19-03-2003 07:04									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, obviously, freedom of the press would cover printed pornography. As for audio-visual pornography, the first ammendment applies just like it does to any other entertainment on TV. The government has the right to regulate public speech, along a sliding scale, which means that while political speech needs ot be almost sacrosant, no-political speech can be regulated to a degree, and this is what we already do.

The governemnt has little right to regulate services and goods that individuals use privately unless they can porve it is harmful to society and incurs costs upon the public sector, such as making drugs illegal or child pornography.

	19-03-2003 07:06									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned It is also unsettling to . . . communism.

Sad, but true. In the last decade, however, we've led a fight inside the movement to reclaim sex and our bodies from the Stalinists and radical feminists. We even have a commie porn star, Nina Hartley. The issue isn't settled, because a lot of porn is degrading stuff and borders on hate speech about women. On the other hand, porn is as old as language.

	19-03-2003 07:10									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Yeah, isn't it funny how people like Bill O'Reilly decry the lack of our morality and only mentions Fox and their tawdry programming when someone points out the hypocrisy of him working for Fox. Then he tells us about Jenna Jameson et al hurting children while he shows Jenna in "lewd" poses on his show so, in his words, his viewers will understand the subject matter - porn.

I agree completely.

	19-03-2003 07:13									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, obviously, freedom of the press would cover printed pornography. As for audio-visual pornography, the first ammendment applies just like it does to any other entertainment on TV. The government has the right to regulate public speech, along a sliding scale, which means that while political speech needs ot be almost sacrosant, no-political speech can be regulated to a degree, and this is what we already do. The governemnt has little right to regulate services and goods that individuals use privately unless they can porve it is harmful to society and incurs costs upon the public sector, such as making drugs illegal or child pornography.

That is pretty much the way that I see it as well. But I think the proof is that it is harmful to society. The problem is drawing a line somewhere. Child porn is certainly a place to start.

	19-03-2003 07:17									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Research is divided upon whether porn is good or bad for society. The English repressed pron, and they took over the world. The Germans repressed pron, and they tried to exterminate Europe. Stalin and Mao both repressed porn. Can't say that being anti-porn puts you in good company.

Human beings aren't merely sexual creatures, we're very sexual creatures. Studies in prisons have shown that access to porn lowers violence rates in prison, as it serves as a release for tension. On the other hand, there is some research which shows that access to pron desensitizes men to the status of women, seeing them as nothing more than a vehical for getting one's rocks off. Course, we thought that way even when porn wasn't available.

	19-03-2003 07:20									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Can't say that being anti-porn puts you in good company.

I thought you said that the English took over the world?

	19-03-2003 07:24									#37
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Course, we thought that way even when porn wasn't available.

Oh yeah, I am sure the Bunny Grrl will be very happey to know this.

	19-03-2003 07:25									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

I'd be happy to be able to use D!ck van Dvke's name in these forums.

	19-03-2003 07:25									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Lincoln -

quote: There is no "free speech" right to saturate the citizens of this country with pornography.

You have a special right to make our decisions for us?

quote: Free speech is to give the people the right (or rather to recognize the "natural" right) to criticize the government.

That was the Framer's primary concern.

quote: Look at the early laws that remained in place after the Bill of Rights was passed. There were all kinds of restrictions on pornography. The "right" has been stretched so that the founders would not recognize it.

That doesn't work, Lincoln, the Alien and Sedition Act was passed under the Adam's administration and effectively made it illegal to criticise government. So by your logic, the A&S Act is proof the Framers didn't believe in free speech to criticise government. Besides, under the Constitution prior to the Civil War amendments, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not local and state governments. Pointing to state and local laws that were not subject to the Bill of Rights to claim those laws are still not subject to the Bill of Rights ignores the 14th Amendment which imposed the Bill of Rights on the states.

Dissident - Many take the freedom of speech to include the freedom of expression. And many people view porn, not just for the entertainment value, but to better their sex lives by learning new techniques. So, porn can be considered educational material just as diagrams of the human body used in biology classes... But here's the rub, Alexander Hamilton and others said we didn't need a Bill of Rights because the federal government under a Constitution which limited federal power to a few specific functions lacked the power to prohibit religious freedom, free speech, etc... And they argued that by adding a Bill of Rights, the vast multitude of other rights we have would be endangered since some people would argue that a right only exists if it appears in the Bill of Rights. That's why Madison added the 9th Amendment in which he re-affirms that the enumeration of certain rights in the preceding amendments shall not be used to deny or disparage all the other rights retained by the people. What does he mean? He means we have all sorts of rights, far too many to enumerate. And the fact the Framers enumerated a handful of rights - rights they considered the most vulnerable and important in detering tyrants - doesn't mean we don't have other rights.

