The evidence is there, though not as strong (less research) that watching rape movies feeds the habits of rapists, and snuff movies feed the habits of killers. If 10,000 people watch one of these movies, and 5 of those viewers are "inspired" to go out and rape and murder a woman, is that a "fair price to pay" for defending the First Amendment?
I practice First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has tap danced around the issue of pornography for five decades. They have said that pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. And from the description of these three films, wherever the boundary might be between pornography and free speech, these turkeys are beyond it.
I would be concerned if the City Council of Elephant Breath, Nebraska, outlawed Playboy as obscene, I would be concerned. However, that case is NOT this case.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "In the Justices We Trust?" posted on FR, other publication to come.
I wonder what it would take to get these people to understand?
We all know men who watch porn are often moved to duplicate scenes from the films they watch (just look at the Family Research Council and AFA websites for proof of that), why is it such a stretch to see these people duplicate these rape/murder scenes? And what if the woman in question is their sister? Their daughter? Does any of that matter to them at all?
Do you use that argument when "porn" is replaced with "guns" and "First Amendment" with "Second Amendment"
They have?? Then why does it exist?
In a dictatorship one can do what ever the dictator permits. In a Representative Republic on a Democracy one can not for long engage in practices the public does not want done.
When the people of the USA thought Slavery was Ok.. we had slavery. When they thought abortion was murder, abortion was murder. When they thought it was not murder, it is not murder. When the public thought porno was a terrible crime is was a terrible crime. When they thought it was not so bad, it was no longer as much of a crime.
The supreme court tends to put on it's tap shoes when the public is divided on an issue..
Change public opinion to be solidly behind your view and it will not be necessary to do anything to get all three branches of government to do your bidding. We must take into account that Justices serve for life. It takes far longer to change the courts than it does elected officials. It may take a few of decades for courts to reflect the popular public view. But in time the courts always do exactly that.
We appear to be entering a more conservative fiscal and moral era. The Bush administration simply reflects the shifting of the political center.
Snuff movies are an urban legend.