[Marauder]

One more reason for a constitutional amendment defining obscenity as any sexual expression or behavior that falls outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship.

Lots of luck getting something like that through this congress. It might be easier getting a congressional pay cut through than something that made that much sense.

An amendment like that might've passed muster in the 50s, but of course we weren't facing this problem then. Those of the "Greatest Generation" were still in charge back then.

[Maelstorm]

Yeah but it is amusing to hear people who don’t understand the bill of rights nor the limits of the First Amendment scream about how suggesting such a thing is fascist. If they’d bother to research history they’d quickly find that many of their wonderful perversions of necessity were forbidden by law during and after the first amendment was ratified. I think that in the long run we have to have some limit on the government meddling in the sex lives of young kids whether it is ratifying parental rights in the constitution or something more radical. If we don’t the hoards will continue to chip away and slowly but surely reshape the minds of the populace to the destruction of the America we all love.

That said I never did understand the problem such well educated judges seem to have with defining obscenity. It is best defined by what it is not.

[gidget7]

While I agree with both of you, all it would take is an Executive order by the Governor of any state and this could be banned. Sadly, I have not seen any such order by any Governor yet. It would probably ensure he or she is reelected should they start doing it.