Overturning the 1st Amendment rulings on pornography and "obscene" entertainment

[Centaur]

The next thing which should be up for the Supreme Court to consider should be overturning the 1st Amendment rulings on pornography or obscene entertainment which recognized them as "free speech" under the 1st Amendment during the 1960s and the 1970s.

This would eliminate any federal protection of pornography and allow for the states to ban it - it would also prevent federal constitutional rulings from interfering with state or federal obscenity laws (which allow them to ban or censor media (such as film, music, TV, radio, magazines, social media, etc) which is deemed by the courts has lacking any redeemable artistic or historical value.

Per the recent directions which the courts are taking, I can see this being a viable option indeed.

 

[lennypartiv]

The Founding Fathers never meant for the internet to be full of porn.

 

[BackAgain]

The Founding Fathers never meant for the internet to be full of porn.

Do you know anything about the original dirty etchings?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The next thing which should be up for the Supreme Court to consider should be overturning the 1st Amendment rulings on pornography or obscene entertainment which recognized them as "free speech" under the 1st Amendment during the 1960s and the 1970s.

This would eliminate any federal protection of pornography and allow for the states to ban it - it would also prevent federal constitutional rulings from interfering with state or federal obscenity laws (which allow them to ban or censor media (such as film, music, TV, radio, magazines, social media, etc) which is deemed by the courts has lacking any redeemable artistic or historical value.

Per the recent directions which the courts are taking, I can see this being a viable option indeed.

But, but, but if you ban pornography, how can you groom kids into wanting sex with their fathers, or uncles?

MSN

 

[pknopp]

Good luck with that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Founding Fathers never meant for the internet to be full of porn.

A lot of the Founding Fathers were members of a group called the Hellfire Club. And, I'm pretty sure that they had no idea about the internet. Probably couldn't imagine it in their wildest dreams.

 

[Centaur]

Good luck with that.

Yeah, that's what they used to say about Roe vs. Wade - lol.

 

[Centaur]

A lot of the Founding Fathers were members of a group called the Hellfire Club. And, I'm pretty sure that they had no idea about the internet. Probably couldn't imagine it in their wildest dreams.

Oh please, the "Hellfire Club" was just a secret society where some consensual sex acts might have taken place - probably akin to the "Bunny Ranches" in Las Vegas. It wasn't instantly accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

Plus the Founding Fathers are dead, and aren't relevant to this anyway - they created a system of government where "invoking their names" means absolutely nothing.

If I'd been around in the 1700s - I'd probably have banned it as well and could care less if a few famers were members - because any venue where you have to exchange "money for sex" is unnatural and defeats the whole point of seduction to begin with.

The Hellfire Club, an 18th-Century Ritual Cult for the Famous and Powerful

The real Eyes Wide Shut?

historyhustle.com

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, that's what they used to say about Roe vs. Wade - lol.

What was accomplished there?

 

[Centaur]

What was accomplished there?

Abortion no longer has federal protections. States can regulate and ban it as they wish, just as they could do with porn or "obscene" entertainment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Abortion no longer has federal protections. States can regulate and ban it as they wish, just as they could do with porn or "obscene" entertainment.

Abortion had no constitutional protections. Unfortunately for you, the 1st Amendment does protect pornography. If yu don't like porn, don't look at it!

 

[Polishprince]

Abortion had no constitutional protections. Unfortunately for you, the 1st Amendment does protect pornography. If yu don't like porn, don't look at it!

I don't know about that at all. Some speech has been outlawed in America without a problem- including cigarette commercials and (for a number of years in the past) hard liquor commercials were also banned.

Further, broadcast TV doesn't allow unlimited cursing.

So what makes smut so sanctified by law as opposed to various other forms of obscenity and commercial speech?

 

[busybee01]

The next thing which should be up for the Supreme Court to consider should be overturning the 1st Amendment rulings on pornography or obscene entertainment which recognized them as "free speech" under the 1st Amendment during the 1960s and the 1970s.

This would eliminate any federal protection of pornography and allow for the states to ban it - it would also prevent federal constitutional rulings from interfering with state or federal obscenity laws (which allow them to ban or censor media (such as film, music, TV, radio, magazines, social media, etc) which is deemed by the courts has lacking any redeemable artistic or historical value.

Per the recent directions which the courts are taking, I can see this being a viable option indeed.

This is free speech. Just because you don't like it does not make it so. Big government wants to control what we can read and watch. That is fascism.

 

[busybee01]

The Founding Fathers never meant for the internet to be full of porn.

Did you ask them about it?

 

[busybee01]

Abortion had no constitutional protections. Unfortunately for you, the 1st Amendment does protect pornography. If yu don't like porn, don't look at it!

Yes it did. It is called the freedom to make your own medical decisions. Women have equality today unlike the days of the founding fathers.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Who was the dumb fuck SCOTUS judge who claimed they could not define pornography, but they know it when they see it?

That is some stupid bullshit.

 

[busybee01]

I don't know about that at all. Some speech has been outlawed in America without a problem- including cigarette commercials and (for a number of years in the past) hard liquor commercials were also banned.

Further, broadcast TV doesn't allow unlimited cursing.

So what makes smut so sanctified by law as opposed to various other forms of obscenity and commercial speech?

That was using the public airwaves. The government does not control the internet nor should they control what we read and watch.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't know about that at all. Some speech has been outlawed in America without a problem- including cigarette commercials and (for a number of years in the past) hard liquor commercials were also banned.

Further, broadcast TV doesn't allow unlimited cursing.

So what makes smut so sanctified by law as opposed to various other forms of obscenity and commercial speech?

Tobacco will kill you.

 

[Polishprince]

Yes it did. It is called the freedom to make your own medical decisions. Women have equality today unlike the days of the founding fathers.

The ACA mandates people to make a decision to buy medical insurance, whether they want to or not.

Further, it mandates insurance companies to include coverages that the customers may not want to pay for, like pregnancy for senior citizens, or sex change operations.

 

[pknopp]

The ACA mandates people to make a decision to buy medical insurance, whether they want to or not.

While it did, it no longer does.