Supreme Court Sides With Pornographers Again

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

[F16Fighter]

"How far do you want to carry this public conformity or 'sensibility' as you called it?"

How about shoving porno back onto the top shelf where it belongs? Where do YOU feel it belongs? Eye-level at K-Mart in the DVD section? Or perhaps a smut shop next door to a grammar school? Maybe online where a kid miss-types "Disney" by one letter, and then gets treated to peep show? Get freakin' real.

Personally, I don't give a rat's @ss what you or anybody else reads or does in the privacy of your own home, but I do when this sh*t is shoved in my face, my kid's face, and in the face of nameless impressionable kids in my country unsolicited, and in the name of "free speech."

"Maybe the governement should tell us all how we can wear our hair or the lengths of our bears, if we're allowed to wear beards."

Great analogy. In an alternative universe.

[little jeremiah]

I guess you see everyone through your own lens, and see the whole world as dark.

[little jeremiah]

What's the reference to Franklin and the Hell Fire Club? Please enlighten the ignorant. (Me.)

[robertpaulsen]

"there are numerous ways to block porn or other material you find objectionable"

The solution Modernman is really proposing:

[robertpaulsen]

"There is a HUGE market for it"

There wasn't a huge market for it 50 years ago?

Are the pornographers meeting or creating a demand?

[robertpaulsen]

"Prostitution is nothing more than the combination of sex and commerce. Which are you against?"

Oops, you "forgot" a couple.

"Prostitution is nothing more than the combination of sex and commerce and disease and broken marriages and drugs and crime, and an affront to decent citizens."

[robertpaulsen]

Still, porn sites should be required to have a dot xxx or dot prn listing so people can block them altogether."

Hmmmm. I believe they said something similar in 1968 when they came up with the movie rating system.

Seems to me that the new system gave the green light to produce whatever you wanted as long as you put the rating on it. And rather than block kids, it identified the movies that they wanted to see.

[Phantom Lord]

There was a huge demand 50 years ago, but with the advent of technology, the VCR first and now the internet one need not go to the adult bookstore to procure the products or go to an adult theater to watch a film. Now you can do everything from the privacy of your home.

[robertpaulsen]

If indeed there was a huge demand 50 years ago, why wasn't it met by the means available at the time? I mean, granted they didn't have VCR's and the internet, but if pornographers are "simply responding to the demand" then certainly additional bookstores and movies houses could have been built.

We have more of them today AND we have VCR's and the internet. What gives?

[nickcarraway]

Why does the First Ammendment only protect pornography and not political speech? I can't figure that one out.

[Servant of the 9]

Why does the First Ammendment only protect pornography and not political speech? I can't figure that one out.

Because we have allowed a court that 'interprets' the constitution instead of just aplying the words that are on the paper.

SO9

[jwalsh07]

Personally, I don't give a rat's @ss what you or anybody else reads or does in the privacy of your own home, but I do when this sh*t is shoved in my face, my kid's face, and in the face of nameless impressionable kids in my country unsolicited, and in the name of "free speech."

LOL, give him hell flyboy.

There is a segment of the right that would have a group of 9, their 9 of course, set community standards and mores from a court in DC if they could. Every bit as dangerous as the left.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Certain London libertines formed a club by that name wherein they would indulge in sexual adventures, orgies etc. Franklin was a habituee during his time in London prior to the Revolutionary war. A google search will probably tell you all you wish to know about it.

[Melas]

Are you referring to the Hellfire Club that Franklin belonged to?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yes

[justshutupandtakeit]

The prime goal of the Convention was to limit STATE powers. States were too powerful under the Confederation and thus Madison, Hamilton and Wilson were determined to break their domination over the federal government. They did, in fact, make many things illegal for the States through the Constitution.

Not one of the Founders would have supported the claim that the constitution protects the right to enjoy pictures of bjs. It would have never crossed their minds that what they considered depravity would have had champions claiming it was protected by their words. Adultery was illegal in the States for crying out loud.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks - you just told me all I need to know about it! At least they didn't have Hell Fire Pride Parades.

[F16Fighter]

"There is a segment of the right that would have a group of 9, their 9 of course, set community standards and mores from a court in DC if they could. Every bit as dangerous as the left."

Yeah John, but were talkin' regiment on the 'Right,' and army on our immediate 'Left' ;-)

And in what laboratory was this mantra hatched and bought -- even by some so-called conservatives?:

"People who disavow and invalidate the concept of 'Gay Marriage' are intolerant far right-wing extremists!"

I think watching Michael Douglas in the movie 'Falling Down' oughta calm me down, bro...Tape in...Play