A Bit of Common Sense on First Amendment Issues
May 20th, 2008 at 05:17pm Mark Noonan
But just a bit:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography.
The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.
The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional…
…Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, Souter said.
“I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law’s criminalization of pandering proposals,” Souter said.
The bit of common sense was the ruling that child porn is not covered under the rubric of free speech - the reason it was only “a bit” of common sense is that the SC didn’t rule that laws could be made to restrict all pornography…’cause, boys and girls, there wasn’t a man at Bunker Hill, the Alamo, Gettysburg, Argonne, Iwo Jima or anywhere else Americans have fought for liberty who was thinking as he died, “at least my descendents will get to look at dirty pictures”. Pornography ain’t speech - its a prurient way to make a buck off the ruthless exploitation and objectification of human beings, but it isn’t speech…and only a liberal entirely detached from common sense could ever say otherwise. The fact that we, as a society, have said otherwise is a badge of deep shame upon us…because scummy purveyors of smut wanted to make a buck, we’ve enshrined their filth as being fit company with the great literature of the past, and the great political documents of our history.
And there were Souter and Ginsburg, following the idiot tradition of American jurisprudence on free speech - if you needed a reason to vote McCain, there it is. He’s pledged to appoint more Scalias - Obama will appoint more Ginsburgs. Who do you want ruling from the bench?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
9 Comments
1. Jeremiah | May 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Well, you know what the Liberals will screach about, Mark.
” You can’t do that … That’s a violation of the Fourteenth amendment, that’s violation of the fourteenth amendment.”
And just where does the Fourteenth amendment say we have a “right” to “produce” pornography?
None whatsoever, they read that into it, as their intent.
The actual intent of the Fourteenth amendment was for a confirmation and establishment our God-given rights, as are stated in the Declaration of Independence…Thus, during the framing and ratification process they feared and revered God’s commands, so that we may keep our rights as are stated in Deuteronomy chapter 8.
Somehow we’re going to have to make this clear in the near future by amending the Fourteenth amendment. I don’t know the particular wording that would sound suitable, but it needs to be done.
2. Some Assembly Required | May 20th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Pornography ain’t speech - its a prurient way to make a buck off the ruthless exploitation and objectification of human beings, but it isn’t speech…”
Funny, I’d say the same thing about ‘Reality T.V.’ Simple solution here, Change the channel or turn off the tv and pick up a book.
If you want to look at child porn you have to do just that, LOOK for it. It’s not displayed on billboards and such. It’s the persons personal preference to find it and watch it. I think there sick and should be put in jail, but the fact remains child porn is not easily accessible if your not looking for it.
There are far more twisted things on even youtube and some internet sites out there. One comes to mind about linking Pro-Choice people to Hilter. This is your catch-22, who decides exactly what is appropriate if not the individual? I bet you’d have people tell you what to think and watch as long as you can keep your gun.
Saving that, child porn is outrageous and AGAINST THE LAW. So, string up anybody caught in the act or caught watching it on a regular basis. This has nothing to do with pornography in general because there is a big difference between two consenting adults on film and illegally molesting a child on film.
3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 20th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
And there were Souter and Ginsburg, following the idiot tradition of American jurisprudence on free speech - if you needed a reason to vote McCain, there it is. He’s pledged to appoint more Scalias - Obama will appoint more Ginsburgs. Who do you want ruling from the bench?
The reason why you have great legal minds sitting on the Supreme Court who have to use a time tested witticism attributed to Felix Frankfurter, “been marinated in the law” rather than the next rube who is up for service on a jury is that those dripping with jurisprudential marinade can separate themselves from the emotional nature of an issue, in this case child pornography, and weigh the long term potential effects on the populace.
I take it Mister Noonan that you did not read Justice Souter’s dissent, “Dealing is obscenity is penalized without violating the 1st Amendment, but as a general matter pornography lacks the harm to justify prohibiting it. If, however, the photograph (to take the kind of image in this case) shows an actual minor child as a pornographic subject, its transfer and even possession may be made criminal.[New York v. Ferber (1982), Osborne v. Ohio (1990)] The exception to the general rule rests not on the content of the picture but on the need to foil exploitation of child subjects. [Ferber, 759-60], and the justification limits the exception only pornographic photographs of actual children may be prohibited [Ferber 763, 764; Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition].”
And in that dissent he hits at the kernel of the concurrence, that children not be exploited and that free speech protections, for artists or grandparents taking pictures of three year olds playing in the bathtub, are secured against prosecution when no harm is done. I think what is lacking in both public and private schools is the teaching of rhetoric as a basic speaking skill. In my days at University I took great pride in my marks in argument, logic and rhetoric, the pure ability to respond in opposition to an idea whether you hold it or not and convince an audience to the merits of that opinion in fact.
Rhetoric is the opposite of spin because its basis must be in facts.
4. Some Assembly Required | May 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Cav, to be honest I completely forgot about those embarrassing baby pictures which could be considered child pornography. Excellent clarification. I shutter to think that my grandmother could be arrested some day because someone came across a picture or home video of me splashing around in the tub with my tug boat and rubber ducky at her house.
5. js | May 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
now if they could just figure out that roe vs wade sets aside the right to life of millions of humans, then we would have something to celebrate
6. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Treat not the Law like an ideological ATM as you should not treat your house like an economic one and Reason and Justice shall prevail.–Pain, On Guarding II, Terra Immortalis, Codex cxviii.
7. js | May 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
the indulgence of fantasy is….so overwelmed by those whose mind has no concept of its own spirit….and the full rein of illusion hatches a concept such as terra…a patch of dirt more or less…not to be upheld as a trophy….for it is naught but ignorance…to follow a false god….that the road of illusion would lead you down….reason and justice only prevail in the here and now…not in some fantasy of immortality penned by fools.
8. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
7. js | May 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“It is said that all Men fear Death to such an extent that they would rather summon up the belief that their is no Justice at all and that Paradise is a lie than believe in Hell.”–Haxax Carnido
“Only a fool looks in the mirror and sees anything but the awesome power of the Creator; a temple to be kept not an idol to be worshipped.”–Pain
9. js | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
….for it is naught but ignorance…to follow a false god….that the road of illusion would lead you down….reason and justice only prevail in the here and now…not in some fantasy of immortality penned by fools…judgement brings no respect of men…but the essense of spirit, upon which immortality exists…and it cannot be seen in your mirror…it is such that has to be lived…where the conscious reality and the spirit merge….that brings the knowledge of our ignorance…that teaches humility for cause of want….want because we are truely empty…and the only thing that fills us is His Love….which only comes by grace….no…not looking in a mirror….you cant see anything but a sinner…a temple filled with sin….of ideas..and not ideals…..of idols that only exist in your fantasy….which are not more than dirt….of the earth….that do nothing…as even fools worship satan..whose dominion truely is….your terra……js