Legality of Obscenity at Center of Smut Case Appeal

Agape Press ^ | 10/20/05 | Allie Martin

[petitfour]

Well, if it is not okay to copulate in public, then why would it be okay to depict copulation?

[gcruse]

In some states you can.

Do you have a cite for that?  I

[AntiGuv]

Because copulating in public is public, whereas the depiction of copulation need not be.

[gcruse]

Well, if it is not okay to copulate in public, then why would it be okay to depict copulation?

By that standard, if it is legal to copulate in private, why wouldn't it be okay to privately distribute its depiction, legitimatizing porn between adults?

[goodnesswins]

Medical Marijuana in Hawaii

Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano on Wednesday was expected to sign a law protecting seriously ill patients who grow, possess and use marijuana from being arrested.

Hawaii thus becomes the first state in the nation to enact a medical marijuana law crafted by state lawmakers. SB 862 cleared both houses of the state legislature in April.

Five other states in the country have similar laws enacted through ballot initiatives. California, in 1996, was the first to remove criminal penalties for the medical use of marijuana. Alabama, Washington, Oregon and Maine followed suit.

Advocates for the medical use of marijuana praised Hawaii lawmakers and Gov. Cayetano for standing up for patients.

By enacting the law, the state essentially has said, ``We don't care what the federal law is right now. We want to protect patients here in Hawaii,'' Chuck Thomas, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Reuters Health. ``It just takes a tremendous amount of courage,'' he said.

Hawaii's measure sends a strong message to the nation because it is the first to be enacted via the legislative process. ``We see this as the second wave of the campaign to protect medical marijuana users,'' Thomas said.

The new law removes state penalties for seriously ill patients who, with a doctor's permission, grow, possess or use marijuana. People with AIDS-wasting syndrome or cancer patients on chemotherapy, for example, may apply to the state for a card that identifies them as legal users of marijuana under the state law.

[gcruse]

Thanks. But the Commerce Clause insanity has the DOJ running all over any medical marijuana laws. Growing your own remains illegal at the federal hence moot at the state level.

[aNYCguy]

So what? This case is about obscenity, which isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.

Read the text. The 1st Amendment makes no exceptions for what FReeper "Sandy" considers obscene.

[MarkL]

The First Amendment as I understand it, refers to POLITICAL speech.

You understant wrong. According the the SCOTUS, in their McCain/Feingold ruling, the only sort of speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment is political speech. They ruled that the words "Congress shall make no law" actually means that congress can make laws abridging political speech. But remember, nude dancing is a protected form of "speech" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Of course, reasonable people would think that the 1st Amendment DOES mean, at the very least, political speech, but those black robed princlings can do whatever the hell they want, and say that the Constitution means whatever the hell they want it to. "It's good to be the king!"

Mark

[goodnesswins]

Yeah.....I know....in Oregon, now, public sex is A-okay.

[Antoninus]

Please see post 137. Here's a quote:

In Massachusetts, by example, it was criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" etc.

You'd think that if the Founding Fathers viewed obscenity as protected under the First Amendment, such a law would have been found to be unconstitutional and overturned. The fact that it took 180 years to do so and that it happened during a period when a foreign political force was attempting destablize the country should tell you something...

[Antoninus]

Your point seems to be that the 14th amendment suddenly made all forms of obscenity legal and eliminated the ability of state and local governments to regulate or forbid it. Of course, that's laughably erroneous.

See post 137 for a clarification of the crux of the constitutional problem. As usual, activist judicial tyrants are the problem, not the Constitution.

[Antoninus]

States woud be able to ban guns, shut down newspapers and regulate churches.

Most states have constitutions that are more protective of individual rights than the US Constitution or BoR.

[flashbunny]

"The First Amendment as I understand it, refers to POLITICAL speech."

Then explain campaign finance reform.

The real problem is this administration will find the time to go after porn (even starting a porn division in the FBI) but cry that they don't have the resources to secure our borders and get rid of illegal aliens.

It's all a show to pacify people by saying "forget about us not doing that, look what we're doing over here!"

Countless illegal alien gang members, murderers, rapists, child molesters and more take advantage of our open borders and lax policies to victimize innocent americans...and the government is spending time going after porn and 'wetlands abusers' and other ridiculous crap.

It's like a political version of bread and circuses.

[gcruse]

The real problem is this administration will find the time to go after porn (even starting a porn division in the FBI) but cry that they don't have the resources to secure our borders and get rid of illegal aliens.

The solution to the problem is to have illegal aliens running our porn industry for us.  Then the feds would leave porn alone and the illegals would be screwed.

[flashbunny]

I thought about making a tip that illegal aliens were smuggling porn over the border in an effort to get some real enforcement there.

[gcruse]

Wow. I think you've hit on it!

[azhenfud]

Can't be "..the right of the people peaceably to assemble", because they were specifically distributing pornography of violent sex.

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

Precisely what is it about pornography that there is an attempt to regulate? It is the content. The content is alleged to be obscene, hence the claim that the regulation violates the First Amendment.

Obscenity is speech and speech is protected by the First Amendment. Please re-read your copy of the Constitution.