Stepping on the First Amendment

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the Obama administration, true in their authoritarian beliefs, put a halt on the first amendment again:

Insurers Criticize Administration 'Gag Order' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092201849.html)

[clambake]

stomping out fear mongering.

i like it.

[LnGrrrR]

I wouldn't necessarily list the Obama administration as any more authoritarian than the previous one.

I do agree that this oversteps their boundaries though, assuming that the health care companies aren't being fraudulent by lying or something similar in their claims.

[Wild Cobra]

I wouldn't necessarily list the Obama administration as any more authoritarian than the previous one.

I do agree that this oversteps their boundaries though, assuming that the health care companies aren't being fraudulent by lying or something similar in their claims.
They aren't being fraudulent though. Programs like Medicare Advantage (I think that is the name) will be destroyed from the Health Care proposals.

[Winehole23]

I'd be interested to know whether Humana, as a Medicare Advantage provider, limited itself contractually beforehand.

If it didn't, there's something to the prior restraint argument; if it did, the furore is artificial.

[LnGrrrR]

They aren't being fraudulent though. Programs like Medicare Advantage (I think that is the name) will be destroyed from the Health Care proposals.

Like I said, if they're listing just the facts, and they seem to be, I'm ok with it, even if it's in a 'fear mongering' tone.

[Wild Cobra]

Like I said, if they're listing just the facts, and they seem to be, I'm ok with it, even if it's in a 'fear mongering' tone.
So you agree this administration is guilty of issuing an unconstitutional gag order?

Even if the information is erroneous, it violates the fist amendment, right?

[Winehole23]

Programs like Medicare Advantage (I think that is the name) will be destroyed from the Health Care proposals.Perhaps. Can you prove it?

Sen. Baucus says he wants to trim the fat, critics say he's cutting the benefits:


In Medicare Advantage, the government pays private insurers like Humana to manage beneficiaries' care. The plans offer additional benefits to ordinary Medicare, and on average cost the government 14% more per beneficiary than the regular program, according to the Journal.

Baucus's recently unveiled health-care reform plan would save money by cutting payments to Advantage by $123 billion over 10 years. Democrats deny that this would threaten important benefits or services


Humana is balls deep in this 1997 addition to Medicare:


Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits.


Humana has about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, and the program accounts for about half the company's revenue, Noland said.

.

[SpurNation]

There isn't proof one way or the other that the plan would/would not cut benefits from the Advantage plan so for either side to make claims is fraudulent.

[spursncowboys]

Did they not do this to the car dealers from Obama's car companies he owns?


Baucus Bludgeons Humana

Political intimidation has always been part of the current Congress's health-care strategy: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu" is tattooed on every lobbyist and industry rep in Washington. But Max Baucus's latest bullying tactics are hard to believe by even these standards, as the Senate Finance Chairman has sicced federal regulators on the insurer Humana Inc. for daring to criticize one part of his health bill.
Earlier this month, Humana sent a one-page letter to its customers enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, which offer private options to Medicare beneficiaries. Humana noted that, because of spending cuts proposed by Democrats, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable." The Kentucky-based company also urged its customers to contact their Representatives. Pretty tame stuff, as these things go.









Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war. He complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal health-care agency, which on Friday duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was "misleading and confusing" and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.
"Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions," CMS concluded, ominously. Humana could be fined or booted from Medicare Advantage altogether.
"It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject—particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform," Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that."
In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.
A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.
Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana's yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.
This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law. For months Humana and the wider insurance lobby have been among ObamaCare's most prominent cheerleaders, with the exception of Advantage cuts and the public option—even though they'll be converted into government contractors in the business of fulfilling whatever Congress happens to dictate. The insurers are willing to give up their remaining business autonomy because Democrats intend to mandate that all consumers buy their products—but as with Advantage now, that means government will control the funds upon which the insurers' survival depends. They'll have no choice but to genuflect, or else the political class will pull out the tire irons.
Humana merely made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, and now CEO Michael McCallister had better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make him an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined."

[LnGrrrR]

So you agree this administration is guilty of issuing an unconstitutional gag order?

It's a bit above my station, and something for courts to ultimately decide, but if what they're saying isn't fraudulent then I don't think the gag order is constitutional, no.


Even if the information is erroneous, it violates the fist amendment, right?

If the information is erroneous, then there might be issues. It might be considered a form of fraud if insurers are pushing known lies to their customers.

[Winehole23]

Even if the information is erroneous, it violates the fist amendment, right?It would seem to.

OTOH, there's not much that's commendable about a company sending out misleading or erroneous information to its own clients to protect it's own pecuniary interest. Humana is selling the government -- and perhaps its own clients -- down the river to protect it's right to charge the government 14% more than it pays elsewhere within Medicare, for equivalent services.

Humana is not some ingenue on the train tracks here.

[Winehole23]

There isn't proof one way or the other that the plan would/would not cut benefits from the Advantage plan so for either side to make claims is fraudulent.Probably true. The controversy is pure logomachy, unless Humana limited itself contractually.

[SpurNation]

The government can order insurance companies in what they say/don't say regarding health insurance. My wife sold health insurance for 3 years. The language allowed in representing insurance is very clear in that regard.

If Humana is making an unproven claim (true or not)...by law...they (representatives of thier company making that claim) could loose their license.

On the other hand...it is skeptical that the feds are interveining at the same time this bill is trying to be passed because I've seen questionable material allowed in the past to be distributed without much concern.

