Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech' (Ann Coulter) TRIPLE XXX
worldnetdaily ^ | 4/24/2002 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech'

Whenever a Supreme Court opinion is bristling with references to Renaissance paintings, classical mythology, and "art and literature throughout the ages," you know the court is about to invoke the First Amendment to protect "Bisexual Schoolgirls' Porn Pictures."

Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy struck down a perfectly sensible federal child porn law last week. Though you might think the attorney general was preparing to rip "War and Peace" off the shelves, the law simply extended the reach of the federal child pornography laws to computer-generated "virtual" images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Without this law, it will be impossible, in practice, to prosecute any child pornography cases.

In order to prohibit, say, "Youngest Teen Sluts in the World!" while leaving the Federalist Papers unmolested, the law carefully defined "sexually explicit" conduct as: "actual or simulated ... sexual intercourse ... bestiality ... masturbation ... sadistic or masochistic abuse ... or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

In response to this law, Justice Kennedy expounded on William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" – "the most famous pair of teen-age lovers." He continued: "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and ... speech is the beginning of thought."

Oh, cut it out.

The last smut prosecutions for works with any redeeming value whatsoever took place almost four decades ago. Since then, pornographers have been running amok, producing the most degrading pornography imaginable – and then running to the Supreme Court to whine about threats to Shakespeare and "Lady Chatterley's Lover."

Some of the more respectable titles taken off the Internet include: "Preteen Pedophilia XXX," "Kiddie Pix," "Mary's Pictures of Young Nude Girls," "Lolita Angels," "Preteen Nudist Camp," "Naked Little School Girls," "Kiddie Porn Lolitas," "Rape Lolita," "Preteen Incest Rape."

Remember: I'm not the one who says "Preteen Sluts" is protected by the Constitution. Pornography defenders always insist on describing this particular constitutional right in vague euphemisms, such as "material dealing frankly with sex" and "sexually themed material." If I have to endure Justice Kennedy's pompous platitudes when we're talking about "Lolita Angels," then I'm not politely avoiding the topic.

The nation is swimming in pornography. You can't turn on TV without seeing simulated sex scenes. And Kennedy is worried that a law banning computer-generated photos of children engaging in sexually explicit acts will put Shakespeare at risk?

If judges pretended to be this confused when interpreting other laws, there could be no laws about anything. Indeed, Depends undergarments would be a necessity on the high court, as justices struggled with whether that feeling in their bellies meant they had to go to the bathroom or needed to burp. Is it "Othello" or is it "Kiddie Pix"?

In addition to Shakespeare, Kennedy claims that if Congress were permitted to outlaw virtual images of children in explicit sex scenes, movies like "Traffic" and "American Beauty" might be made differently. "[L]egitimate movie producers," Kennedy anxiously warns, might not "risk distributing images in or near the uncertain reach of this law."

Justice William Rehnquist points out in his dissent that both "American Beauty" and "Traffic" were made (and given awards) while this precise child porno law was on the books. Not only that, but during that time, four of five federal appeals courts were upholding the law. As Rehnquist says: "The chill felt by the court ... has apparently never been felt by those who actually make movies."

Moreover, the actress who played a teen-age girl in the crucially important simulated sex scene in "Traffic" was not, in fact, a minor. (Why does no one ever say, "'Casablanca' was a good movie – but what it really needed was simulated sex scenes with kids"?) Even high-priced lawyers for the porno industry couldn't come up with more than one "legitimate" Hollywood movie that might possibly – theoretically – fall under the virtual child porn law.

Here is a description, courtesy of an Internet rating service, of just some of the sex scenes from "American Beauty": "a couple has sex with thrusting, her legs up in the air ... a man is seen from behind masturbating in the shower ... a man masturbates next to his sleeping wife in bed ... a girl stands in front of boy, then takes her bra off and we see her breasts ... a man thinks a male couple is performing fellatio (they are not) ... a father kisses his daughter's teen-age friend, caresses her clothed breasts and pulls off her jeans until she's down to her underwear, and opens her shirt, exposing her bare breasts ... a man has several daydreams of a girl in a bathtub with rose petals covering her; he reaches his hand under the water at her crotch level as she puts her head back and moans."

