Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech' (Ann Coulter) TRIPLE XXX

worldnetdaily ^ | 4/24/2002 | Ann Coulter

[anniegetyourgun]

Two different things.

[StriperSniper]

You of all people should know! ;-)

[Rule of Law]

What part of the Constitution grants the FEDERAL government any power to regulate speech this way?

Show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes them regulate speech in any way.

How these people who want to jettison the Constitution can call themselves "conservative" is beyond me.

[Dinsdale]

< Beavis > Ann Coulter is sexually harassing me < /Beavis >

[eddie willers]

Two different things.

Both are trying to outlaw thoughts.
I find that abhorrent.
Please find a victim before you mete out punishment.

[garv]

I am free to find out who produces porn.. er, excuse me .... "speech" I don't like and to peacefully protest these specific individuals. I am free to protest openly on public right of ways in front of their home, their work, their wife's work, their grandmother's home, their kid's school, their kid's soccer game .... you name it. I am free to publicize which individuals and businesses support and bankroll "speech" I don't like and to inform others. I am free to organize boycotts of said businesses or individuals workplaces ...etc. All within my rights.

That sounds great until they pass the "Freedom to Produce Child Porn Without Criticism Act" and you wind up in the slammer. Just ask the pro-life movement.

Meanwhile, sexual deviants get their jollies and real children suffer real harm while we debate whether or not the first amendment was intended to protect child pornography. The only thing I know for sure is that the founders wouldn't have had time to debate this issue, they would have been too busy making sure child-molesting deviants found the limits of the first amendment at the end of a rope.

[Rule of Law]

Child pornography is not speech,

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that pornography is not speech. Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government gets authority to regulate it.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Now this is one issue that really deserved the Ann Coulter treatment. I can't believe that people think realistic child pornography is "speech."

[garv]

There is a world of difference between "thought" and the production of child pornography. If you think you need a victim to demonstrate harm start shouting fire in movie theaters and see how far your "speech" rights extend.

[onedoug]

One problem however, is, that with advancing technology, it will become increasingly difficult - eventually perhaps even impossible - to determine the difference. Likewise, that challenge for the courts. Children will be victimized in this process. Thus, Congress is going to have to draft, and pass a new, more specific, law.

[gcruse]

Nicely done.

[Ann Archy]

If PORNO is covered by the Constituion"s 1st Amendent, then children should be able to participate, since the Constituton has no age limits except for elective office...right??

It's pure CRAP that Porno should be shielded by the Constitution.

Porno....Abortion....... HOMOSEXUALITY....Adultery....just SOME of the things KILLING our Country.

[jude24]

I disagree with the lovely and gracious Ann on this point.

The same amendment that protects the rights of pornographers to spew their filth is the same one that allows me to preach the Gospel openly, without fear of governmental reprecussions.

Thats why, whenever speech is involved, I am an unashamed libertarian.

[jwalsh07]

Everything you mentioned in your screed is political speech and protected by the first amendment with the 14th guaranteeing that your state or locality can not abridge that speech.

The justices have ruled that virtual child pornography is protected by the first amendment. Of course, if they considered original intent it could not be since the men who crafted the first amendment also endorsed and signed obscentiy laws.

What they have done is chipped away at your freedom again and you're loving it. These types of laws are supposed to be left to states and localities. If you believe that scumbags and perverts have an unalienable right to kiddie porn, virtual or otherwise, then you and your fellow residents can vote to do just that.

Me and my fellow residents don't want taht crap anywhere near our kids and grandkids. The ACLU has taken librairies to court forcing them to make porn available on their internet connections. Guess whats coming to your library.

Pedophiles don't have an unalienable right to child pornography and conservatives and libertarians should not be applauding edicts from Washington because they happen to agree with the robes.

IMHO, of course.

[IronJack]

"Legitimate movie producers," Kennedy anxiously warns, might not "risk distributing images in or near the uncertain reach of this law."

OOoooooo! The world would come to a screeching halt if THAT happened, wouldn't it???

[Lorianne]

I don't get your the pro-life angle in this. For example, I'm pro-Life AND pro-free speech.

[jwalsh07]

GO Ann, Coulter and Archy!

[anniegetyourgun]

Child porn are not thoughts - they are lewd pictures of minors. No victims as a result of child porn? You really are out-of-touch.

[jwalsh07]

And Go Annie. LOL

[anniegetyourgun]

It's not, but we're talking child porn here - that involves the depiction of minors in lewd acts. But, alas, I'm sure you won't find the word "pornography" in our founding documents. Our Founding folk never thought we'd stoop to this kind of vomitous slime.

But, alas, I'll not convince the libertines among us.