[ChumpDumper]

So private insurers are scaring seniors about their federal government insurance because those private insurers want to keep receiving the same amount of money from the federal government.

[FromWayDowntown]

So private insurers are scaring seniors about their federal government insurance because those private insurers want to keep receiving the same amount of money from the federal government.

You obviously hate the free market.

[Winehole23]

So private insurers are scaring seniors about their federal government insurance because those private insurers want to keep receiving the same amount of money from the federal government.Yep. And board conservatives now seem to be in favor of scaring seniors --even erroneously -- to preserve Humana's right to overcharge Medicare.

[coyotes_geek]

If only the government had some kind of email address that I could report "false information" to...............

[hope4dopes]

Yep. And board conservatives now seem to be in favor of scaring seniors --even erroneously -- to preserve Humana's right to overcharge Medicare. And meglomanica liberals seem to be in favor of stomping on peoples civil rights and wiping their asses on the constitution,but at least no body is scared......except, well me and few other millions.

[ChumpDumper]

What a pussy micca is.

He scares easily.

[Winehole23]

And meglomanica liberals seem to be in favor of stomping on peoples civil rights and wiping their asses on the constitution,but at least no body is scared......except, well me and few other millions.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/OrangeClouds_115/LOLcats/MollyACLU1.jpg

[hope4dopes]

What a pussy micca is.

He scares easily. Yeh well like I said me along with millions of other pussies.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, you are all indeed pussies.

Thanks for admitting it.

I'm not in favor of every health proposal in the works, but some good will probably come out of this process.

[hope4dopes]

Yep, you are all indeed pussies.

Thanks for admitting it.

I'm not in favor of every health proposal in the works, but some good will probably come out of this process. Throw us a bone Chimp not all of us grew up in the badlands of suburban texas.

[hope4dopes]

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/OrangeClouds_115/LOLcats/MollyACLU1.jpg Wow now that's a shocker.

[SpurNation]

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/OrangeClouds_115/LOLcats/MollyACLU1.jpg

I don't care who you are...that's funny right there. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Throw us a bone Chimp not all of us grew up in the badlands of suburban texas.If you would explain things like how you completely avoid foods affected by immigrant labor, I might have some respect for you, internets tough guy -- but you run away like a pussy when you are asked such things, so how can one conclude you are anything but a coward?

[Winehole23]

Wow now that's a shocker.I'm meant you. You're the one striking the very unlikely pose of civil rights avenger in this thread. Context is key. Pay attention to the frames.

[Wild Cobra]

If only the government had some kind of email address that I could report "false information" to...............
They did, but apparently they got so many reports of false liberal claims, they had to shut it down.

[hope4dopes]

If you would explain things like how you completely avoid foods affected by immigrant labor, I might have some respect for you, internets tough guy -- but you run away like a pussy when you are asked such things, so how can one conclude you are anything but a coward?

I thought we established I was the pussy already, and you, and the Obama free speech squashers were the tough guys.

[jack sommerset]

"We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they have to say," McConnell said.

"Is this what we believe as a Senate -- that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every American while using the powerful arm of government to shut down speech?" McConnell said.

Well duh!

[hope4dopes]

I'm meant you. You're the one striking the very unlikely pose of civil rights avenger in this thread. Context is key. Pay attention to the frames.
Sorry whinehole I thought you had bought a membership to the ACLU for your cat and then regestered him as a democrat with ACORN, and cast his vote for Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought we established I was the pussy already, and you, and the Obama free speech squashers were the tough guys.Nah, you've always been a pussy. I personally don't know if the insurance companies signed away their rights when they agreed to affix themselves to the government teat.

Do you?

I await your non-answer tirade.

[hope4dopes]

These guys are looking more and more like Hugo daily.

[hope4dopes]

Nah, you've always been a pussy. I personally don't know if the insurance companies signed away their rights when they agreed to affix themselves to the government teat.

Do you?

I await your non-answer tirade.
Apparentlly all of our rights were signed away in the Obama worldview.

[ChumpDumper]

Apparentlly all of our rights were signed away in the Obama worldview.That wasn't the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[Winehole23]

"We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they have to say," McConnell said. Consider this: should the government have any say about about how private companies market government programs?

[hope4dopes]

That wasn't the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government? Well now let me check....herrrrrrre.......ah well. Well I'll .......be......damned. Chimp your right there does exist a legal right for facists or indeed thuggish repression when deemed neccesary by..........an enlightened being, and or messianic leader.

[ChumpDumper]

Well now let me check....herrrrrrre.......ah well. Well I'll .......be......damned. Chimp your right there does exist a legal right for facists or indeed thuggish repression when deemed neccesary by..........an enlightened being, and or messianic leader.Again, that wasn't the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[Winehole23]

Sorry whinehole I thought you had bought a membership to the ACLU for your cat and then regestered him as a democrat with ACORN, and cast his vote for Obama.You can start paying attention to the topic anytime you like. It doesn't seem you progressed very far past the banner. Do you dislike reading?

[hope4dopes]

You can start paying attention to the topic anytime you like. It doesn't seem you progressed very far past the banner. Do you dislike reading?

Well precious honestly I do tend to nod off when the writing is bombastic horseshit.

[hope4dopes]

Again, that wasn't the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government? If I give you the wrong answer is there like a website you give the whitehouse my name to or something?

[Winehole23]

Well precious honestly I do tend to nod off when the writing is bombastic horseshit.Can you identify particular claims made in the thread as horseshit?

