Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!
- Thread starter mydesign
- Start date
- Status
Things like that -- Mapplethorpe's asshole, "Piss Christ," etc. -- have *always* been around. (There was an active Victorian market for elaborate and ingenious pornography, a well-developed market for pornographic incunablua in the 14th and 15th centuries, and similar things in the ancient world.)
What's different now is that the people who produce such things and profit from them ("artists," gallery owners, etc.) want to move out of low-paying alleys of smutdum into the more lucrative uplands of "art." (Aided and abetted, of course, by shifting groups of people who feel vindicated or actualized or simply legitimated by the public display of such things.)
(BTW, I anxiously await slinky's view of the publicly-subsidized display of a picture of Ann Frank weeping with joy as she is sodomized by an overly-endowed Reinhard Heydrich.)
What's different now is that the people who produce such things and profit from them ("artists," gallery owners, etc.) want to move out of low-paying alleys of smutdum into the more lucrative uplands of "art." (Aided and abetted, of course, by shifting groups of people who feel vindicated or actualized or simply legitimated by the public display of such things.)
(BTW, I anxiously await slinky's view of the publicly-subsidized display of a picture of Ann Frank weeping with joy as she is sodomized by an overly-endowed Reinhard Heydrich.)
As much as I don't agree with all the cases the ACLU are involved in, I do give them credit for pin pointing erosions of freedoms that ongoingly occur. Every law that passes could potentially limit our freedoms and the freedoms of our neighbors, no matter how much we might despise them. But the law covers us all "equally" or so they say. I just think it's better to err on the side of less laws (usually more freedoms) than pass laws that limit us more. Before we know it, we've lost our right to voice our opinions in public. Laws must be specific, narrowly written/interpreted and justly enforced.
On that note, if those damn Lawyers that sit in the House and Congress stop writting complicated laws and put them in PLAIN ENGLISH, we'd be better informed as to what the Law was actually supposed to do.... Just my .02 cents
Peace Out
C
On that note, if those damn Lawyers that sit in the House and Congress stop writting complicated laws and put them in PLAIN ENGLISH, we'd be better informed as to what the Law was actually supposed to do.... Just my .02 cents
Peace Out
C
1) I'm not at all worried about *my* freedoms. (I'm not even particularly worried about *your* freedoms.) And I'm quite content to see the freedoms of *some few* people -- such as those whose demons drive them towards child pornography, real or virtual --drastically curtailed.
2) The whole history of this country says "freedoms increase" -- they don't contract. (Sure, some people get roughed up along the way -- that's happened throughout human history and it will continue to happen regardless of the laws or the specific tools at the discretion of prosecutors.)
3) Perhaps we're stuck on the question of whether prosecutors are "the good guys." You seem to think they're "the enemy" and can't be trusted to behave. I don't -- though I do think that some of them occasionally behave in contemptible ways (e.g., the contemporary witchburners in Massachusetts or California).
2) The whole history of this country says "freedoms increase" -- they don't contract. (Sure, some people get roughed up along the way -- that's happened throughout human history and it will continue to happen regardless of the laws or the specific tools at the discretion of prosecutors.)
3) Perhaps we're stuck on the question of whether prosecutors are "the good guys." You seem to think they're "the enemy" and can't be trusted to behave. I don't -- though I do think that some of them occasionally behave in contemptible ways (e.g., the contemporary witchburners in Massachusetts or California).
"I'm not at all worried about *my* freedoms"
And I'm sure the bushes and Ashcofts are worried about thiers either. It's us peons that have to worry.
"The whole history of this country says 'freedoms increase' "
I think "entitlements" have increased. I'm not so sure about "freedoms". I do think that we are seeing some "contraction" of rights, like all the governmental "takings" of late ( like Rudy's concept of taking your car away for DWI or picking up a streetwalker, without a conviction ).
And I'm sure the bushes and Ashcofts are worried about thiers either. It's us peons that have to worry.
"The whole history of this country says 'freedoms increase' "
I think "entitlements" have increased. I'm not so sure about "freedoms". I do think that we are seeing some "contraction" of rights, like all the governmental "takings" of late ( like Rudy's concept of taking your car away for DWI or picking up a streetwalker, without a conviction ).
