Replies

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.

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.

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.

"Underestimating the power of free speech is a grave miscalculation".p Absoultely true, I think Anne Coulter, with whom I am usually in 100% agreement, has got it wrong. I think this piece was really an excuse to grandstand and insert some pretty good laugh lines into her output.

She's wrong, Kennedy was right.