Then maybe we can start to have a conversation, should that interest you.

[Winehole23]

Otherwise, your own post is just more boobtastic horseshit.

[hope4dopes]

Can you identify particular claims made in the thread as horseshit?

Then maybe we can start to have a conversation, should that interest you.

It's been fun precious but...I swear you and your little Chimp are as busy as a one legged man in an ass kicking contests try to prop up this joke of a regime. You all are loyal,but what else can you be?
I thought your lame ass defense of Acorn was funny,but Obama is keeping you both running trying to plug up the cracks in the dam.You got all your fingers and toes,and especially your noses in cracks, but there seems to be a new one appearing almost daily. Now this new little bit of Chicago style thuggary....have fun with it.

[spursncowboys]

The government can order insurance companies in what they say/don't say regarding health insurance. My wife sold health insurance for 3 years. The language allowed in representing insurance is very clear in that regard.

IMO this is too much govt. intervention. Why? Is it the National govt.?

[clambake]

good answer, micca.

witty and clever.

[LnGrrrR]

IMO this is too much govt. intervention. Why? Is it the National govt.?

I believe Spurnation meant that insurance companies that are involved with government run programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are limited by law in what they can say. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to pipe up.

[spursncowboys]

Can you identify particular claims made in the thread as horseshit?

Then maybe we can start to have a conversation, should that interest you.
The CBO Director said "Douglas Elmendorf said the cuts could reduce the generous benefits that the seniors in Medicare's private managed care plans enjoy."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/senate-dems-reject-gop-attempt-greater-transparency-health-care/

[ChumpDumper]

If I give you the wrong answer is there like a website you give the whitehouse my name to or something?No.

Will you answer the question now?

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[spursncowboys]

That wasn't the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?
ChumpDumper, was your dream as a kid to be Connie Chung?

[clambake]

could. which i guess could mean increase benefits.

[hope4dopes]

ChumpDumper, was your dream as a kid to be Connie Chung? Why yes it was, and he is .......at least in a seedy bar on the weekends.

[hope4dopes]

I believe Spurnation meant that insurance companies that are involved with government run programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are limited by law in what they can say. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to pipe up.

I once told a lawyer, that it seemed to me that lawyers weren't in the least interesed in the truth. He laughed and said the law isn't about the truth, it's about advocacy.

[boutons_deux]

WH told/ordered the corps to quit lying to seniors.

Does that have ANY legal weight and enforceability in the courts, as a judge's legal gag order does?

[ChumpDumper]

ChumpDumper, was your dream as a kid to be Connie Chung?No.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

micca can't answer this simple question for some reason.

[boutons_deux]

"The government might take enforcement action against insurers"

The govt cutting payouts (more) to care providers is NOT the same as cutting care to care receivers.

Medicare/Medicaid already pays less/has limits for services than private insurers.

Paying less would be one way to force down the cost of Medicare/Medicaid, which the right-wing whiners says is SO expensive. So the govt intends to make it less expensive, and now the whiners whine about that.

All Trashy Politics, All the Time.

... with no constructive/good faith opposition or alternatives.

[nuclearfm]

No.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

micca can't answer this simple question for some reason.

I don't know how you figured out his name was micca, but what a goofy fucking name. It's a mark of the decline of good male names in this country.

I bet you 10 times out of 10. Tony, Vinny and Joey would beat the shit out of Dilan, Todd and Micca. Weak names make for weak people.

[hope4dopes]

[QUOTE=nuclearfm;3704212]I don't know how you figured out his name was micca, but what a goofy fucking name. It's a mark of the decline of good male names in this country.

I bet you 10 times out of 10. Tony, Vinny and Joey would beat the shit out of Dilan, Todd and Micca. Weak names make for weak people.[/QUO yeah but dilan could wipe the floor with nuclearfm whatever the fuck that is.

[hope4dopes]

No.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

micca can't answer this simple question for some reason.how's that wig working out for you.

[LnGrrrR]

WH told/ordered the corps to quit lying to seniors.

Does that have ANY legal weight and enforceability in the courts, as a judge's legal gag order does?

If the government is paying for Medicaid/Medicare, it might.

If they're lying about their claims, then it might.

[ChumpDumper]

how's that wig working out for you.I don't wear a wig.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[hope4dopes]

I don't wear a wig.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government? grew yours out.........you little cat...meow.

[ChumpDumper]

grew yours out.........you little cat...meow.Uh, you're kind of going off the rails here. You are really interested in my hair now.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[hope4dopes]

Uh, you're kind of going off the rails here. You are really interested in my hair now.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

Going off the rails? the only way to talk to a dumbshit like you is off the rails connie.

[ChumpDumper]

Going off the rails? the only way to talk to a dumbshit like you is off the rails connie.Nah, you could put your fantasies about me aside and just answer the question.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?

[spursncowboys]

Uh, you're kind of going off the rails here. You are really interested in my hair now.

Do you know if the insurers signed away their rights to communicate freely with customers when they agreed to take money from the federal government?
Does that make it right?

[LnGrrrR]

Does that make it right?

If they're getting paid by a government entity, then I could see a reason why the government might have some control over how they're allowed to communicate, yes.

[jack sommerset]

If they're getting paid by a government entity, then I could see a reason why the government might have some control over how they're allowed to communicate, yes.

The government is the people. These people can say what they want.

[ChumpDumper]

Does that make it right?It could certainly make all whining about it moot. If you don't believe in the terms of a contract -- don't sign that contract. If you don't believe in contracts -- well, that could be a problem for you.

[ChumpDumper]

The government is the people. These people can say what they want.Not if they signed away their ability to say anything they want.

[baseline bum]

Well, the Obama administration, true in their authoritarian beliefs, put a halt on the first amendment again:

Insurers Criticize Administration 'Gag Order' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092201849.html)

How come I never heard you bitching when Bush's DOJ locked Max Hardcore up for producing videos between consenting adults? Where was your pseudo-libertarian ass then?

[hope4dopes]

Yes I agree I mean after all the goverment WANTS the truth to be told.The goverment WANTS transparancy.

[SpurNation]

If they're getting paid by a government entity, then I could see a reason why the government might have some control over how they're allowed to communicate, yes.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if one likes it...it's the law.

Medicaid/Medicare issues are strictly confined by government laws regarding what private insurance providers can say.

However...there is nothing to prove by this bill that states (if passed as is) the participants in the Advantage program WON'T loose out on certain benefits.

That could be a loophole that would continue to allow an insurance company to "WARN" it's customers about. But if the message states it WILL cut benefits...that's a different story.

[hope4dopes]

How come I never heard you bitching when Bush's DOJ locked Max Hardcore up for producing videos between consenting adults? Where was your pseudo-libertarian ass then?

Was that the video with Obama's safe school czar kevin jennings in it with this bad drag queen dressed up like connie chung. Yes I mean low grade porn should be put forward in it's proper place in the national debate.

[baseline bum]

Was that the video with Obama's safe school czar kevin jennings in it with this bad drag queen dressed up like connie chung. Yes I mean low grade porn should be put forward in it's proper place in the national debate.

If unpopular expression isn't protected, then there's no point whatsoever to even having a first amendment. Why do you hate the bill of rights?

[hope4dopes]

If unpopular expression isn't protected, then there's no point whatsoever to even having a first amendment. Why do you hate the bill of rights? You do realize this is the regime that is trying to enact the "fairness doctrine" the reigime who has a czar that felt Hugo Chavez's crushing and closing down of all media that was politically dissenting was an admirable thing.That now wants to silence any political dissent in America for it's failing Obamacare bill,
and your concern is for an obscure, low grade porno film.

[spursncowboys]

So are people who get food stamps or WIC able to voice their dissent to our govt? The govt. When does this slippery slope stop?It is not right for the president and senators to tell a private co. that they cannot tell factual statements about their company. "Business of America is business" Pres. C. Cooledge

[ChumpDumper]

So are people who get food stamps or WIC able to voice their dissent to our govt?Did they sign anything to that effect?
The govt. When does this slippery slope stop?Probably when companies don't sign agreements.
It is not right for the president and senators to tell a private co. that they cannot tell factual statements about their company.If they signed away that right to get government money, perhaps -- maybe you should find out if that is the case.

[SpurNation]

So are people who get food stamps or WIC able to voice their dissent to our govt? The govt. When does this slippery slope stop?It is not right for the president and senators to tell a private co. that they cannot tell factual statements about their company. "Business of America is business" Pres. C. Cooledge

I hear what your syaing but...nothing has been proven "factual" regarding this bill.

As I stated before...they could warn of the "possibility"...but can't state it as "fact". Nor can the government state it as "fact" regarding the other side.

[spursncowboys]

I hear what your syaing but...nothing has been proven "factual" regarding this bill.

As I stated before...they could warn of the "possibility"...but can't state it as "fact". Nor can the government state it as "fact" regarding the other side.
The amount hasn't become a fact until it happens. However everybody without a personal stake in this, like CBO Director, says they will lose benefits.
To me it still comes down to the govt. meddling too much. There is a clear clash of interests. The govt. (not working for a profit) is disallowing a private company from marketing to increase their profit, or lessen their loss. So the govt. wants to compete with a private business but then won't let them try and sell their product.

[baseline bum]

You do realize this is the regime that is trying to enact the "fairness doctrine" the reigime who has a czar that felt Hugo Chavez's crushing and closing down of all media that was politically dissenting was an admirable thing.That now wants to silence any political dissent in America for it's failing Obamacare bill,
and your concern is for an obscure, low grade porno film.

I have repeatedly stated on here I don't support shutting up the idiots you worship like Limbaugh. And yes, locking up a guy for making porn with consenting adults and selling it to adults is a huge injustice, and a textbook case of conservatives with agendas wiping their asses with the bill of rights.

[hope4dopes]

I have repeatedly stated on here I don't support shutting up the idiots you worship like Limbaugh. And yes, locking up a guy for making porn with consenting adults and selling it to adults is a huge injustice, and a textbook case of conservatives with agendas wiping their asses with the bill of rights. Yes that's a HUGE INJUSTICE. free political dissent is sort of an aside.Well we all have different priorities.

[spursncowboys]

I have repeatedly stated on here I don't support shutting up the idiots you worship like Limbaugh. And yes, locking up a guy for making porn with consenting adults and selling it to adults is a huge injustice, and a textbook case of conservatives with agendas wiping their asses with the bill of rights.
I doubt the bill of rights was made with porn in mind. Prostitution has nothing to do with Amendment 1.


First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment), Free Exercise Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment); freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), Freedom of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Religion), and of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly); right to petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States),

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[LnGrrrR]

I doubt the bill of rights was made with porn in mind. Prostitution has nothing to do with Amendment 1.


