Once Again, U.S. Supreme Court Thinks It Knows Better Than Congress (Child Online Protection Act)

obscenitycrimes.org ^ | July 14, 2004 | Robert Peters

[tpaine]

If you paid two prostitutes to have sex while you watched, you would be committing a crime. 106 posted on 07/16/2004 8:24:23 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

______________________________________

Joe, depending on the relationship of the two 'prostitutes', and where the activity took place, there are no 'laws' fed/state/local to prohibit such an act.
And under our Constitution, there never can be.

-- it is quite legal anywhere in the US for two consenting adults to allow a third adult to watch their private acts in a private location.

Not if you pay for it.
113 joe

Sure, being paid, or paying, could alter the situation and make it subject to commercial codes about operating an unlicensed business, zoneing, etc.
Is that your point?
Do you want cops in our bedrooms making sure that money isn't being exchanged for sex? - Or that zoneing codes aren't being violated?

This is a diversion. The cops have no right to surveil you, unless they have reasonable cause to believe you are committing a crime.

Exactly ~my~ point joe. You are unable to answer the question:
Do you want cops in our bedrooms making sure that money isn't being exchanged for sex? - Or that zoneing codes aren't being violated?

Whorehouses shouldn't be allowed to operate simply because their crimes are committed behind closed doors.

Yep, we have valid zoneing laws about that. - As you know. But ALL 'prostitution' is not criminal, as you also know, but won't admit.

This is the same kind of "right to privacy" nonsense that in the past gave us abortion, today gives us the "right" to sodomy, and tomorrow polygamy and incest.

Yada yada. The cry of prohibitionist absurdity. The 'sin' of prostitution will always be with us.
-- It is being reasonably controlled. -- Learn to live with that fact.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Do you want cops in our bedrooms making sure that money isn't being exchanged for sex?

I did answer. If they have reasonable cause to believe you are committing a crime, then they can bust your door down.

[tpaine]

You have no constitutional right to view obscene materials.

118 tail joe

______________________________________

You have no constitutional right to stop me from viewing what you irrationally consider 'obscene' materials.

[inquest]

Let's examine this terminology here shall we? You referred to "shoving it in your face" as opposed to keeping it private. I wear a wedding ring, and I'm often seen in public with my wife. Hell, sometimes I even put my arm around her in places where other people can see me. Is that "shoving it in your face"? I have a hunch that you don't see it that way. It's just every day life.

Yet, I have a hunch again, that you'd consider the same behavior between homosexual partners indeed to be "shoving it your face" and even a personal afront.

It's every bit as much "shoving it in our faces" as a human publicly making out with an animal would be, unless you assume from the outset that heterosexuality and homosexuality are completely equivalent, just two sides of the same coin.

[Melas]

It's every bit as much "shoving it in our faces" as a human publicly making out with an animal would be, unless you assume from the outset that heterosexuality and homosexuality are completely equivalent, just two sides of the same coin.

So in essence you're saying that unless they actively and agressively attempt to hide their relationships from public view, they are shoving it in your face?

I kind of suspected that's how most of you guys thought, but I didn't actually expect anyone to come right out and say it in the open.

[Melas]

A host of issues you have there, and I don't have the time to address them all. Seems like in a nutshell you're saying that homosexuals should do their damnedest to hide their homosexuality. I can't agree with that imposition.

[inquest]

So in essence you're saying that unless they actively and agressively attempt to hide their relationships from public view, they are shoving it in your face?

What's that supposed to mean? Do you "actively and aggressively" keep your clothes on in public?

Your response to lj is even more bizarre. When he condemns "'Gay Pride' parades with naked men performing faux and not so faux sex acts, mandating pro-homosexual cirriculum in schools in CA, 'gay' clubs in schools across the country, homosexuals adopting children and being foster parents, homosexuals in the priesthood, as Big Brothers and Sisters, being included in 'hate crimes' laws to make it a more egregious crime to beat up a homosexual than it is to beat me up, leading up to and probably not stopping there, same sex marriage," you're concluding that he's calling for homosexuals to "do their damnedest to hide their homosexuality"? A "whole host of issues", indeed. But I don't think he's the one with the issues.