Posted on 03/31/2005 9:22:59 AM PST by sergey1973
Does the U.S. Constitution really protect the distribution of graphic—even hard-core pornographic—videos depicting rape and murder? Unfortunately, a U.S. District Court judge in Pittsburgh seems to think so.
On January 20, Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed a 10-count obscenity indictment against the alleged distributors of hard-core pornography, Extreme Associates. In his ruling, this lower court judge unilaterally expanded the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 case that struck down Texas’ homosexual sodomy prohibitions, Lawrence v. Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Right to life... sorry, can't find it.
Right to sodomy, racism, abortion, etc. - yep it's all there, right in the penumbra!
Videos depicting 'rape and murder' line every Blockbuster shelf in America. As long as its for sale to adults only then keep goverment out of it.
Movies depicting rape and murder is the entire lineup of the Lifetime Network.
If the GOP has to go nuclear in congress, bombs away!
Where is it?....I think it's somewhere near the clause allowing the Feds to dictate how many gallons my toilet can flush.
There ya go. The very first amendment.
The question is also whether local Legislatures have a legitimate right to restrict porn of the likes of "Extreme Associates" who are producing Porn videos forcing the actors to perform all sourts of group sex (including sex with animals). Do judges have a right to interfere with Legislatures in this case and strike down the laws against it ?
Any evidence they are unwilling participants?
Wrong question.
The correct question is: What clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate porn?
Shame on Townhall for not understanding that.
"Extreme associates" are not press or news media. They are definitely not engaging in the business of Political Speeches. They forcing their actors (including underage girls) to perform the very perverse sexual acts that endangers their lives and health and videotaping them. The fragments of their "films" were shown on the ABC News Nightline. Is this first amendment issue ?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
You activist judges ought to seriously give some thought about that.
Then that's illegal for a host of other reasons. The goverement could restrict it under exisiting child porn laws.
Sergey,
Too many FReepers will support this decision as it turns on a point of argument. They don't want "morality" to be the source of authority for laws.
But then we have immoral laws, don't we?
I agree that it is in the public interest to prohibit pornography.
But if we can prohibit pornography then where do we draw the line on what is allowed? And whom do we trust to draw that line and determine what crosses it?
I agree with some FReepers that if one type of speech can be legislated away then Free Republic is one judicial decision away from being banned.
Free Republic IS pornography to some liberals and you can expect them to argue as such in court if a law allows pornography to be restricted and then you can expect a liberal judge to order FR shut down.
Given that I cannot trust our judiciary in this country I am currently on the distasteful side of preferring to prevent to goverment from regulating speech as opposed to allowing them to regulate it.
Russia is a good example of what happens when the government can control the media. Putin arrests anyone who criticizes him.
I'm sure Bill Clinton is tremendously jealous of such power. He certainly would've abused the power had it been his to abuse.
Ultimately, it is our choice not to view pornography. Or listen to "Air America".
At first, I thought this would just be another column excoriating a judge for his interpretation of the first amendment and then I read that this is among the fruits of Lawrence v. Texas. Ah, what a wonderfully insane decision that was.
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.