First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment), Free Exercise Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment); freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), Freedom of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Religion), and of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly); right to petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States),
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Really? You don't think porn is a form of free speech? I'm pretty sure it involves expression.

Also, the 9th Amendment states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are still protected.

Also, America's system of justice goes by common law, not civil law, and in most cases, porn is considered free speech.

Your idea of what the 1st Amendment protects is extremely limited and faulty to boot.

[baseline bum]

I doubt the bill of rights was made with porn in mind. Prostitution has nothing to do with Amendment 1.


First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment), Free Exercise Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment); freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), Freedom of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Religion), and of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly); right to petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States),

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

You sound just like one of the idiots who tries to argue that the second amendment only allows establishment of a militia. Unpopular speech and expression is EXACTLY what the people who wrote the bill of rights had in mind.

[spursncowboys]

Really? You don't think porn is a form of free speech? I'm pretty sure it involves expression.

Also, the 9th Amendment states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are still protected.

Also, America's system of justice goes by common law, not civil law, and in most cases, porn is considered free speech.

Your idea of what the 1st Amendment protects is extremely limited and faulty to boot. Porn is not speech protected by the Constitution. That is a fact. Watching porn in your own house is protected.
The only thing you know of my interpretation of the 1st Amendment protections is that I don't think it protects sex for profit from government. That is not enough for you to say I have an "extremely limited and faulty" view.

[doobs]

For those who are interested:

http://volokh.com/posts/1253725442.shtml

http://volokh.com/posts/1253577624.shtml

[spursncowboys]

You sound just like one of the idiots who tries to argue that the second amendment only allows establishment of a militia. Unpopular speech and expression is EXACTLY what the people who wrote the bill of rights had in mind.
You just sound like an idiot.

[LnGrrrR]

Porn is not speech protected by the Constitution. That is a fact. Watching porn in your own house is protected.
The only thing you know of my interpretation of the 1st Amendment protections is that I don't think it protects sex for profit from government. That is not enough for you to say I have an "extremely limited and faulty" view.

Please explain why porn is not protected by freedom of speech then. I'm willing to hear the argument if you're willing to produce it.

[spursncowboys]

For those who are interested:

http://volokh.com/posts/1253725442.shtml

http://volokh.com/posts/1253577624.shtml

So Obama has broken the law and went against the constitution. Let's see how many newspapers this gets to. If any at all - probably page 20 in the lifestyle section next to the sudoku.

[baseline bum]

You just sound like an idiot.

You sound like a false conservative. Why do you hate freedom of speech? Go move to China.

[spursncowboys]

Please explain why porn is not protected by freedom of speech then. I'm willing to hear the argument if you're willing to produce it.
Actually that is something you should try and explain to me. All I am talking about is precedent. The constitution does not protect "obscene" speech (obscene is defined by the courts) In almost every case porn is considered obscene. I can't define obscene for the legal definition. It's not an argument. It's not protected. In 69, I think, the supreme ct ruled it was a right to be able to watch porn in your own house. I found this debate about a state college trying to show a porn to a public audience. They had two elected officials debate and it is pretty insightful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/06/DI2009040601746.html

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama has broken the law and went against the constitution.So you didn't read the articles.

[spursncowboys]

Chump, Did you?
The Humana Controversy and Government Funding:
"-So if the government simply directed Humana not to use federally-provided funds for its political advocacy to recipients, that would be permissible. It's possible that if Humana used a federally-provided mailing list for its mailing (I don't know whether that's true), the government could attach similar restrictions on the use of the mailing list. But the government went further: It instructed Humana even to take the advocacy off its Web site, without regard to whether Humana used government-provided money for such advocacy. That, it seems to me, is unconstitutional under FCC v. League of Women Voters."
"-But the Court considered that argument in League of Women Voters and rejected it. And when the government (federal, state, and local) controls 25-30% of the GNP, and provides valuable range of contracts and subsidies to a vast range of institutions, including private universities, think tanks, newspapers, and so on, giving the government a free hand to restrict recipients' speech as a condition of its contracts would give the government vast power over public debate."

[ChumpDumper]

Did you?Yes.

[spursncowboys]

Yes.
So did Obama do something unconstitutional? Did he break the law?

[ChumpDumper]

So did Obama do something unconstitutional? Did he break the law?I'd say it's probably a matter for the court to further decide.

And it probably will.

[SpurNation]

Where does it say Obama ordered the gag?

Though it might just have cause as being unconstitutional...nothing points to Obama being the one who personally ordered it.

Of course... if heads might fly on this...the road to order just might lead to...

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You guys are acting like he would go to prison over this.

Just like Rumsfeld went to prison after he lost Hamdan, right?

It certainly could be unconstitutional, but c'mon....

[baseline bum]

Actually that is something you should try and explain to me. All I am talking about is precedent. The constitution does not protect "obscene" speech (obscene is defined by the courts) In almost every case porn is considered obscene. I can't define obscene for the legal definition. It's not an argument. It's not protected. In 69, I think, the supreme ct ruled it was a right to be able to watch porn in your own house. I found this debate about a state college trying to show a porn to a public audience. They had two elected officials debate and it is pretty insightful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/06/DI2009040601746.html

So in other words, you support people twisting the words of the bill of rights, which does guarantee protection for free speech and expression, to suit their own agendas. In which case Obama is free to censor ignorant right-wing radio and health-care dissidents up (your idea of free speech, not mine son).

