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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Such is the neo-fascist authoritarian right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

pornography or obscene entertainment which recognized them as "free speech"

Wrong.

Pornography is entitled to First Amendment protections, obscenity is not.

Such is the ignorant, neo-fascist authoritarian right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Conservatives advocate for more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good luck with that.

Don’t be naïve; given this activist Court hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence – incorporation doctrine in particular – anything is possible.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

The constitutional basis for gay marriage and interracial marriage is exactly the same. They will not touch either.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I'm illiterate on the Constitutuion? I taught it off and on for 21 years. You are the one who does not understand.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I have a Master's degree. How about you??

 

[pknopp]

Don’t be naïve; given this activist Court hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence – incorporation doctrine in particular – anything is possible.

Do it. It will accomplish nothing just as overturning RvW alone will not stop a single person that wants an abortion from getting one.

What's the point of doing something that isn't actually going to change anything?

 

[Centaur]

I'm illiterate on the Constitutuion? I taught it off and on for 21 years. You are the one who does not understand.

You just said that the Constitution didn't protect abortions.

That's exactly what the 14th Amendment did following the Roe vs. Wade ruling until it was recently overturned by the Supreme Court - how can you not know something so basic? Abortion being protected by the Constitution up until this recent ruling is common knowledge.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

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

Arent we supposed to believe all women, especially the Biden women?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You just said that the Constitution didn't protect abortions.

That's exactly what the 14th Amendment did following the Roe vs. Wade ruling until it was recently overturned by the Supreme Court - how can you not know something so basic? Abortion being protected by the Constitution up until this recent ruling is common knowledge.

The SCOTUS overturned Roe V. Wade because there was no Constitutional right to an abortion, in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. Did you read the decision? Obviously not!

One would expect a centaur to be full of horse shit, and you are!

 

[Moonglow]

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

The Founders developed the internet for photos of beaver trapping.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

You also are mandated to buy car insurance.

 

[bendog]

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 not just get rid of stare decisis, or the Sup Ct entirely, and just "redecide" the const every 10 years or so.