[moneyrunner]

I reject the “slippery slope” arguments here. There will always be people who misuse words. That is no reason to back away from your position and accept their definitions. Laws against pornography have always been the expressions of the majority will in localities. What the Supremes have done is denied the right of a community to set its own rules regarding the pollution of its environment. If you approve, you approve of the power of an un-elected elite to reduce your power as a citizen.

[jwalsh07]

You get it!

[lelio]

If you approve, you approve of the power of an un-elected elite to reduce your power as a citizen.
That's an interesting point which was brought up on a recent PBS show about NAFTA: that Canada or Mexico can sue the US (or vice versa) to repeal laws in the US that prevent their products from coming in. Example of a US company taking over a Mexican waste dump but not wanting to play by the local rules.
However I believe that the right of citizens to look at images (digital pictures, drawings, etc) should trump any desire of the majority to make a more 'moral' society.