I have *exactly* in real life publicly defended the right of Nazi's to march through Skokie...to Jews who live in Skokie. (And, by the way, not everyone in Skokie wanted to ban the marches). Also, believing that any problem free speech causes can be cured by more free speech, I showed up for anti-Nazi counter-demonstrations.
I also think it is well worth noting that the current Court is fairly conservative...meaning as a group they are reluctant to act as social engineers or legislators and are hardly in bed with the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties...so if they say this law was overly broad and thus unconstitutional it likely was by any reasonable measure.
So I have to wonder....do folks who think the Court did something terrible here really understand what the constitution says? And do they really support the principles it stands for?
I also think it is well worth noting that the current Court is fairly conservative...meaning as a group they are reluctant to act as social engineers or legislators and are hardly in bed with the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties...so if they say this law was overly broad and thus unconstitutional it likely was by any reasonable measure.
So I have to wonder....do folks who think the Court did something terrible here really understand what the constitution says? And do they really support the principles it stands for?
The US Constitution, like all legal documents, has its flaws. (I mean Jeez, it was written well over two centuries ago under a tremendously different social climate, global economic condition, and philosophical understanding). Which isn't to say that I don't respect the ideas of liberty. I just don't respect the idea of completely unfettered liberty for everyone. When an activity has a tremedous potential for harm, I believe that activity should be stopped even if no harm is being done at the time. It's just recklessly irresponsible for society to allow someone to extend their freedom of expression to shooting their gun in the air (an activity which in some cultures is somehow celebration) with the argument, "I haven't hit anyone yet."
Did the court say they were opposed to efforts to curb virtual kiddie porn, or did they say they were opposed to the law as written (which, by the way, I am too).
BTW, Rufus, it's good to see you using rhetoric...
Did the court say they were opposed to efforts to curb virtual kiddie porn, or did they say they were opposed to the law as written (which, by the way, I am too).
BTW, Rufus, it's good to see you using rhetoric...
The constitution is a living breathing document. When the Court says a law is unconstitutional they are referencing the entire body of understanding around the document, not just some crusty 200 year old set of ideas that have not been kept up to date. The constitution represents 200 years of evolution not 200 years of decay.
But even if I accepted all of your arguments at face value, when we are talking about virtual child porn we are not talking about the equivalent of someone walking down the street shooting their gun in the air. The proper analogy would be someone walking down the street with a book that has *pictures* in it of *fake* guns.
This is part of what the court means by "overly broad".
But even if I accepted all of your arguments at face value, when we are talking about virtual child porn we are not talking about the equivalent of someone walking down the street shooting their gun in the air. The proper analogy would be someone walking down the street with a book that has *pictures* in it of *fake* guns.
This is part of what the court means by "overly broad".
Constitution law, like all bodies of law, has its flaws - and all formal systems are bounded by their axioms.
You know rufus, if you could prove to me that showing people a picture of a gun would make them significantly more likely to shoot children and that a large number of children had been harmed due to pictures of guns being waved at people on the street, I'd probably be down on them, too. (after all, I am an advocate of gun control)
You know rufus, if you could prove to me that showing people a picture of a gun would make them significantly more likely to shoot children and that a large number of children had been harmed due to pictures of guns being waved at people on the street, I'd probably be down on them, too. (after all, I am an advocate of gun control)
I was never allowed to own a toy gun or watch movies with graphic violence. I'm sure my children will have the same experience. More to the point, the MPAA has provided guidelines intended at preventing children from seeing realistically portrayed violence. And unlike violence in movies, I still see no 'legitimate use' of virtual child pornography which would enable you to make it viewable by some people. The only people that want to see that material are more than likely the same group you don't want looking at that material.
And exactly what is the "legitimate" use of seeing human flesh eaten in films like "Night of the Living Dead"? or people's heads being blown off in ( insert name of any Arnold, Bruce, etc. flick here ) ? But to be clear, we're not[/i] talking about kiddie porn here, we're talking about fictional kiddie porn - i.e. films in which no actual sex takes place, and not with minors, just the suggestion of it. No one is defending kiddie porn here ( that I have seen ).
PS We are talking about films like Lolita, which, at least from my reading, would have fallen under this law if it were not overturned, and could possibly have been prosecuted ( which is the whole reason why it was, and this discussion started in teh first place ). I hope you're not arguing that there is no reason for films like Lolita to exist ( or books, or....).
- Status