Comments on: Utah Battles ACLU Over Porn Access For Kids

By: File it Under

File it Under — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:33:44 +0000

Carnival of Crazy V – A Whirlwind of Crazy
Rio the Sugar Bush Squirrel would normally welcome you to the Carnival of Crazy. This week, however, he cannot, as he is helping the local and regional power companies restore electricity service to those affected by hurricane Katrina. How noble inde…

By: BobG

BobG — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:56:17 +0000

Or, think they know.

By: fark

fark — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:49:45 +0000

“It doesn’t seem to stop you.”

You’d be surprised about what some people — judges and lawyers included — know.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:38:13 +0000

People wouldn’t be stupid as to say these sorts of things without knowing what they’re talking about.

It doesn’t seem to stop you.

By: fark

fark — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:20:55 +0000

“It is our opinion here that the First Amendment says nowhere in it that a parent can not restrict what their child can and can not view.”

Parents can still do that. some stupid legislator wrote a law that does something else.

“So some ignorant judge ruled in favor of it, doesn’t mean it is truly unconstitutional.”

People wouldn’t be stupid as to say these sorts of things without knowing what they’re talking about.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:30:02 +0000

So some ignorant judge ruled in favor of it, doesn’t mean it is truly unconstitutional. It is our opinion here that the First Amendment says nowhere in it that a parent can not restrict what their child can and can not view. Some stupid judge thinks otherwise, that was his opinion. I just hope he didn’t fool himself into actually thinking he was doing his job of interpreting the Constitution strictly…when obviously their had to be some creative influence of his opinion involved.

By: fark

fark — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:35:12 +0000

“You have to be plum stupid or intentionally misleading, not to know the difference between Constitutional free speech and what dummies THINK free speech is these days.”

I don’t follow. A similar law was struck down in PA. The complaint lays out the problems with the law towards the end. It burdens adult and minors speech (and reading), serves as a prior restraint, and compells speech. Lastly it may violate some cannons of federalism, such as the dormant commerce clause and preemption by the Communications Decency Act.

By: loboinok

loboinok — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:40:10 +0000

“A similar law was struck down in PA. Its quite clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech, which Utah was made aware of before they passed this law.”

You know fark…I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt until this one.

You have to be plum stupid or intentionally misleading, not to know the difference between Constitutional free speech and what dummies THINK free speech is these days.

If you want to spout that moronic BS… go over to DU, they eat that ignorant crap up!

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:11:18 +0000

Free Speech. Dang that’s funny!

By: fark

fark — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:35:06 +0000

A similar law was struck down in PA. Its quite clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech, which Utah was made aware of before they passed this law.