“Your problem is that the exercise of such discretion represents a latent tyranny.”
Let me be very specific. A few decades ago, producing pornography that depicted penetration was obscene and illegal to distribute, and could result in criminal prosecution. These obscenity laws were enforced up until Clinton.
Do you feel that this country was under such “tyranny” regarding porn during the prior century and longer? Was it Clinton that ended this tyranny for you?
We would not even need to outlaw obscenity to reduce its influence. Just remove the ip protection.
Just because something is considered protected speech under the first amendment does not automatically grant intellectual property right protection UNDER the constitution. This is just like the fact that copyright protection does create a limit on free speech.
Free speech though is an extension of natural law. Ip protections are merely a cooperative agreement. Further, they are limited in scope to a constitutional imperative: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.
If you or I have a business idea or invention, it is not automatically protected unless we pursue a patent lawfully. Many things can disqualify the idea or invention from protection. And after the protection expires we have no right to be compensated further because it becomes public domain for others to benefit from.
So, if something is exempt from obscenity laws, it is considered free speech. So why is anyone obligated to NOT copy and disseminate something that IS free speech?
Again, there is no natural law to which we can appeal. It is merely done at the whim of elected officials by laws which only carry authority based on the Constitution. So, how are these copyright laws valid if they do not meet the imperative to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?
The answer is there is none except for the fact that people believe it to be so.
That is, someone could argue that Land Patents exempt you from property taxes, but it is irrelevant if the IRS, judge and DA disagree and throw you in jail for tax evasion.
My point is there is no inherent benefit in granting ip protection to porn. My view is that any law to the contrary is unconstitutional. But since the courts will disagree, I will pick my battles. If I sit on a jury, I can exercise my right to reject unjust laws. If I hold office or hold sway over someone in office, that office has the duty to act in a just manner.
Our nation is full of unjust laws. Normalcy bias does not excuse the evil. The Nuremberg defense is invalid. Legalized evil has no valid basis of law even if it does in practice.
The question becomes relevant when we begin asking questions like the founders. They knew how they were being treated was unjust. They tried legal processes to no avail. They tried appeals, arguments, protests, again to no avail. Finally, they decided they could endure no more. Now that is the time these things become relevant. Do we honor the debts of a nation which has to be overthrown? Which ones? Do we punish people for committing crimes against humanity even if what they did was technically legal?
You do realize don’t you that the Revolution was illegal? But it was also the right thing to do.
In practice, porn and other Hollywood filth should morally have no ip protection. I would rather not debate over where the line should be drawn on free speech and obscenity. Most everyone agrees it exists somewhere. For the early settlers, it might have been an exposed thigh. For baby boomers it might have been penetration. For generation X it may be child porn, rape or other obscenities; but most people have a line where they admit free speech does not apply. My point is that even if free speech should apply, that does not mean there is any necessity to grant ip protection.
Perhaps it is right to respect Hollywood’s ip rights as long as there is some similitude of law and order. Perhaps we should never download a Hollywood movie without paying what the copyright owner demands as long as open war is not upon us. Beyond that I am sure that such well-defined lines blur. And my opinion is that open war is a real and near possibility.
Law abiding citizens do not go around shooting people arbitrarily, but they will not think twice about it if a criminal is busting down their door. Likewise, I have little sympathy for Hollywood’s “rights” when they are committing illegal attacks against conservatives’ right to work in that industry. I do not think this lack of respect represents any kind of tyranny.
Do you feel that this country was under such “tyranny” regarding porn during the prior century and longer? Was it Clinton that ended this tyranny for you?
Do you feel Michelangelo's David is pornography? Who decides? How? Just because you like the outcome doesn't mean that it isn't tyranny.
We would not even need to outlaw obscenity to reduce its influence. Just remove the ip protection.
So, you would have a Federal bureaucrat with his fingers trembling over his keyboard deciding who could speak and who could not. As long as said bureaucrat was doing what you wanted it would be OK. I see. You don't see any hazard in that.
Just because something is considered protected speech under the first amendment does not automatically grant intellectual property right protection UNDER the constitution. This is just like the fact that copyright protection does create a limit on free speech.
That's actually an interesting argument, one that the Congress could address under the Constitution.
Free speech though is an extension of natural law. Ip protections are merely a cooperative agreement. Further, they are limited in scope to a constitutional imperative: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.
I think that distinction a false one. You are conflating communication with copyright protection.
So, if something is exempt from obscenity laws, it is considered free speech. So why is anyone obligated to NOT copy and disseminate something that IS free speech?
Under Article I Section 8 obscenity laws are a local matter, not Federal. Congress has no power to regulate free speech. As you correctly pointed out, they have no obligation to protect it either.
So, how are these copyright laws valid if they do not meet the imperative to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?
Is Michelangelo's David "useful"? You have just swept away copyright protection for the entire music and movie industry. Yet there are many who could make a strong argument that the protection of their property has in fact been useful to industry; else the consumer electronics business would not exist upon which was built the computer industry. Even porn. Porn built the Internet.
The question becomes relevant when we begin asking questions like the founders. They knew how they were being treated was unjust. They tried legal processes to no avail. They tried appeals, arguments, protests, again to no avail. Finally, they decided they could endure no more. Now that is the time these things become relevant. Do we honor the debts of a nation which has to be overthrown? Which ones? Do we punish people for committing crimes against humanity even if what they did was technically legal?
Too many issues for one discussion. I'll stick with the topic.
You do realize don’t you that the Revolution was illegal? But it was also the right thing to do.
You are stretching history into the irrelevant as if it constitutes a basis for violating copyright law. So be it. If you choose to violate copyright you risk being prosecuted and punished for said crime. Nobody is stopping you there any more than the Founders. Go for it. Don't expect me to approve as if you are some champion for a subjective standard of morality.
Even the Supreme Court had to revert to "I know it when I see it," which makes evident exactly the problem. Yet we are slowly winning on the abortion issue not by banning medical procedures but by changing people's hearts. Accordingly, I suggest you focus your attentions there because there is no number of laws sufficient to prevent a weak heart descending to evil.
In practice, porn and other Hollywood filth should morally have no ip protection. I would rather not debate over where the line should be drawn on free speech and obscenity. Most everyone agrees it exists somewhere.
Here you admit the flaw in your entire argument. You would prefer not to argue it because once the power is legislated that is EXACTLY what you MUST do in EVERY single case because you are relying upon police powers to enforce your preferences a line MUST be drawn that the producer can understand. It is endless without changing people's hearts. Instead, go after the perps in civil court for the damage they do when it occurs. I think there is an opportunity there.
The media claim their product has no influence upon human behavior, particularly when some heinous crime is committed. Yet they sell hundreds of billions in advertising upon the basis that it absolutely and measurably does. There is your window into civil liability.
My point is that even if free speech should apply, that does not mean there is any necessity to grant ip protection.
The only difference is the medium. It is akin to offering that one can say anything they want as long as it is not within earshot; else you will deny them air.
My point is that even if free speech should apply, that does not mean there is any necessity to grant ip protection.
There is no such thing as "ip protection;' there is copyright protection and ip ACCESS, which you would deny. That is an act of intervention into the marketplace via the use of police powers upon a standard that is arbitrary. It is a twisted and dishonest argument.
I do not think this lack of respect represents any kind of tyranny.
The enforcement process does, no matter what you "think."