Hello Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Could you please try again without the straw man argument? It demeans both of us.
Strawman? To quote "Xbiz" the industry source for the X-rated movie business:
ACLU lawyers filed an amicus brief in the 1982 Supreme Court child pornography case, New York v. Ferber. The case sought to legalize the sale and distribution — but not the production — of child pornography. The Court unanimously decided that child pornography was not worthy of protection.
Predictably, the ACLU's reasoning in Ferber was that the distribution of child porn was constitutionally protected free speech. The ACLU's official position on child porn is:
The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the
dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First
Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of
any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those
materials are punishable under criminal law
They've said that they are opposed to the
production of the Child Porn (note:
never the distribution) ONLY if such production is quote - "highly likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm or, b) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm." of course if it can't be definitively proven to
highly likely to cause such harm then of course that's all right then.
Additionally, they also oppose all attempts to require producers of hard core porn to keep records of the ages of their performers as an invasion of the right to privacy and blatant censorship. To quote Barry Lynn:
"If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or 'Star Wars,’" he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or ‘Debbie Does Dallas.’” and in the official ACLU position paper:
"Distributors, exhibitors and retailers should not be obliged to risk punishment by misjudging the age of a minor. Such persons should not be required to keep records of evidence submitted by minors; and should be entitled to rely reasonably on a minor's statement of age." (She said she was 18 when we picked her up at the bus stop)
They also absolutely oppose all attempts to restrict the dissemination of pornography to children - and I quote:
Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such material
to minors violate the First Amendment, and inevitably restrict the right
to publish and distribute such materials to adults.
So there is no "straw man" argument there Chairboy, just a wholesale abdication of the responsibility of adults to protect and nurture children. The ACLU has proven itself to be a chief advocate for the rights of whales to shred the net to use John Adam's example.
But all that aside, I take it you disagree with John Adams and feel that constitution he helped to create
is entirely adequate for the governance of an immoral and irreligious people?
- SEAGOON