So Congress can't ban virtual kiddie porn because the law might make producers think twice before making movies with scenes like that? This is the doomsday scenario? A little chilling might lead to "virtual" watchable movies.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulterlist; supremecourtporn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:04 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
What part of the Constitution grants the FEDERAL government any power to regulate speech this way? The post-FDR socialistic court's reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause to mean all powers to the Feds, and none left to the States and the People?
2 posted on 04/24/2002 4:00:50 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Ann is so good with brutal truth. Like her, I'm still wondering just exactly what kind of statement kiddie porn is making, and if our founding fathers sacrificed all for it! Child pornography is not speech, it's simply designed to engage the prurient interest of sick adults.
3 posted on 04/24/2002 4:03:53 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I agree with you completely. Good post.
4 posted on 04/24/2002 4:11:15 PM PDT by mrfixit514
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
BUMP
5 posted on 04/24/2002 4:16:38 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Without this law, it will be impossible, in practice, to prosecute any child pornography cases
Nonsense. This case was about computer created images, not actual live children.
Child porn laws are here for one reason: to protect children from abuse. What children are being abused in drawings. It might make the user think about doing it, but you can't regulate what you think a picture makes someone think about.
6 posted on 04/24/2002 4:17:07 PM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"The post-FDR socialistic court's reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause to mean all powers to the Feds, and none left to the States and the People?"

Amen! And that's why the NEA doesn't teach the Constitution anymore.

7 posted on 04/24/2002 4:21:06 PM PDT by gorush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
We couldn't possibly agree more...
8 posted on 04/24/2002 4:21:07 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I disagree with Ms. Coulter on this. Although I believe much pornography is a hateful and destructive influence in our society, I can't justify scraping the First Ammendment in exchange for (temporary) decency. Not a good trade.

The best way to counter disgusting hateful soul destroying "speech" is with speech of your own. I want the Constitution to be there to protect my free speech rights whenever I fight back against their speech. This is the true power and the ingenious checks and balances our Founders built into the Bill of Rights. We should utilize the power given to us in our Constitution.

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.

So, Ms. Coulter, when MY turn comes the Supreme Court better be prepared to defend MY right to speak. Underestimating the power of free speech is a grave miscalculation.
9 posted on 04/24/2002 4:22:55 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
To think we even have a discussion about this garbage, shows how far America has fallen in the moral ground leadership of the world.
10 posted on 04/24/2002 4:23:54 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Child porn laws are here for one reason: to protect children from abuse. What children are being abused in drawings. It might make the user think about doing it, but you can't regulate what you think a picture makes someone think about.

If you have ever seen the quality of some of the computer generate video games like Dead or Alive 3 on XBox, you can imagine how sick and graphic and realistic this newly protected free speech is gonna become. It's a bad ruling, pornography was never intended to be protected under the 1st Amendment.

11 posted on 04/24/2002 4:25:06 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
BUMP
12 posted on 04/24/2002 4:26:32 PM PDT by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
What I don't understand is how hate-speech laws pass Constitutional mustard, and this pornography laws doesn't.
13 posted on 04/24/2002 4:27:20 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514; chad fairbanks
Thanks to both of you. Unfortunately, we have many in this country who are so open-minded that their brains are falling out on such subjects. They would likely defend snuff films or a computer generated slow decapitation of a toddler on video to be as "free speech" as well.
14 posted on 04/24/2002 4:27:45 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"On American TV it's taboo to show touching a naked breast, but's it perfectly ok to show someone cutting it off with a hacksaw" (paraphrased from Frank Zappa) :-D
15 posted on 04/24/2002 4:30:35 PM PDT by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Sorry the majority was right the only grounds to outlaw child porn without running afoul of the 1st amendment is the fact that its a depiction and thus an incentive for an actual crime.
16 posted on 04/24/2002 4:31:41 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Granted it is disgusting material but the "Founding Fathers" also issued the sedition act to prohibit criticism of the government, spitting on an amendment barely a decade old. Many states had similar laws. Political speech appears to be the sole intent of protection by the 1st but even then it was trampled a bit.

I would rather the court hold legal all forms of speech(outside of libel, slander, panic starters or basically what has been held for the last century or so) and community pressure dictate how disgusting and offensive speech is dealt with. One must be careful when abridging any right, for the consequences may not be felt for years afterwards.

17 posted on 04/24/2002 4:34:03 PM PDT by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Hate-speech laws are as false as Islam is.
18 posted on 04/24/2002 4:38:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Main Entry: 1mus·ter
Pronunciation: 'm&s-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mustre, from Middle French mostre, monstre, from monstrer
Date: 14th century
1 : a representative specimen : SAMPLE
2 a : an act of assembling; specifically : formal military inspection b : critical examination c : an assembled group : COLLECTION d : INVENTORY
19 posted on 04/24/2002 4:38:19 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Ann is so good with brutal truth.

