A Bit of Common Sense on First Amendment Issues
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?
9 comments May 20th, 2008
