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

[Centaur]

This is free speech. Just because you don't like it does not make it so.

It won't be "frees peech" once the Supreme Court overturns it.

And what are you going to do? Just because you "want" it to remain "frees peech" doesn't mean that it will be.

Big government wants to control what we can read and watch. That is fascism.

Good.

 

[Centaur]

Tobacco will kill you.

Not necessarily, but it's not exactly good for you.

 

[Centaur]

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.

That's the law and you're too illiterate to understand it.

The law gives courts the power to make subjective, common sense judgments as to what defines pornography.

There's no "mathematical equation" for defining pornography, just like there isn't one for defining "murder" under criminal law - courts simply have to analyze the facts at hand and make a rational judgment.

 

[Centaur]

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!

Nope, you're too illiterate on the Constitution to be worth commenting on.

The 14th Amendment did indeed protect abortions up until the Supreme Court recently overruled it.

And no, pornography did not have its recent "1st Amendment" protections until as recently as the 1960s and 1970s - and just like with Roe vs. Wade - it can be overturned and then the 1st Amendment will no longer consider pornography to be within its definitions of "free speech".

You saying so won't make it's so, just like you saying "abortion is a woman's right" won't magically make Roe vs. Wade come back either.

Please get a grade school education on the Constitution and then get back to me.

 

[Centaur]

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.

Maybe you haven't kept up with the changes to the law lately, but no - women do not have a federal or Constitutional right to abortion, and it's already been regulated or banned in several states.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets get serious

We need to overturn the Third Amendment

 

[Centaur]

Lets get serious

We need to overturn the Third Amendment

Probably the least relevant amendment in the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Why ban pornography?

It helps to reduce sexual crime, for a start.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets get serious

We need to overturn the Third Amendment

Probably the whole Bill of Rights needs to be re-written for the modern era, including RESPONSIBILITIES into the equation.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I didnt realize OP was a dumb ass.

 

[Centaur]

Why ban pornography?

It helps to reduce sexual crime, for a start.

Nope, not at all. That sounds like something an incel would say.

Let me know how it works out under a court of law (not in your own imaginary little world) when a pedophile claims they shouldn't be convicted of raping a child because the state didn't allow them to possess child porn. What utterly scummy logic.

 

[lennypartiv]

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 Founding Fathers knew what was best for all in society.

 

[Centaur]

The Founding Fathers knew what was best for all in society.

That's not how the Constitution works, no. Or else there never would've been a Constitution to begin with.

 

[Lastamender]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

You got a point there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope, not at all. That sounds like something an incel would say.

Let me know how it works out under a court of law (not in your own imaginary little world) when a pedophile claims they shouldn't be convicted of raping a child because the state didn't allow them to possess child porn. What utterly scummy logic.

Well, you can be wrong.

Thing is, rape rates have been reduced against females.

1992 it was up at 42.8 cases per 100,000 people.

Now it's around 28 per 100,000. In fact it's slightly lower now that it was then, and now they're including all genders in the rape rather than just females.

Or do you have an explanation for why rape rates have dropped off when the availability of pornography increased due to the internet from about 1995????

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not necessarily, but it's not exactly good for you.

Did I say it will kill everyone?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I didnt realize OP was a dumb ass.

He's so wet behind the ears, it looks like a monsoon!

 

[MinTrut]

Good luck with that.

Thread.

 

[CowboyTed]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

Can you produce that in court... Go on...

You have fucking nothing as usual... Just a bunch of allegations..

 

[Leviticus]

The way I see it as long as all involved are consenting adults theres nothing wrong with porn or prostitution and fascist like the OP who want to enfoforce their own morals on everyone else can fuck off.


And everyone knows thathe SCOTUS will be going after gays next. The only ones who are really safe are interracial couples. Even though many on the far right would support making it illegal, Thomas has a white wife. He may be more than willing to strip othees of their rights, but he'll never give up his own even if the right supported it. He's a conservative until it inconveniences him.