Women Uniting For War on Porn

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Sunday, October 14, 2001 | Mark Eddington

[Antoninus]

But, she says, the Constitution does not protect obscenity and pornography.

She's right... At least, she was right until the activist courts of the 1960s hijacked our culture...

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

and...

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

To repeat: "Implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. "

Remember your roots, America...

[Moleman]

The only way they will get my porn is if they tear it from my cold, cramped hands! ;)
CRAMPED!! LOL!!

[hobbes1]

Ping......Wonder whos next?

[Tennessee_Bob]

I wonder if she's read the articles in that magazine by her desk? Or does she look through the magazine, checking out the pictorials and going "tsk tsk," as she does so. Have to wonder what would happen to Michelangelo's David if she had her way.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Remember your roots, America...

Yeah dammit! Those women should be covered up just like they do in Afgha----------

Oh, hmmm... Oops.

Nevermind...

[Smedley]

Pornography, as we all know, is the keystone of the 1st Amendment.

Well, according tho the California Supreme Court in a recent case, the First Amendment protects women that sensuously caress themselves while dancing (san clothing) as long as they aren't doing it in a lewd fashion.

[Publius6961]

Remarkable sense of priorities and timing...

[LN2Campy]

I can picture it now -- the leader of the terror-porn movement: OSAMA BEEN SPANKIN'...

[Rodney King]

'Gad, She has Mans hands! from Seinfeld, remember?

Nasty. The thought of being touched by those sends shivers down my spine. By the way, I have yet to see a female anti-pornography activist who is not a complete and total dog. She is just scared that her husband might see some good looking chicks in playboy and realize that he made a big mistake.

[dead]

Seems to me that the activists were active on the court in 1942 and 1957. In both those decisions, the activist court is telling us what they believe the constitution means, rather than what it actually says.

Remember your roots, indeed.

[Rodney King]

I wonder if she's read the articles in that magazine by her desk?

I'm sure she does. Isn't that why everybody buys playboy?

[Smedley]

Moreover, group members are hyperalert about racy posters in lingerie stores such as Frederick's of Hollywood and Victoria's Secret

Okay, so posters of women posing in lingerie posted in lingerie stores is somehow inappropriate!!!! Riiiight!

[freeeee]

She's lying about not wanting to make anyone do anything. Nonsense. She isn't trying to convince people to voluntarily not read obscene material, she's trying to outlaw it.

Pornography, as we all know, is the keystone of the 1st Amendment.

If the Founders wanted any exceptions to free speech, they could have specified them in the 1st Amendment.

But they didn't. Instead, they reaffirmed our right to unlimited free speech. If you don't like it, the amendment process is well defined for you. If that doesn't work out, there are plenty of countries that will play mommy for you and decide for you what you can see.

No one forces anyone to read or look at anything. If you don't like something and think it's obscene, don't buy it, don't look at it. It's just that easy.

[RLK]

Long may these women live.

[Senator_Blutarski]

We can be sure that Slick Willy Clinton will be involved in this effort. I'm sure he'll volunteer his time to the task of "understanding the enemy". He'll be willing to go "deep undercover" to unveil the secrets of the porn industry. We can count on Willy to stick it to those nasty women who pose for porn. Slick was shafted out of his opportunity for a legacy. Here's a chance for Willy to rise to the occasion and bring this issue through to climax.

[Redbob]

SHE's the "porn czar?"
I guess 'porn czar' doesn't mean the same as 'porn queen,' eh?

[Calvin Coolidge]

Waging war on "porn" by going after Playboy and racy lingerie ads is a bit like waging war on "terrorism" by cracking down on jaywalking. Can someone mail this woman a copy of a Max Hardcore video to maybe put her objections to the images in the Sears catalogue into perspective?

[wheezer]

You're gonna' need to get the dog drunk.