Posted on 09/16/2004 1:08:49 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
"Hey, Bat-breath; how's it going?" asks the Superman.
"Not bad; things are cool in Gotham. What's new in Metropolis?" asks the caped crusader.
"You're not gonna believe what happened to me last week there... I was just cruising over the city, not much going on, and I look down on the roof of this apartment building, and what do I see but Wonder Woman lying there sunbathing -- spread-eagled -- wearing nothing but her bracelets!"
The Man of Steel continued: "So, I racked it into a tight left turn and went into a holding pattern, just to check it out. Man; she was hot! So after about 20 minutes, I couldn't take it any longer; I pulled down my 'super-suit,' put it in 'DIVE,' and went right straight for Wonder Woman's 'secret hide-out'!"
"Wow! I bet that surprised the heck out of ole Wonder Woman!" opined the caped crusader.....
Superman, with some degree of embarrassment, replied: "Not half as much as it surprised the 'Invisible Man'......."
(...and this was typed in Courier, so you know that it's true!)
So true. Corn flakes must be banned.
However, a new study yields the surprising result that nearly 100% of American males have seen pornography. Yet less than 1% are rapists and serial killers. The inescapable conclusion is that viewing porn seems to prevent almost all men from comitting such crimes, and should therefore be encouraged.
Do we really need to start filling up jails with guys downloading porn off the internet and wacking off in the bathroom? Hasn't the war on drugs taught us anything?
I like the cut of your jib; however, there must be some way of massaging your data to include the protective benefits of cigars and single malt Scotch.
That was disturbing, but thanks for posting it. Kinda makes you wonder about the people that surround you.
Ix-nay on the hotlinks.
Joe, I admire and respect your stand on this issue, even though I personally disagree with it. I'm glad you've found your purpose in life.
Unfortunately, what you've stated here is a bold-faced lie. Unless pornography has been completely banned by the local community, then in no way is it contraband. Although it is illegal to purchase X-rated pornography in my county, it is not illegal to own it. I can go to the next county and buy all the porn I want at the local gas station, precisely because it *is* constitutionally protected free speech. No judge in the country would grant a warrant to bust my door down to look for legal (ie, non kiddie-porn or snuff flick) pornography.
Now, the obvious argument is that the founding fathers never intended pornography to be politically protected speech, and you're probably right on that. However, what if I fingerpainted political slogans on the porn actors/actresses bodies? What about the "Babes for Bush" and the "Babes Against Bush" websites, both of which feature scantily clad and/or naked women? That most certainly IS protected political speech.
Free speech includes the free speech we disagree with.
Ok, one of us is a killer, we've settled that. I don't trust you and I'm not even sure about myself.
"The protection of the First Amendment does not extend to obscene speech." - SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CAL., INC. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
Held:
1. Section 223(b) does not unconstitutionally prohibit the interstate transmission of obscene commercial telephone messages. The protection of the First Amendment does not extend to obscene speech. In addition, 223(b) does not contravene the "contemporary community standards" requirement of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , since it no more establishes a "national standard" of obscenity than do federal statutes prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials or the broadcasting [492 U.S. 115, 116] of obscene messages. There is no constitutional barrier under Miller to prohibiting communications that are obscene in some communities under local standards even though they are not obscene in others. Sable, which has the burden of complying with the prohibition, is free to tailor its messages, on a selective basis, to the communities it chooses to serve. Pp. 124-126.
2. Section 223(b)'s ban on indecent telephone messages violates the First Amendment since the statute's denial of adult access to such messages far exceeds that which is necessary to serve the compelling interest of preventing minors from being exposed to the messages. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 , an emphatically narrow ruling giving the FCC power to regulate an indecent radio broadcast, is readily distinguishable from these cases. Pacifica, which did not involve a total ban on broadcasting indecent material, relied on the "unique" attributes of broadcasting, which can intrude on the privacy of the home without prior warning of content and which is uniquely accessible to children. In contrast, the dial-it medium requires the listener to take affirmative steps to receive the communications. The Government's argument that nothing less than a total ban could prevent children from gaining access to the messages and that this Court should defer to Congress' conclusions and factual findings to that effect is unpersuasive. There is no evidence to show that children would have evaded the rules that the FCC, after prolonged proceedings, had determined would keep the messages out of their reach. Moreover, deference to Congress' legislative findings cannot limit judicial inquiry where First Amendment rights are at stake. Here, the congressional record contains no legislative findings that would justify a conclusion that there are no constitutionally acceptable less restrictive means to achieve the Government's interest in protecting minors. Pp. 126-131.
The issue in this cases was not pornography, but access to pornography by minors.
From Miller v. California, the following:
This case involves the application of a State's criminal obscenity statute to a situation in which sexually explicit materials have been thrust by aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients who had in no way indicated any desire to receive such materials.
Again, the issue here is not pornography, but pornographic junk mail.
I don't think that anyone on this thread thinks that sending porn spam through regular or email is a good idea. The issue is whether the police could arrest an adult for possessing otherwise legal pornography, which you called "contraband." The answer is still no.
I dunno...I have kind of a shifty, guarded look in my eye...and I kinda keep to myself, y'know? Mow my lawn, take care of the yard, the kind of neighbor anyone would want...
On the other hand, it's always the guy you least suspect. Have you gotten any awards recently where you were voted 'Most Likely Not To Be A Killing Machine' or anything like that? I was voted 'Most Sarcastic' in high school...and I'm all like, NO DUH.
Dirty old man BUMP.
Whaddya see here, Joe?
You can have my Jenna Jameson DVDs when you pry them from my cold, sticky fingers, boy-o.
Cigars, I donno. Depends on the quality. But single malt Scotch ... ah! There's a 100% certainty that those who imbibe it are never rapists or serial killers. Add that to the proven benefits of porn and the world will be a better place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
