Porn world eyes Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 10/20/5 | Richard Byrne Reilly

[Antoninus]

I've never seen a good explanation as to why obscenity wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. Saying it has "no redeeming social value" or whatever is just a cop-out, because the 1st amendment does not refer to "freedom of speech that has redeeming social value."

It's implicit. The states had obscenity laws on the books when the Constitution and BoR were written. These did not suddenly become null and void after ratification. The Founding Fathers knew the difference between the right to speak freely about political issues, and the desire to look at, read, or produce pornographic material. Someone who suggested that pornographic material was covered under the First Amendment would have been soundly laughed at until about 40 years ago. By that time, the electorate had been dumbed-down enough to accept the specious argument that a woman shaking her boobs on a bar was an example of "freedom of speech."

Today, we've been dumbed-down even farther--to the point where many think that videos of people engaging in orgies are covered under the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the ability to finance campaigns and broadcast ads supporting or attacking a candidate are strictly regulated by the federal, state, and local governments.

Historians will look at us and declare that our Constitutional Republic died sometime between 1964 and 1980. The exact date will be a matter of some debate.

[SoothingDave]

1 posted on 10/20/2005 1:51:20 PM EDT by Crackingham

Chip the ham! Don't crack the ham.

SD

[Moral Hazard]

"It's implicit. The states had obscenity laws on the books when the Constitution and BoR were written."

When the Constitution and BoR were written the first amendment didn't apply to the states, and the federal government had no law against obscenities.

[sasafras]

You are apparently not aware of America's legal foundation in judeo-christian principles. How do you explain that from the very beginning of this nation's foundation that there has been a paid pastor presiding over the Congress? Or how about In God We Trust on our money? I can go on but I hope you see that your argument holds no weight. It wasnt just any god that the founders built there principles on (like many liberals and atheists will argue) it was the God from the Holy Bible - the God of Jews and Christians. This is historical fact. These same founders would not have agreed that porn entitled "Sex with young girls or Raping women" was free speech. Both may employ adults but they give the impression of a criminal act and fail to meet the standards of decency.

What should the legal age be to be considered an adult? Why not 17 or 15 or how about 12? The reason is because as a SOCIETY we have deemed that 18 is the proper age. This is as much a moral and value assessment as any other. It could be lowered and if it was lowered to lets say 12 (hypothetically) would you say that its ok to allow 12 year olds to be in these films? Of course you wouldnt because it is not moral and against the overall good of our society.
The constitution does not provide the right to all things indecent based on free speech.

If you said that you would consider a 12 year old and adult then I know you have no sense of moral aptitude and I wont waste my time any further.

[Moleman]

LOL

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Nina Hartley also has a Master's degree in nursing.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BUMP

[Libloather]

[traviskicks]

"You are apparently not aware of America's legal foundation in judeo-christian principles."

No? Here is something I wrote on it:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm

"These same founders would not have agreed that porn entitled "Sex with young girls or Raping women" was free speech."

You don't know that.

"Both may employ adults but they give the impression of a criminal act and fail to meet the standards of decency."

Just about any movie contains actors performing criminal acts, shootings, robberies, murders etc... Why not let individuals choose what is 'decent' and what is not? I don't want someone telling me what I can or cannot watch something and I don't think you would either.

"What should the legal age be to be considered an adult?"

I agree that this is a moral judgement society makes, so we are in agreement here. But the fact is whatever it is we as a society determine to be the legal age, we are assuming that at this age people are adults and are mature enough to give informed consent and engage in contracts with others. So, if society determined that 12 was the minimum age that a person was rational enough to make decisions, then they are entitled to life, LIBERTY and pursuit of happiness as they define it, which includes acting in such movies. But this approach is not relevent, especially becasue no sane person would agree that a 12 year old is of the right age. If society considered a 5 year old capable of driving a car then, yea, he/she could legally drive a car. But it is ridiculous to assume society would ever assume this.

[Antoninus]

When the Constitution and BoR were written the first amendment didn't apply to the states, and the federal government had no law against obscenities.

So you're in favor of local laws against obscenity being enforced then and keeping federal judges out of it, right? Or, if not in favor of them, you recognize that they are completely constitutional, am I correct?

Furthermore, with the advent of porn via mass circulation magazine and even moreso via the internet, it became an interstate commerce issue which makes it subject to federal regulation.

[Moral Hazard]

"So you're in favor of local laws against obscenity being enforced then and keeping federal judges out of it, right? Or, if not in favor of them, you recognize that they are completely constitutional, am I correct?"

No, the 14th amendment was passed after that, restricting the ability of states to limit our rights, which includes the right to free speech.

"Furthermore, with the advent of porn via mass circulation magazine and even moreso via the internet, it became an interstate commerce issue which makes it subject to federal regulation"

Speech can be regulated as commerce? So the commerce clause trumps the first amendment?

[Antoninus]

No, the 14th amendment was passed after that, restricting the ability of states to limit our rights, which includes the right to free speech.

Restricting, but not eliminating. Plus, and this gets us back to the point of the argument, this is only relevant if you consider a video of a guy sodomizing another guy to be "speech." You obviously believe that it is. I don't think I'm that far off in reckoning that the Founding Fathers would have been utterly repulsed by the notion that the First Amendment protects such "speech." And the SCOTUS affirmed this opinion in both Chaplinsky and Roth, only to have the precedent overturned in decisions of the 60s and 70s.

Speech can be regulated as commerce? So the commerce clause trumps the first amendment?

Again, this is obscenity, not speech as defined by the First Amendment. Unless you consider a magazine with photos of a woman being mounted by a horse to be "speech." Thus, the commerce clause isn't trumping anything here. Big porn is a multi-billion dollar industry which should absolutely be regulated to the hilt by the Feds.

[WestSylvanian]

Pittsburgh and pornography? The 'Burgh has the Strip District so why should you be surprised? (Pittsburgh insiders'joke).

[WestSylvanian]

Pittsburgh and pornography? The 'Burgh has the Strip District so why should you be surprised? (Pittsburgh insiders'joke).