Yes, she is....but in this case she is wrong.
We get upset when school kids are suspended for drawing pictures of guns, and this brush paints both ways.

20 posted on 04/24/2002 4:46:44 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Two different things.
21 posted on 04/24/2002 4:48:05 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
You of all people should know! ;-)


22 posted on 04/24/2002 4:53:30 PM PDT by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
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.

23 posted on 04/24/2002 4:53:34 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
< Beavis > Ann Coulter is sexually harassing me < /Beavis >
24 posted on 04/24/2002 4:53:44 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Two different things.

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

25 posted on 04/24/2002 4:54:17 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
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.

26 posted on 04/24/2002 4:54:18 PM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
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.

27 posted on 04/24/2002 4:57:38 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Now this is one issue that really deserved the Ann Coulter treatment. I can't believe that people think realistic child pornography is "speech."
28 posted on 04/24/2002 4:59:41 PM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
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.
29 posted on 04/24/2002 5:04:13 PM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lelio
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.
30 posted on 04/24/2002 5:05:55 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Nicely done.
31 posted on 04/24/2002 5:07:57 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
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.

32 posted on 04/24/2002 5:09:53 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
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.

33 posted on 04/24/2002 5:21:19 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
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.

34 posted on 04/24/2002 5:24:01 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"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???

35 posted on 04/24/2002 5:25:05 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garv
I don't get your the pro-life angle in this. For example, I'm pro-Life AND pro-free speech.
36 posted on 04/24/2002 5:26:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
GO Ann, Coulter and Archy!
37 posted on 04/24/2002 5:26:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
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.
38 posted on 04/24/2002 5:29:15 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
And Go Annie. LOL
39 posted on 04/24/2002 5:30:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
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.

40 posted on 04/24/2002 5:31:53 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I am an unashamed libertarian

I've noticed this is true of most libertarians - they have not shame.

BTW, what statement is kiddie porn making?

41 posted on 04/24/2002 5:34:53 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Nevermind, I don't feel like going around the circular logic of folks who are so open-minded their brains are falling out.
42 posted on 04/24/2002 5:35:37 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The pro-life angle comes into play when you assume that you can picket at a pornographers home, etc. As a pro-lifer I'm sure you're aware of restrictions placed on protesters at clinics and at abortionists' homes. The point was simply that your constitutional right to protest abortion has already been restricted so your faith in your right to protest may be misplaced.
43 posted on 04/24/2002 5:36:13 PM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Interesting comments from someone with your username...
44 posted on 04/24/2002 5:44:58 PM PDT by Black Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
So, is it any wonder how they're going to vote on the CFR gag rule?
45 posted on 04/24/2002 5:46:32 PM PDT by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper
Opps!
46 posted on 04/24/2002 5:47:59 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW

47 posted on 04/24/2002 5:48:50 PM PDT by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

How can we argue that liberals should follow the Constitution if we are not willing to do so ourselves? How can we refute their claims that the Constitution is a living document if we use the argument ouselves? When they use the argument that the Constitution should be ignored because our founding fathers could not have forseen X, how can we argue against it if we say that the Constitution should be ignored because our founding fathers could not have forseen Y?

It's not about being a libertine. It's about integrity. It's about sticking to our principles even when we don't like the results. This is one of those times.

48 posted on 04/24/2002 5:49:43 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Ok... I like Ann and I'm looking forward to the gratuitous Ann pics that are bound to be posted to this thread; however, she is out to lunch on this! The Supreme Court's ruling on "virtual" kiddie porn is not about protecting smut. It's about defining what government may or may not proscribe. Government may regulate speech, such as real kiddie porn involving real kids because the production of that speech harms children. It may also regulate other types of porn as obscene, albeit under some rather byzantine rules. The theory behind such regulation is that direct harm results from the speech in question. "Virtual" kiddie porn does not have the same element of direct harm that real kiddie porn does. A "virtual" child cannot be harmed; it does not really exist. As Rush said this morning, these are cartoons.

Whether American is "awash" in pornography or not is irrelevant. What we don't need is for it to be awash in senseless government regulation. Laws regulating speech or other behaviors should be based upon a reasonable interest by the government. Protecting real children from pornographers is a legitimate insterest on the government's part; protecting "virtual" children is not.

49 posted on 04/24/2002 5:50:10 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garv
If you think you need a victim to demonstrate harm start shouting fire in movie theaters and see how far your "speech" rights extend.

What if I 'think' fire?

50 posted on 04/24/2002 5:54:20 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson