Can someone explain how pornography is freedom of speech?

[GePap]

Well, obviously, freedom of the press would cover printed pornography. As for audio-visual pornography, the first ammendment applies just like it does to any other entertainment on TV. The government has the right to regulate public speech, along a sliding scale, which means that while political speech needs ot be almost sacrosant, no-political speech can be regulated to a degree, and this is what we already do.

The governemnt has little right to regulate services and goods that individuals use privately unless they can porve it is harmful to society and incurs costs upon the public sector, such as making drugs illegal or child pornography.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is also unsettling to . . . communism.

Sad, but true. In the last decade, however, we've led a fight inside the movement to reclaim sex and our bodies from the Stalinists and radical feminists. We even have a commie porn star, Nina Hartley. The issue isn't settled, because a lot of porn is degrading stuff and borders on hate speech about women. On the other hand, porn is as old as language.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Yeah, isn't it funny how people like Bill O'Reilly decry the lack of our morality and only mentions Fox and their tawdry programming when someone points out the hypocrisy of him working for Fox. Then he tells us about Jenna Jameson et al hurting children while he shows Jenna in "lewd" poses on his show so, in his words, his viewers will understand the subject matter - porn.

I agree completely.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, obviously, freedom of the press would cover printed pornography. As for audio-visual pornography, the first ammendment applies just like it does to any other entertainment on TV. The government has the right to regulate public speech, along a sliding scale, which means that while political speech needs ot be almost sacrosant, no-political speech can be regulated to a degree, and this is what we already do.

The governemnt has little right to regulate services and goods that individuals use privately unless they can porve it is harmful to society and incurs costs upon the public sector, such as making drugs illegal or child pornography.

That is pretty much the way that I see it as well. But I think the proof is that it is harmful to society. The problem is drawing a line somewhere. Child porn is certainly a place to start.

[chequita guevara]

Research is divided upon whether porn is good or bad for society. The English repressed pron, and they took over the world. The Germans repressed pron, and they tried to exterminate Europe. Stalin and Mao both repressed porn. Can't say that being anti-porn puts you in good company.

Human beings aren't merely sexual creatures, we're very sexual creatures. Studies in prisons have shown that access to porn lowers violence rates in prison, as it serves as a release for tension. On the other hand, there is some research which shows that access to pron desensitizes men to the status of women, seeing them as nothing more than a vehical for getting one's rocks off. Course, we thought that way even when porn wasn't available.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Can't say that being anti-porn puts you in good company.

I thought you said that the English took over the world?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Course, we thought that way even when porn wasn't available.

Oh yeah, I am sure the Bunny Grrl will be very happey to know this.

[Uncle Sparky]

I'd be happy to be able to use D!ck van Dvke's name in these forums.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

There is no "free speech" right to saturate the citizens of this country with pornography.

You have a special right to make our decisions for us?

Free speech is to give the people the right (or rather to recognize the "natural" right) to criticize the government.

That was the Framer's primary concern.

Look at the early laws that remained in place after the Bill of Rights was passed. There were all kinds of restrictions on pornography. The "right" has been stretched so that the founders would not recognize it.

That doesn't work, Lincoln, the Alien and Sedition Act was passed under the Adam's administration and effectively made it illegal to criticise government. So by your logic, the A&S Act is proof the Framers didn't believe in free speech to criticise government. Besides, under the Constitution prior to the Civil War amendments, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not local and state governments. Pointing to state and local laws that were not subject to the Bill of Rights to claim those laws are still not subject to the Bill of Rights ignores the 14th Amendment which imposed the Bill of Rights on the states.

Dissident - Many take the freedom of speech to include the freedom of expression. And many people view porn, not just for the entertainment value, but to better their sex lives by learning new techniques. So, porn can be considered educational material just as diagrams of the human body used in biology classes... But here's the rub, Alexander Hamilton and others said we didn't need a Bill of Rights because the federal government under a Constitution which limited federal power to a few specific functions lacked the power to prohibit religious freedom, free speech, etc... And they argued that by adding a Bill of Rights, the vast multitude of other rights we have would be endangered since some people would argue that a right only exists if it appears in the Bill of Rights. That's why Madison added the 9th Amendment in which he re-affirms that the enumeration of certain rights in the preceding amendments shall not be used to deny or disparage all the other rights retained by the people. What does he mean? He means we have all sorts of rights, far too many to enumerate. And the fact the Framers enumerated a handful of rights - rights they considered the most vulnerable and important in detering tyrants - doesn't mean we don't have other rights.