	19-03-2003 07:29									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Bill O'Reilly was silly to go against Jenna Jameson.

He compared porn stars to prostitutes. While I can see the similiarities, there are differences.

I guess the moaning and screaming coming out of the women's mouths could be free speech.

The problem as I see it is images were scarce back then. Everything was a painting. I wonder if they had porno paintings back then . I bet you a few artists drew naughty paintings for their customers. But this was never addressed by the framers of the constitution.

Last edited by Dis on 19-03-2003 at 07:38

	19-03-2003 07:29									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Oh yeah, I am sure the Bunny Grrl will be very happey to know this.

It's a generic "we."

	19-03-2003 07:31									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Lincoln - That doesn't work, Lincoln, the Alien and Sedition Act was passed under the Adam's administration and effectively made it illegal to criticise government. So by your logic, the A&S Act is proof the Framers didn't believe in free speech to criticise government. Besides, under the Constitution prior to the Civil War amendments, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not local and state governments. Pointing to state and local laws that were not subject to the Bill of Rights to claim those laws are still not subject to the Bill of Rights ignores the 14th Amendment which imposed the Bill of Rights on the states. [b

Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Of course the founders new nothing of th 14th Amendment and that was my point: The foundrers would not recognize our so called free speech as it is interpreted today.

	19-03-2003 07:37									#43
	Put an end to popups!

Dissident -

quote: The problem as I see it is images were scarce back then. Everything was a painting. I wonder if they had porno paintings back then . I bet you a few artists drew naughty paintings for their customers. But this was never addressed by the framers of the constitution.

Actually, the Kama Sutra was sold in the USA back then and Ben Franklin was surprised by the outrage from some people over a book (remember, he loved French culture). But yes, it's not like the Framer's never had "impure" thoughts about sex and no one had ever seen a Greek or Roman statue. They knew what porn was

	19-03-2003 07:42									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Courts have taken the First Amendment to imply freedom of expression. Pornography is an example of that expression.

quote: Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Actually, the Alien and Sedition Acts were supported by the Supreme Court. It was justified by the Chief Justice John Jay through common law. Of course, they didn't have power of judicial review at the time (which itself is pretty tenuous in terms of its Constitutionality).

	19-03-2003 07:43									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

Excerpt:

ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
354 U.S. 476
ROTH v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 582.
Argued April 22, 1957.
Decided June 24, 1957. *



1. In the Roth case, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," and Roth's conviction thereunder for mailing an obscene book and obscene circulars and advertising, are sustained. Pp. 479-494.

2. In the Alberts case, the constitutionality of 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale, or to advertise, material that is "obscene or indecent," and Alberts' conviction thereunder for lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books and for writing, composing, and publishing an obscene advertisement of them, are sustained. Pp. 479-494.

3. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485.


(a) In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Pp. 482-483.

(b) The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. P. 484.

(c) All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Pp. 484-485. [354 U.S. 476, 477]

4. Since obscenity is not protected, constitutional guaranties were not violated in these cases merely because, under the trial judges' instructions to the juries, convictions could be had without proof either that the obscene material would perceptibly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct, or probably would induce its recipients to such conduct. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 . Pp. 485-490.

(a) Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest - i. e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. P. 487.

(b) It is vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. Pp. 487-488.

(c) The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. Pp. 488-489.

(d) In these cases, both trial courts sufficiently followed the proper standard and used the proper definition of obscenity. Pp. 489-490.

5. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, 18 U.S.C. 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the First Amendment, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. Pp. 491-492.
6. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale or to advertise material that is "obscene or indecent," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against encroachment by the States, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. 491-492.

7. The federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. 1461, punishing the use of the mails for obscene material, is a proper exercise of the postal power delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8, cl. 7; and it [354 U.S. 476, 478] does not unconstitutionally encroach upon the powers reserved to the States by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Pp. 492-493.

8. The California obscenity statute here involved is not repugnant to Art. I, 8, cl. 7, since it does not impose a burden upon, or interfere with, the federal postal functions - even when applied to a mail-order business. Pp. 493-494.

237 F.2d 796, affirmed.

	19-03-2003 07:47									#46
	Remove this text

The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene?

	19-03-2003 07:48									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Lincoln -

quote: Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Of course the founders new nothing of th 14th Amendment and that was my point: The foundrers would not recognize our so called free speech as it is interpreted today.

They wouldn't recognise much of anything these days from Social Security to the BATF. But I don't know about the local or state laws against porn back then, as I understand it, prostitution was legal in most places. People back then sought social remedies to vice rather than "rabble, rabble, rabble" (the sound of the crowd in South Park ) laws for everything.

