Repent before it is too late!
Posted on 07/23/2008 6:50:44 AM PDT by Aretaphila
When I set up this blog, I wanted to make it easy for people to post comments, but alas, the spam-pornographers are making this increasingly difficult. Since yesterday, I have had hundreds of spam comments and trackbacks added to almost every post on this blog. I just set up a new spam-blocking program (I already had one running that was catching the standard sales stuff, but the porn purveyors were able to bypass it) and in the first twenty minutes it caught 245 spam comments, every single one of them pornographic.
How many times since my constitutional law class as an undergrad 20-plus years ago have I heard the argument that however repugnant pornography is, we must tolerate it in the name of free speech? That we must allow these debauchers of young women, these corruptors of children, these abusers of animials (you can’t begin to imagine the amount of bestiality in the spam I just deleted) to make their money by polluting our society. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. No one with half a brain in his head believes that Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison or any other Founding Father intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution should protect the right to sell DVDs of a Tiajuana donkey show on Amazon.com. The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, and despite all their huffing about in righteous indignation, even lowlifes like Larry Flynt know it, and have a good laugh at the saps at the ACLU who buy their bogus argument and help them sell their porn...
(Excerpt) Read more at moraliablog.com ...
Sounds more like people messing with you than pornographers, they are probably too busy making porno to waste their time with a blogger.
Pornography is commercial speech, and as such is subject to regulation. It shouldn’t be treated any different than they treat tobacco advertising.
I think there is a special circle reserved for the operators of jet skis.
Same circle as lawyers and media.
My friends look at me funny when I tell them I hate jet skis, especially those who are contemplating the purchase of a jet ski. And then one day they're with me on my boat and say: "I see what you mean."
It’s bots. They can bypass the standard captcha settings, as these are decoded.
I bet they didn’t even know there was going to be dvds.
If you’re that troubled by spammers, why not get a new e-mail account and only use it with those you trust, not use it when surfing the net?
she left out men that are objectified by porn as well. man-hater in the house!
>> Same circle as lawyers and media.
I resent being grouped with journalists.
H
Repent before it is too late!
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
They treat tobacco advertising as being under the authority of Congress because they "find it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce". This is known as the "substantial effects doctrine", or "New Deal Commerce Clause". They make the same claim as their authority to enact everything from federal hate crime and domestic violence laws to the Endangered Species Act and the AWB.
From an "original intent" perspective it's all a Constitutional fraud.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
2:§§ 1073--91
Is this what you want?
Absolutely not...
I’m just pointing out the double standard here...among many others of course.
Tobacco is a business, and so is pornography. The idea that pornography should be exempt from regulation because it is ‘free speech’ is ludicrous. Pornography is all about the money. They just use the ‘free speech’ aspect as a shield.
This specifically is galling when you look at advertising—they say advertising of tobacco can be regulated (outlawed) because it is commercial speech. Why then isn’t the same true for pornography? Why is one protected and one isn’t?
I’m just saying that there is no substantive difference between the two. They shouldn’t be treated differently.
>> Repent before it is too late!
I already passed the Texas Bar Exam ... it may be too late.
Hopefully the Almighty will take into account my status as a conservative, Republican, gun-toting, God-fearing Texan when allocating how much I should pay for my law degree.
H
Yet know this. America, the name we all bear, as a continent, as a nation, as individuals. It is born of the name of a itinerant adventurer and illustrator who as a money-making sideline is said to have created pornographic and salacious prints and artwork, and whose salacious lewd account of sex in the new world sold books ofhis letters: Amerigo Vespucci.
I think you’ve identified what snowboarders do in the summer.
In order to reconcile that disparity we have two choice - end the federal ban on tobacco advertising or outlaw pornography. Which do you think we should do?
Well that’s obvious...end the ban on tobacco advertising. Government has no business controlling how people advertise.
Agreed. But complaining that they aren’t banning pornography too just gives them the idea that they’re not doing enough regulation, instead of too much.
LMAO.
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.