[Dis]

Bill O'Reilly was silly to go against Jenna Jameson.

He compared porn stars to prostitutes. While I can see the similiarities, there are differences.

I guess the moaning and screaming coming out of the women's mouths could be free speech.

The problem as I see it is images were scarce back then. Everything was a painting. I wonder if they had porno paintings back then . I bet you a few artists drew naughty paintings for their customers. But this was never addressed by the framers of the constitution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Oh yeah, I am sure the Bunny Grrl will be very happey to know this.

It's a generic "we."

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lincoln -



That doesn't work, Lincoln, the Alien and Sedition Act was passed under the Adam's administration and effectively made it illegal to criticise government. So by your logic, the A&S Act is proof the Framers didn't believe in free speech to criticise government. Besides, under the Constitution prior to the Civil War amendments, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not local and state governments. Pointing to state and local laws that were not subject to the Bill of Rights to claim those laws are still not subject to the Bill of Rights ignores the 14th Amendment which imposed the Bill of Rights on the states.

[b

Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Of course the founders new nothing of th 14th Amendment and that was my point: The foundrers would not recognize our so called free speech as it is interpreted today.

[Berzerker]

Dissident -

The problem as I see it is images were scarce back then. Everything was a painting. I wonder if they had porno paintings back then . I bet you a few artists drew naughty paintings for their customers. But this was never addressed by the framers of the constitution.

Actually, the Kama Sutra was sold in the USA back then and Ben Franklin was surprised by the outrage from some people over a book (remember, he loved French culture). But yes, it's not like the Framer's never had "impure" thoughts about sex and no one had ever seen a Greek or Roman statue. They knew what porn was

[Ramo]

The Courts have taken the First Amendment to imply freedom of expression. Pornography is an example of that expression.

Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Actually, the Alien and Sedition Acts were supported by the Supreme Court. It was justified by the Chief Justice John Jay through common law. Of course, they didn't have power of judicial review at the time (which itself is pretty tenuous in terms of its Constitutionality).

[Lincoln]

Excerpt:

ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
354 U.S. 476
ROTH v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 582.
Argued April 22, 1957.
Decided June 24, 1957. *



1. In the Roth case, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," and Roth's conviction thereunder for mailing an obscene book and obscene circulars and advertising, are sustained. Pp. 479-494.

2. In the Alberts case, the constitutionality of 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale, or to advertise, material that is "obscene or indecent," and Alberts' conviction thereunder for lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books and for writing, composing, and publishing an obscene advertisement of them, are sustained. Pp. 479-494.

3. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485.


(a) In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Pp. 482-483.

(b) The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. P. 484.

(c) All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Pp. 484-485. [354 U.S. 476, 477]

4. Since obscenity is not protected, constitutional guaranties were not violated in these cases merely because, under the trial judges' instructions to the juries, convictions could be had without proof either that the obscene material would perceptibly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct, or probably would induce its recipients to such conduct. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 . Pp. 485-490.

(a) Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest - i. e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. P. 487.

(b) It is vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. Pp. 487-488.

(c) The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. Pp. 488-489.

(d) In these cases, both trial courts sufficiently followed the proper standard and used the proper definition of obscenity. Pp. 489-490.

5. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, 18 U.S.C. 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the First Amendment, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. Pp. 491-492.
6. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale or to advertise material that is "obscene or indecent," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against encroachment by the States, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. 491-492.

7. The federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. 1461, punishing the use of the mails for obscene material, is a proper exercise of the postal power delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8, cl. 7; and it [354 U.S. 476, 478] does not unconstitutionally encroach upon the powers reserved to the States by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Pp. 492-493.

8. The California obscenity statute here involved is not repugnant to Art. I, 8, cl. 7, since it does not impose a burden upon, or interfere with, the federal postal functions - even when applied to a mail-order business. Pp. 493-494.

237 F.2d 796, affirmed.