	19-03-2003 07:51									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Obviously gay porn isn't a problem. I mean, no exploitation of women there. Pretty much an equal power dynamic, yessirree.

Hmm, but then again, maybe gay porn is more exploitative than I am thinking. Maybe there's something sinister about it. I had better do more research.

*fires up Kazaa*

	19-03-2003 07:52									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ramo -

quote: The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene?

Exactly! I think a beautiful naked woman is proof that God exists. Nothing "obscene" about it... Now, Rosie O'Donnel in spandex? Yikes! That's obscene

	19-03-2003 07:54									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene?

Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.

	19-03-2003 07:55									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

dp

	19-03-2003 07:59									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.

If obscenity is whatever you want it to be, why bother with pretense of having freedom of speech? Isn't that kind of arbitrary suppression of speech exactly what the First Amendment is designed to guard against?

quote: Exactly! I think a beautiful naked woman is proof that God exists. Nothing "obscene" about it... Now, Rosie O'Donnel in spandex? Yikes! That's obscene

Evil, evil thoughts...

	19-03-2003 08:02									#53
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Lincoln -

quote: 3. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485. (a) In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Pp. 482-483. (b) The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. P. 484. [b](c) All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Pp. 484-485. [354 U.S. 476, 477]

The bold are subjective. Since when do 9 people get to decide what ideas or expressions offer what others consider redeeming qualities? They made that up in accordance with their own views, not what's in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution simply does not empower Congress to write any law it wants. The laws Congress writes have to have some enumerated constitutional power behind them, and I see nothing in the Constitution authorising Congress to ban "obscenity".

	19-03-2003 08:04									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ramo If obscenity is whatever you want it to be, why bother with pretense of having freedom of speech? Isn't that kind of arbitrary suppression of speech exactly what the First Amendment is designed to guard against?

It is not whatever I want it to be. And I am not bothering with any pretense one way or the other. I am simply responding to the question posed on the first post of this thread. The first amendment was designed to guard against prosecution of people who opposed government policy primarily.

	19-03-2003 08:06									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: It is not whatever I want it to be.

Sure it is. What is obscenity.

	19-03-2003 08:13									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker ... Since when do 9 people get to decide what ideas or expressions offer what others consider redeeming qualities? They made that up in accordance with their own views, not what's in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution simply does not empower Congress to write any law it wants. The laws Congress writes have to have some enumerated constitutional power behind them, and I see nothing in the Constitution authorising Congress to ban "obscenity".

I don't think they do get to decide anything that is contrary to the founder's intentions. I still see no evidence that the founders intended to allow the unfettered distribution of pornography. The laws in force at the time were not overturned because to the first amendment. Even in 1957 there was no right to obscenity. That has been a recent perversion (no pun intended) of the founder's intentions.

	19-03-2003 08:16									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.

It is protected. And one reason why it should be protected is the subjectivity inherent in defining the term. Ramo's right, if government can ban whatever it decides is "obscene", then it can ban anything. Remember, the Constitution is a grant of certain enumerated powers; therefore, whenever Congress wants to act, it must have authority to act. Now, what gets messy, as you mentioned earlier, is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The Scotus has never applied the 14th Amendment in a consistent manner. Localities can ban guns but not speech? What's the difference? Both are protected by the Constitution...

	19-03-2003 08:17									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo What is obscenity.

It is what comes into my spam box in my email account! Would you like me to forward it to you?

	19-03-2003 08:24									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker It is protected. And one reason why it should be protected is the subjectivity inherent in defining the term. Ramo's right, if government can ban whatever it decides is "obscene", then it can ban anything. Remember, the Constitution is a grant of certain enumerated powers; therefore, whenever Congress wants to act, it must have authority to act. Now, what gets messy, as you mentioned earlier, is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The Scotus has never applied the 14th Amendment in a consistent manner. Localities can ban guns but not speech? What's the difference? Both are protected by the Constitution...

First off, I agree that the whole thing is a quagmire of confusion thanks to the intervention of the courts. But my point remains that in the beginning the founder's intentions did not allow for the unfettered distribution of porn. Can you name a case when that supposed right was upheld before the 20th century? And even now it is supposedly restricted.

	19-03-2003 08:36									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Why wouldn't pornography be considered free speech? What, allowing blatantly racist, anti-semitic and mysoginistic tracts, articles calling for all sorts of represssion: thoese are allowed, but pictures of people being naked, or having sex, Oh no, the world will end!

I think some people are fine with pictures of people being naked or having sex

they just don't like porn that objectifies it

there is a lot of naked people, and sexual interplay, that is not considered porn (in movies, books, and elsewhere)

personally, I find that a lot of porn turns me off (at least initially)

Jon Miller