Supreme Court Sides With Pornographers Again

eagleforum.org ^ | July 14, 2004 | Phyllis Schlafly

[raybbr]

Porn is not speach. It is a part of commerce. It is a product. It should be treated as such. Until that happens nothing will be done.

[Phantom Lord]

You can call porn illegal, a crime, or prostitution all you want. But saying it over and over again will not make it true. Pornography is a LEGAL business. Period.

[Melas]

What I still find laugable about prostitution laws, is that to the best of my knoweldge. Sex is one of the few things you can give away, but cannot sell.

A college girl can have a legal gang-bang tonight with no criminal repurcusions, but if she charges $20 for a BJ, she's a felon. Makes no earthly sense at all. It just defies logic.

[Phantom Lord]

Also, porn has been around since the beginning of man.

[Melas]

You missed the point. Prostitution isn't universally illegal.

[raybbr]

speach=speech Grrr.

[babyface00]

However, the net is the WORLD at your fingertips. We've yet to come up with a way to control the net like the cash register at the bookstore.

Amazon.com's web site appears to me to be exactly the equivalent of a "cash register at the bookstore". It isn't as if the technology isn't there, it's use was simply banned by the SC.

FWIW, you can purchase alchohol and cigarettes over the web. Those sites seem to have found a way to restrict their products to those of legal age. I guess the difference is in that no one's giving away alchohol and cigarettes to minors as an enticement.

[Phantom Lord]

Or she can trade it for goods, such as a dinner!

[Bella_Bru]

No it hasn't. It didn't start til the 60's . ;-)

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Darn that ole Constitution.

[Phantom Lord]

Bella, I know your smarter than that.

[jwalsh07]

Porn doesn't get the exemption, the internet gets the exemption, don't confuse the 2. If you go to the bookstore and try to buy a Playboy, you have to prove you are 18.

That is false. It is illegal to sell tobacco and alcohol products to minors on the internet.

[Phantom Lord]

That is false. It is illegal to sell tobacco and alcohol products to minors on the internet.

Yes and no. A minor can purchase both on the internet. It only becomes illegal when the product is delivered if the delivery person does not verify age.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Saying it won't make it true, but legislative action will. You had better hope Kerry gets elected so the Supreme Court stays leftist.

[Melas]

That's because Amazon.com is a RETAILER with a website. Amazon.com is in the business of delivering REAL goods to your house.

www.xxxswedes.com may or may not be in the business of delivering real goods. It could just be in the business of charging $5 to view some pictures electronically, or maybe even for free. Either way, it's a Swedish website, and congress lacks the authority to do anything about it.

[jwalsh07]

Yes and no. A minor can purchase both on the internet. It only becomes illegal when the product is delivered if the delivery person does not verify age.

Then there is not an undo burden requiring porn companies to assure that the delivery of porn is not to minors through the use of an ID card. You can't have it both ways.

[Melas]

Stupid analogy. Pictures and text are not real goods. They can be delivered electronically via computer. Alcohol and tobacco are real goods that must be physically delivered. ID would be made upon delivery in these cases, not purchase.

[Poohbah]

That is false. It is illegal to sell tobacco and alcohol products to minors on the internet.

Quite true. But minors can and do buy tobacco and alcohol routinely over the internet.

[Phantom Lord]

And legislative action banning the production, distribution, and possession of Playboy would stand no chance of getting through congress. And if it did, the SC, regardless of who appointed the judges will shoot down any such law faster than a stripper can get naked.

[Robert_Paulson2]

You are right about the market responding to provide proper controls.

But as you well know, this is not about protecting children.
That is but thinly veiled cover for their real intent...
moralistic nannystate enforcement of restrictions on freedom to "sin."

The "holier than thous" don't want OTHER, free men and women, to choose what they view over their own computer, or TV, or at their local bookstores either.


And they want to make america "morally righteous again" by doing it via the aegis of laws and interpretations thereof that violate the bill of rights.

government run amouk.
When religion joins with political power, you get the inquisition... something a group of conservatives here a week or so back... actually defended.

disgusting.