Stepping on the First Amendment

[baseline bum]

Actually that is something you should try and explain to me. All I am talking about is precedent. The cons ution 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...040601746.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 pros utes 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 cons ution 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...040601746.html

Yeah, I found that too. And one of them, us, 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 Cons utional 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 Cons ution 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 pros utes 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 pros ution; 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 cons utionally protected right, particularly amendment 1.

[LnGrrrR]

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

This article, back in 73, states some of the problems of defining pornography. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...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) 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, ! 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 cons utionally 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 uncons utional. However, given the fact that porn is obviously still around, then it must be cons utional at some times.

This article, back in 73, states some of the problems of defining pornography. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...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 cons utionally 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 Cons utionally, 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 Cons utionally, 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 Cons ution 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 Cons utional "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 cons utionally 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 pros ution(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 Cons ution 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 Cons utional "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 cons utionally 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 pros ution(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 cons utional rights?

[spursncowboys]

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

[Bartleby]

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

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

[baseline bum]

Your whole argument was that porn isn't protected by the cons ution because the supreme court says child porn is illegal ( o 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 cons ution 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 pros ution 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 out of each other in public.

[baseline bum]

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

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. , 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.shtml

The comment threads are very worthwhile IMO. Thanks, doobs.

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 Cons ution 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 Cons utional "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 cons utionally 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 pros ution(which I believe porn to be a subcategory of).

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

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

[spursncowboys]

Your whole argument was that porn isn't protected by the cons ution because the supreme court says child porn is illegal ( o 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 cons ution 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 pros ution 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 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/proj...irstaminto.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/09...gag_order.html

[LnGrrrR]

No rebuttal SpursnCowboys to my post?

Thanks for the update WH.