Father Ashcroft protects us from porn

[sendec]

Uh, actually, there are a couple crimes involved. I cannot cite the USC or MPC off the top of my head but there are typically "Use of minor in sexually oriented material" style offenses, endangering and enticing statutes, pandering, importuning and prostitution, in that actors are being paid for a sexual performance. Additionally the oft discussed sexual activity, contact or conduct may pose a distinct assault offense.

I continue to fail to see the merit in arguing that porn involving minors is a First Amendment issue. The Supremes have long held, over both liberal and conservative Courts, that freedom of speech is'nt absolute. It is also difficult to claim an entitlement to privacy when using what is basically a public utility, the internet.

If people are going to argue that Rodin could be considered porn in the same league as kiddy porn it invalidates the constructionist premise. Any form of speech, or any other activity has to be judged on a continuum of legitimacy. A rhetorically and forensically sound argument can be made for many, many fringe statements, but it will be difficult to do so for some forms of porn, primarily kiddy porn, bestiality and depictions simulated or otherwise of violent sex offenses. As strict constructionists willing to claim that the drafters wanted to protect these forms of speech?

 

[Mr. Clark]

HINT: Child pornography is not a first amendment issue, because you have to commit a crime (sexual assault of a minor) to make it. Hence, the problem isn't one of "free expression," but rather that the kiddie porn is per se proof that a crime was committed. If you buy it, you are paying someone to abuse a minor.

Sean Smith, your HINT is inaccurate. See the recent thread about the 15-year-old being prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself and sending them over the internet. Child porn does not require that there be a sexual assault. It doesn't even require statutory rape.

Ah, the way things should be vs. the way things are.

As strict constructionists willing to claim that the drafters wanted to protect these forms of speech?

Congress shall make no law...

Pretty clear to me what the drafters meant. Not a lot of room for fuzzy thinking there, regardless of what the supreme court says.

 

[Brian Dale]

It is also difficult to claim an entitlement to privacy when using what is basically a public utility, the internet.

No sale. The Net is not a "public utility," nor a "common carrier" of electrons or information, nor anything else but a collection of private and public computers that communicate according to a particular set of engineering standards. For example, this board is private property, and we are all guests here. That we're permitted to visit does not grant any right to be here. That's true of the rest of the Net, as well. To be permitted entrance confers no ownership, nor any right to make rules for others, nor (apart from instances where evidence of crime is posted) any authority to have others prosecuted for failure to behave as the public would prefer.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote]Uh, actually, there are a couple crimes involved. ... "Use of minor in sexually oriented material" style offenses, endangering and enticing statutes,
pandering, importuning and prostitution, in that actors are being paid for a sexual performance. Additionally the oft discussed sexual activity, contact or conduct may pose a distinct assault offense.[/blockquote]
Huh? Those crimes are _not_ always involved. They are no doubt other crimes that S. S. was thinking of. However, none is required as a prerequisite in the child porn statute. A minor who willingly sends nude self-portraits over the internet is breaking the law, even when that minor can legally have consensual sex with 20 other same-aged minors and can legally write a book about the experience.

 

[c_yeager]

HINT: Child pornography is not a first amendment issue, because you have to commit a crime (sexual assault of a minor) to make it. Hence, the problem isn't one of "free expression," but rather that the kiddie porn is per se proof that a crime was committed. If you buy it, you are paying someone to abuse a minor.

WRONG. Your argument that possesing child pornography is ILLEGAL due to the exchange of currency is flawed. Possesing child pornography BY ITSELF is a crime. You can get it for free all over the damn place. When POSSESING something is illegal regardless of how it's echanged is illegal than the item ITSELF is prohibited regardless of how it was produced.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The persecution of smokers convinced me to support them. Maybe I ought to post a nice, high-res image of Ashcroft look-alike violating the Constitution without as much as a kiss!

Raunchy sexual scene just for Mr.Ashcroft, may providence grant him severe health problems!

 

[glocksman]

We've gotten off the subject here.

bin-Ashcroft's actions have nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with what consenting adults can read or view in the privacy of their own homes.

I wouldn't tolerate this kind of bullcrap coming from a left wing feminist fanatic whining about 'exploitation of women', and I won't tolerate it from a right wing religious fanatic who thinks he has to supress it in the name of G_d, either.

The only redeeming characteristic Ashcroft has is his pro-2A sentiments. As far as the rest of it goes, he's a cross between Anthony Comstock and A. Mitchell Palmer.

No wonder Jean Carnahan beat him in 2000.

 

[Nightfall]

It is also difficult to claim an entitlement to privacy when using what is basically a public utility, the internet.