[spursncowboys]

So in other words, you support people twisting the words of the bill of rights, which does guarantee protection for free speech and expression, to suit their own agendas. In which case Obama is free to censor ignorant right-wing radio and health-care dissidents up (your idea of free speech, not mine son).
Where did you get that? I am talking about what the courts say. I previously said that I did not think the Bill of Rights were set up with porn in mind. What does talkradio dissenting against govt. policies and "celebrities" have to do with two paid prostitutes making and selling a movie? With your innuendos, and basis are you saying that the B of Rights protects child porn too? Can someone walk into a church and yell fire also? Can someone go to a icehouse and tell the clerk they are robbing the store in a joke without being charged with a crime? Can someone cuss around a child?

[LnGrrrR]

Actually that is something you should try and explain to me. All I am talking about is precedent. The constitution does not protect "obscene" speech (obscene is defined by the courts) In almost every case porn is considered obscene. I can't define obscene for the legal definition. It's not an argument. It's not protected. In 69, I think, the supreme ct ruled it was a right to be able to watch porn in your own house. I found this debate about a state college trying to show a porn to a public audience. They had two elected officials debate and it is pretty insightful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/06/DI2009040601746.html

Yeah, I found that too. And one of them, Titus, thinks it falls under the obscenity rule, and the other says it doesn't.

Tell you what, I'll do some research and get back to you. Off the top of my head, I think obscenity rules don't have a strong Constitutional basis. If a piece of art where Jesus is inserted into a jar of urine is protected, then porn should also be protected.

The idea of an 'obscenity rule' also, to me, goes against what the First Amendment is there to protect. It seems like a bandaid grafted onto the Constitution by SCOTUS in order to make questionable rulings seem supported by a hard and fast rule.

But that's another argument. First, I'll respond to the "Is porn always obscene?" discussion.

[baseline bum]

Where did you get that? I am talking about what the courts say. I previously said that I did not think the Bill of Rights were set up with porn in mind. What does talkradio dissenting against govt. policies and "celebrities" have to do with two paid prostitutes making and selling a movie? With your innuendos, and basis are you saying that the B of Rights protects child porn too? Can someone walk into a church and yell fire also? Can someone go to a icehouse and tell the clerk they are robbing the store in a joke without being charged with a crime? Can someone cuss around a child?

Why are you arguing such strawmen? Child porn isn't protected because having sex with a child is rape. Yelling fire in a church is done with malicious intent to start a stampede. Your ice house example is a threat. Cussing around a child isn't against the law.

[baseline bum]

Pornography on the other hand isn't prostitution; actors are paid by producers to make an exhibition to sell to consenting adults. The actors aren't the customers.

[spursncowboys]

Why are you arguing such strawmen? Child porn isn't protected because having sex with a child is rape. Yelling fire in a church is done with malicious intent to start a stampede. Your ice house example is a threat. Cussing around a child isn't against the law.
All those examples were instances where the SC decided against freedom of speech.
Lngrr: I never said always. The real discussion should be "is porn a constitutionally protected right, particularly amendment 1.

[LnGrrrR]

Well first off, obviously not all porn is considered obscene; if it was, then it would be unconstitutional. However, given the fact that porn is obviously still around, then it must be constitutional at some times.

This article, back in 73, states some of the problems of defining pornography. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907466,00.html

I will walk back my statement that porn, ipso facto, is protected by the First Amendment. It is occasionally protected, it seems, but not always.

[spursncowboys]

Hoooah


(who-a) (http://www.cavhooah.com/Downloads/hooah.wav) adj. (slang used by soldiers) Referring to or meaning anything and everything except "no".

1. What to say when at a loss for words.

2. Good copy, solid copy, Roger, good, great, Message received, understood.

3. Glad to meet you, welcome.

4. I don't know the answer, but I'll check on it. I haven't the vaguest idea.

5. I am not listening.

6. That's enough of your dribble...SIT DOWN!

7. Stop sniveling.

8. Oh, shit! You've got to be kidding.

9. Yes

10. Thank you.

11. Go to the next briefing slide.

12. You've taken the correct action.

13. I don't know what that means, and I'm too embarrassed to ask for clarification.

14. AMEN!

[baseline bum]

All those examples were instances where the SC decided against freedom of speech.
Lngrr: I never said always. The real discussion should be "is porn a constitutionally protected right, particularly amendment 1.

So I take it you support the right to abortion then?

[baseline bum]

Well first off, obviously not all porn is considered obscene; if it was, then it would be unconstitutional. However, given the fact that porn is obviously still around, then it must be constitutional at some times.

This article, back in 73, states some of the problems of defining pornography. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907466,00.html

I will walk back my statement that porn, ipso facto, is protected by the First Amendment. It is occasionally protected, it seems, but not always.

Porn is absolutely protected by the first amendment on paper, just not in practice. Kind of like the rights of blacks for the first ~200 years of our nation's existence.

[LnGrrrR]

Lngrr: I never said always. The real discussion should be "is porn a constitutionally protected right, particularly amendment 1.

That's a discussion worth having, I feel.

Should porn be protected by the First Amendment?

I would argue that the First Amendment is there not to protect speech that is acceptable, but speech that is unacceptable. As well, to limit it only to 'speech', and not expressions of speech, is also to read it incorrectly.

Much like a performance of the play "Hair" should be protected under the First Amendment, so, I argue, should porn.

