Pornographer Sues Bush over Anti-Prostitution Measure

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | LifeSiteNews.com

[Join Or Die]

I fail to see where there is a dispute if I choose to watch pornography in the privacy of my own home.

If I'm projecting it onto the side of your house there is a dispute, but until then my right to watch "obscene" material in privacy trumps everyone elses version of morals.

*** Disclaimer to head off common arguments and save time:
This obviously only covers pornography and "obscene" material that is otherwise legal (consenting adults, etc.) and not such things as child pornography, beastiality, and so on that are illegal outside the scope of their obscenity.

[Join Or Die]

"Since when is pictures and movies of people having sex speech?"

So it's only speech if you say it? Interpretive dance is not protected speech? Wearing a ribbon to support the troops is not protected speech? Painting a picture is not protected speech?

I'd hate to live in your country.

"Somehow I just don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind."

Your argument stirs memories of ant-gun leftists claiming that the founding fathers never had military-style guns in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

Times change, the constitution does not. Compromising the constitution to push forward a moral agenda is a dangerous thing and will bite you in the butt when your morals are not the majority.

[Trampled by Lambs]

"So it's only speech if you say it?"

You have a good point. But no, I'm not that literal minded.

I actually don't have too much of a moral problem with pornography provided that all parties are adults and are participating by their own free will - with obvious exceptions such as violent rape fantasy porn etc.

It's just that I find it an odd definition of Free Speech. I have to wonder how it could be protected under the 1st Amendment. I've always considered the 1st Amendment to be in place to respect and protect our right to express our beliefs in whatever form.

If you believe masturbation or arousal arising (no pun intended) from viewing pornography to be a form of personal expression then I suppose that it should indeed be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Or is there some other purpose or use of pornography that I am unaware of?

[Join Or Die]

To me speech is any form of expression whether that is a literal speech, a painting, a symbol, it does not matter it is protected.

If I paint a picture of a red dot on a yellow background as a way of expressing my grief for troops that have lost their lives in the deserts of Iraq it doesn't matter if it makes sense, it doesn't matter if people understand it. It's how I express myself and it's protected.

Likewise if I paint a red dot on a yellow background because I'm bored, it's still protected.

The question of what "speech" pornography represents is not the question, they can make porn to express something (sexual freedom, art, rebellion) or they can do it for no reason at all.

"If you believe masturbation or arousal arising (no pun intended) from viewing pornography to be a form of personal expression then I suppose that it should indeed be protected by the 1st Amendment. Or is there some other purpose or use of pornography that I am unaware of?"

The act of erm "using" pornography is a completely seperate issue from creating pornography. The creation of it is the expression and if we allow the government to regulate that speech, what do we allow it to regulate next?

This is a dangerous area, every time you ask the government if something is protected speech you allow the government to answer that question. In giving the government the power to answer that question you have now had a right reduced to a priviledge and instantly you have become subservient to the government.

My rights end where your rights begin. That is what I see as the basis of this country and I think it's the best way. If we start restricting rights before they violate someone elses we are moving in the wrong direction.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks, interesting stuff!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now this is really WACKO!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

How soon before the ACLU joins the lawsuit?

Shouldn't be too long before they show up!