This is the equivalent of arguing that because private homes are connected by public roads, they are not really private. The internet is interconnected private property, period. Do you have the right to interfere with the private business of some adult 20 miles away because you are connected by a public highway? No. Nor do you have the right to interfere with the business of somebody 2000 miles away because you are connected by the internet.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

No wonder Jean Carnahan beat him in 2000.

Not trying to argue the point but, technically he got beat by a DEAD GUY (Mel Carnahan) and she got the job because she was his closest surviving relative???.
That's even more lame.

 

[kentucky bucky]

Thank God we have good men like Ashcroft in or government.

 

[tyme]

Ashcroft and Reno are the same breed. One gives lip service to an individual RKBA, and the other doesn't. One hates porn, the other hates personal autonomy.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Patriot Act = Congress Ashcroft didn't pass it, he is required to enforce it via the DoJ.

He is technically "required" to enforce lots of things, as part of his position.

He is not, however, required to enthusiastically enforce them by spending millions of taxpayer dollars looking for things to throw the immense weight of the government into "enforcing."


Dex }:>=-

 

[Dex Sinister]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As strict constructionists willing to claim that the drafters wanted to protect these forms of speech?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress shall make no law...

Why is it so darn hard for people to believe that the FF's might have just thought that some things were entirely outside of the authority of the federal government to regulate at all?

Dex }:>=-

 

[10 Ring Tao]

In the few hours of prime time TV, I can see umpteen murders and acts of violence. (The shield, various crime dramas.)

God forbid I see a single solitary female nipple.

 

[Bruce H]

Or that our borders are going unchecked because the allocation of resources to fight porn. Ashcroft is a totally worthless POS. His views are so narrow his scratch pads are only an inch wide. Why aren't the Enron and Worldcom scandals being ruthlessly pursued? There are a lot more violent and harmful things that need to be addressed. I'm from his home state and didn't care for him from the git go.

 

[Combat-wombat]

Thank God we have good men like Ashcroft in or government.

That's you being sarcastic, right?

 

[LAR-15]

Another reason to vote for Bush.

I'm not kidding.


It's prosecutable and Ashcroft and I think it should be prosecuted.

Want to have sex in your bedroom, fine.

Want to put pictures of that on the internet, no.

Flame away.

 

[dustind]

I just love getting all those porn spam emails.

If deleted email is too hard get a spam blocker. That and do not sign up for lists and services that will sell your address.

There's also the whole underage porn problem, I'm sure all of you first ammendment fans will rush to defend there rights to use minors as well.

There's also the whole underage school shooting problem, I'm sure all you second amendment fans will rush to defend their rights to shoot minors as well.

Do you see how absurd you sound? "I believe in the 1st amendment, thus I think people should be able to rape minors on video?" That is the same as saying if you believe in the second, you believe in the "right" to shoot people.

 

[Oleg Volk]

On my web site, I notice that any nude photo gets a lot more visitors than any portrait on the same page. The interest is definitely there. Plus, enforcement of laws against porn require considerable invasion of privacy.

With this kind of Republican initiatives, I can understand why some people vote for Democrats. Personally, I'll vote Libertarian. I am not about to endorse either of the two evils, even if one is 2-3% less abhorrent to me than the other.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Want to have sex in your bedroom, fine.

Want to put pictures of that on the internet, no.

My hand doesn't force your mouse to go anywhere, nor does it force you to watch or look at anything. Quit whining and just turn it off, close the window, or don't listen.

You have the choice, use it. Don't force your (puritan) choice on me.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

 

[Iain]

If deleted email is too hard get a spam blocker. That and do not sign up for lists and services that will sell your address.

Got to agree with that - had my yahoo account since 1997 and don't get any porn spam, in fact it is a bad week when I get more than two pieces of any spam.

 

[Brian Dale]

I've had the same experience as St. Johns; I've had very few problems on mindspring, earthlink and yahoo.

There was porn on the Net before Mr & Mrs Average went out, bought computers, and spent endless hours learning to use them so they could connect to this "Internet" thing they'd read about in the newspaper. Now it's an issue.

People often move out to the country from the suburbs, expecting to live in an Arcadian fantasy surrounded by the pastoral bumpkins that they imagine the locals to be. When it doesn't turn out to be that way, they're angry. Sometimes, they file lawsuits against farmers based on the noises and smells that one doesn't read about in the suburbs. Why on earth would anyone run a tractor or a grain loader at 6:30 am? It's unREAsonable, and it MUST BE STOPPED! These people usually lose.

Don't like what's been on the Net since long before you arrived? Get a filter, and don't put your name out there to be sold.

 

[Treylis]

With this kind of Republican initiatives, I can understand why some people vote for Democrats. Personally, I'll vote Libertarian. I am not about to endorse either of the two evils, even if one is 2-3% less abhorrent to me than the other.

Indeed. Never compromise on such issues.

 

[sch40]

"morality" policing is terrorism.