The only thing causing porn to be 'obscene' is its lack of artistic value. But who gets to say what has artistic value, and what does not? If it is the court deciding individually between each case, how is that court not being activist?

I would argue it would make more sense, both logically and Constitutionally, to let all porn be considered protected speech. If I want to wear a shirt that shows two people having sex on it, why is that more offensive than wearing a shirt that shows, say, a decapitated head or something similar?

[spursncowboys]

That's a discussion worth having, I feel.

Should porn be protected by the First Amendment?

I would argue that the First Amendment is there not to protect speech that is acceptable, but speech that is unacceptable. As well, to limit it only to 'speech', and not expressions of speech, is also to read it incorrectly.

Much like a performance of the play "Hair" should be protected under the First Amendment, so, I argue, should porn.

The only thing causing porn to be 'obscene' is its lack of artistic value. But who gets to say what has artistic value, and what does not? If it is the court deciding individually between each case, how is that court not being activist?

I would argue it would make more sense, both logically and Constitutionally, to let all porn be considered protected speech. If I want to wear a shirt that shows two people having sex on it, why is that more offensive than wearing a shirt that shows, say, a decapitated head or something similar?
I don't know all cases but RoeVWade and Dred Scott are two of the worst supreme court decisions. They did not follow anyone's understanding of the Constitution and helped in the murder of millions. The one where the govt. can take your private property in the name of benefiting the community is bad too but no one died because of it. I did not mean to make it seem like I agree with all of the decisions.
I disagree. I do not think the FF gave freedom of speech with the idea that AMericans should be able to be as obscene as possible. The shirt with a decapitated head is illegal to wear in many communities in America. I think it was made to protect people from the govt. trying to silence their dissent. sagging, burning a National or State flag, having curse words tattooed visibly, aren't a protected Constitutional "right" IMO.

The porn I want to look in different levels. 1. the adults having sex for money. 2. The company making and selling the video adults having sex. 3. People possessing the video of people having sex. The first two I cannot see as a constitutionally protected right. I believe 3 in almost all levels should be protecting that individual from govt. intrusion into his private life.
With all this said, I think the National govt. should give states the option if they want to legalize prostitution(which I believe porn to be a subcategory of).

[baseline bum]

I don't know all cases but RoeVWade and Dred Scott are two of the worst supreme court decisions. They did not follow anyone's understanding of the Constitution and helped in the murder of millions. The one where the govt. can take your private property in the name of benefiting the community is bad too but no one died because of it. I did not mean to make it seem like I agree with all of the decisions.
I disagree. I do not think the FF gave freedom of speech with the idea that AMericans should be able to be as obscene as possible. The shirt with a decapitated head is illegal to wear in many communities in America. I think it was made to protect people from the govt. trying to silence their dissent. sagging, burning a National or State flag, having curse words tattooed visibly, aren't a protected Constitutional "right" IMO.

The porn I want to look in different levels. 1. the adults having sex for money. 2. The company making and selling the video adults having sex. 3. People possessing the video of people having sex. The first two I cannot see as a constitutionally protected right. I believe 3 in almost all levels should be protecting that individual from govt. intrusion into his private life.
With all this said, I think the National govt. should give states the option if they want to legalize prostitution(which I believe porn to be a subcategory of).

So all of a sudden the Supreme Court isn't an infallible end-all for all discussions about constitutional rights? :lol

[spursncowboys]

So all of a sudden the Supreme Court isn't an infallible end-all for all discussions about constitutional rights? :lol:troll

[Bartleby]

burning a National or State flag, having curse words tattooed visibly, aren't a protected Constitutional "right" IMO.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

[baseline bum]

:troll

Your whole argument was that porn isn't protected by the constitution because the supreme court says child porn is illegal (hello dumbass, porn is not the same thing as rape) and threatening to rob someone is illegal. Then you project and say the framers of the constitution didn't have porn in mind when they wrote up the first amendment. What exactly did they have in mind then, if unpopular and offensive speech and expression wasn't it? This country wasn't built to enforce puritanical ideals down peoples' throats. Obscenity laws go directly against the 1st amendment.

The spirit of the first amendment is that if you don't like what someone is saying, then don't listen. Unbelievable that we have obscenity laws in this country where a guy can go to prison for showing consentual sex acts but it's no big deal to watch simulated murders on prime-time TV or actual killings on DVD.

I suppose if you're going to take this stupid absolutist stance and call pornography prostitution since people have sex and earn a paycheck, you should also want to outlaw boxing as felony assault. I mean, it's two guys beating the shit out of each other in public.

[baseline bum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

:lmao

Burning flags in protest is EXACTLY what the framers had in mind with the first amendment. They didn't want a government that could tell you that you couldn't disagree with it and disrespect it. Hell, Jefferson thought there should be revolution every 20 years, not people sucking up to the state and afraid to offend it. spursncowboys, you have the most ass-backwards interpretation of the first amendment that I have ever seen on this forum.

[Winehole23]

I thought your lame ass defense of Acorn was funny,but Obama is keeping you both running trying to plug up the cracks in the dam.I only said Acorn deserved the flames and was a spectacle fit for morons such as yourself. You call that an apology. Posters can judge for thmeselves whether it is or not.


Now this new little bit of Chicago style thuggary....have fun with it.I do not think it fun that Humana overcharges for Plan C, the Medicare Advantage program.

Do you?

