🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, John, you have raised two very important assumptions which are
critical to this debate.

First, one either thinks that what transpires between concenting adults is
none of the government's business _or_ a legitimate area for regulation. If
you are for regulation, then society's laws devolve to a battle between
competing tyrannies.

Second, if you agree with the first point, is it the parents' obligation
to stop their children from accessing objectionable material or is it
society's? If you say society's, then we're back to the competing
tyrannies problem.

As a specific example of the difficulty of defining "obscene", I find the
Pentagon budget obscene in the most fundamental way, and parts of the 1992
Republican National Campaign Platform are not far behind. Yet, I would not
for a minute ban either. It's easier to defeat an enemy if you know its
details.

--Fred

John Wilkerson (johnlw9@zeus.netset.com) wrote:
: Martin Cordero (mcordero@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:

: : And so you understand, striking down the CDA does in NO WAY give
: : perverts and child molesters sanction.  Obsenity and child porn have
: : NEVER been protected under the First Amendment.

:      Well, after the CDA was suspended pending the beforehand mentioned 
: court ruling, you see all those child-porn/molestation groups popping up 
: on the Usenet.  As well, you see about 90 million other alt.sex. groups 
: being created.  If that trash isn't protected under 1st amendment, then, 
: I hope the feds are looking over those groups and building cases.


: --
:     John L. Wilkerson Jr.         johnlw9@netset.com
:   			          jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us

:    "Political Correctness is for mindless sheep... Speak what _you_ want
: to say... not how others say you should"

:     "Only after all the "Political Activists" are silenced, can we build 
: a better society."