congress to do something which they are prohibited from doing.

I would SUPPORT a complete ban on pornagraphy, I would even support an Amendment to the Constitution which would specifically allow for it. Unfortunately, such an Amendment will never pass. It is however needed if Congress desires to make a law which would abridge the rights of free speech, assembly, free press, etc...

[An.American.Expatriate]

Dancing on tables is not speech, it is a job.

Publishing a magazine (or an internet site) is a form of communication. It could technically be argued that, instead of "speech", it is the press freedoms which would be infringed if we were to prohibit pornagraphy.

We struggle with meanings only because the clear words have been clouded by the courts / lawyers. Also, so words change in meaning (degrees of, not what is is!!).

For example, what is pornagraphy? Has the definition (standard) changed since the time of the founding of this republic? Had it changed in the 200 years prior to the founding of the republic?

What is "the press"? Has "the Press" changed over the last 200 years?

Is it not conceivable that the founders realized that such things "change" with the times and that, by limiting the power of the Government to intercede in such matters would cause more harm than good? That they realized that the people / local [state] Governments, being closer to the interests of the people, would be the more appropriate place for debates on such issues?

Can you explain to me, why Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. "
if there WERE a power in the constitiution for limiting the freedom of speech? [The argument applies equally]