[Winehole23]

For those who are interested:

http://volokh.com/posts/1253725442.shtml

http://volokh.com/posts/1253577624.shtmlThe comment threads are very worthwhile IMO. Thanks, doobs. :tu

The actual HHS cease and desist letter apparently fails to cite any authority for its request. It basically says "stop what you're doing while we figure out if we have any good cause to ask you to stop." Weak.

Another thing to consider is the public fraction of GDP -- about 40%. Giving government too free a hand to quash speech could be very chilling.

OTOH, tying (possibly misleading) speech to a Medicare sales pitch walks an ethical line. I can understand why this raises an alarm.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know all cases but RoeVWade and Dred Scott are two of the worst supreme court decisions. They did not follow anyone's understanding of the Constitution and helped in the murder of millions. The one where the govt. can take your private property in the name of benefiting the community is bad too but no one died because of it. I did not mean to make it seem like I agree with all of the decisions.
I disagree. I do not think the FF gave freedom of speech with the idea that AMericans should be able to be as obscene as possible. The shirt with a decapitated head is illegal to wear in many communities in America. I think it was made to protect people from the govt. trying to silence their dissent. sagging, burning a National or State flag, having curse words tattooed visibly, aren't a protected Constitutional "right" IMO.

The Founding Fathers may have, perhaps, wished only to protect 'political' freedom of speech. But there are two big problems with that statement. One, it's tough sometimes to draw a line between where things are political and where they are not. Two, the biggest issue with this view, is that the 1st Amendment specifically protects freedom of speech, period stop. Not political speech, or any specific kind of speech. If a person wants to have visible curse words tattooed on his body, why shouldn't he be able to? It's his choice, and people can choose to associate or dissociate with him due to that choice.

Oh, and burning a national flag can DEFINITELY be viewed as political speech, and (I believe) has precedent as such in court.


The porn I want to look in different levels. 1. the adults having sex for money. 2. The company making and selling the video adults having sex. 3. People possessing the video of people having sex. The first two I cannot see as a constitutionally protected right. I believe 3 in almost all levels should be protecting that individual from govt. intrusion into his private life.
With all this said, I think the National govt. should give states the option if they want to legalize prostitution(which I believe porn to be a subcategory of).

The legality of prostitution is a wholly different issue. For the record, I'm also for the legalization of prostitution.

I can see your point where people getting paid for money might be considered prostitution. However, then we're getting back into the "Is it legal to make porn" argument, instead of the "Should porn be Constitutionally protected" argument, which I'd rather stick to.

[spursncowboys]

Your whole argument was that porn isn't protected by the constitution because the supreme court says child porn is illegal (hello dumbass, porn is not the same thing as rape) statatory rape
and threatening to rob someone is illegal. They are illegal because the supreme court held precedent or decided it is not a protected right.
Then you project and say the framers of the constitution didn't have porn in mind when they wrote up the first amendment. What exactly did they have in mind then, if unpopular and offensive speech and expression wasn't it? dissenting opinion speech against the govt. The Alien Sedition Act is a great example of why they created the 1st amendment.
This country wasn't built to enforce puritanical ideals down peoples' throats. Obscenity laws go directly against the 1st amendment.

The spirit of the first amendment is that if you don't like what someone is saying, then don't listen. Unbelievable that we have obscenity laws in this country where a guy can go to prison for showing consentual sex acts but it's no big deal to watch simulated murders on prime-time TV or actual killings on DVD.

I suppose if you're going to take this stupid absolutist stance and call pornography prostitution since people have sex and earn a paycheck, you should also want to outlaw boxing as felony assault. I mean, it's two guys beating the shit out of each other in public.
You are saying that because their are obscene things on tv than more should be allowed. I don't agree. You also assume that the spirit of the first amendment is to allow the worst of the worst. I don't agree. Stop acting like your OPINION is absolute.

[spursncowboys]

Three Possible Approaches to
First Amendment Analysis 1. The Absolutist Approach
The absolutist approach is most often associated with Justice Black, who held that the First Amendment meant exactly what it says: that Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech. Under this approach, the only question is whether the action in conduct is truly "speech" (and therefore protected) or "conduct" (and therefore subject to reasonable governmental regulation. Even absolutists such as Justice Black recognized that words might be so closely connected with producing a specific action (such as entering into a contract with a hitman or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) as to be unprotected.
2. The Categorical Approach
The categorical approach would protect or not protect speech based on the label that is attached to the speech in question. Certain categories of speech are seen (such as, for example, obscenity or "fighting words" or--at one time--commercial speech) as falling entirely outside of First Amendment protection, whereas most other categories of speech are either highly protected or protected absolutely.
3. The Balancing Approach
The balancing approach rejects the absolutist approach as impracticable and the categorical approach as artificial. Balancers believe that in every case courts should weigh the individual's interest in free expression against the government's interest in restricting the speech in question. Most balancers hold that the presumption should be in favor of free expression--that there is a thumb on that side of the scale--which can only be overcome with a showing of an especially strong governmental interest. (Some commentators have distinguished between "definitional" and "categorical" balancers. The definitional balancers favor the sort of ad hoc balancing in which every individual factual difference of a particular defendant could affect the balancing, whereas the categorical balancers look at the interests of speakers in the category that the includes the defendant.)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm

[LnGrrrR]

I'm more of an absolutist myself, I'd say. And I also don't think there's a strong governmental interest in preventing porn.

[Winehole23]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/EC_Repubs_press_Waxman_on_Humana_gag_order.html

[LnGrrrR]

No rebuttal SpursnCowboys to my post?

Thanks for the update WH.