Replies

Because we know that the Founders could not have imagined contemporary pornography, and certainly child pornography, in their wildest dreams- or nightmares. We know that it would be absurd to believe that the First Amendment allows anything. So have the courts ruled, and we have readily accepted those rulings, as common sense which overrides- or abridges- Freedom of the Press.

But a video is not speech although it may contain speech. A magazine or book with photos may or may not contain speech or photos.

Printed and spoken speech are protected. The others could be regulated if we chose.

In the same way that national security documents or private medical records are not 'free speech', to be published at any time the press wishes, we could also categorize pornographic images and video. Clearly, the Founders had no such explicit intent to protect pornography although if one wishes to take an absolutist view of the First, it would be consistent that all types of textual pornography would be legal. In fact, this is pretty much the case.

It is a matter of classification. It is only in the last century that we've thrown a blanket of 'speech' over all kinds of things. This is judicial activism, stretching the Constitution to fit the Court's own policy preferences. Just as in Roe where infanticide was injected via a flimsy 'privacy' that had never previously been imagined or construed in the Constitution, the idea of pornography as a form of free speech is a figment of the Warren Court's overactive imaginations.

I would think you would be more disturbed, however, over the convictions from imaginary computer-generated porn. Although repulsive, since these are not images of real persons, they do not depict the actual victimization of a person in a criminal way. So the viewing of actions which did not even occur are criminalized which creates a thought crime, a crime of viewing.

Now that is a law that should make everyone, for or against the law, think hard. The Court has become a little strangely and inconsistent.

However, it does apply to your argument. Obviously, there are certain types of pornography that aren't free speech even though they did not result from the filming of a crime. Therefore, all pornography can be, in fact, regulated similarly.

Another angle that has never been explored to that video in particular can be viewed as a public performance. So if something is illegal on a stage or on the street, it could also be regulated. The current notion of very broad free speech treats all of these as though they are private acts, viewers and performers only as private persons. However, that is not privacy as most people think of it or as the Founders thought of it. Again, we see a legal basis by which we could regulate this form of 'speech'.

BTW, I didn't think you were making an argument for child pornography. Neither am I. I'm actually making the argument for a return to greater regulation of speech.

I didn't think I was making any arguments concerning freedom of speech or press. The mention - of what I thought was a given- was merely an attempt to illustrate my argument concerning the Second Amendment (which is relevant to the on topic of Giuliani).

BTW, I didn't think you were making an argument for child pornography.

I'm thankful for that as that only leaves me as being a "child murderer" of which I was accused a few days ago.

FreeRepublic is so rational and fun these days. Still I long for the good ole days when the worst I was accused of was being an Israeli First traitor to the US.