Good because the definitions seem to vary based on how insecure the person is.
I do care that you think pedophiles have an unalienable right to virtual kiddie porn and I also care that you place the "right" of pedophiles to satisfy their perversity above the rights of citizens to govern themselves.
Wow I talk about criminalizing thought as wrong and now I am NAMBLA's front man...quite a leap. Are we about to do battle...that seems to be a line in the sand.
I also care that you seem to embrace a living breathing document when it suits your fancy. The original intent of the first amendment did not protect obscenity.
No, I believe the 1st amendment was intended to protect political speech and gov't criticism and adams wiped his butt with it(sedition act). The 1st amendment has evolved over the years. Whether we like it or not, that is the way it is. Howl at the wind if you must but I believe slander/libel and starting a panic are the only forms of speech the gov't should be allowed to regulate. I'd be happy if the Supremes would stick to that since they seem to "find" new rights or ways to abridge rights every year.
By the way, is the right to life a federal issue or a state issue?
I believe it should be a state issue unless an amendment to the US constitution is passed.
Wow, a conservative test...I feel so...so... talked down to. Oh well.
You're so intent on condescending that you don't recognise your own hypocrisy staring you in the face. :-}
According to Mr Amused, the right to life is not an unalienable right and thus subject to federalism while the right of pedophiles to virtual child pornography is an unalienable right and thus not subject to the tenth amendment.
Up is down, right is left, black is white. Yo comprendo.
PS: You are amusing.