On the other hand, there is a small chance that you actually believe that stuff. If that’s the case — seek help. You are seriously brain damaged. Your brain is defective and not working correctly. There is such a thing as right and wrong in this world, and you clearly have no clue that there is. Seek serious medical attention before you hurt yourself — or you meet someone who hurts you.

The specious arguments of the ACLU and the elitist left, as they pull improbable “rights” out of our Constitution that then seem to multiply as so many rabbits from a hat, can only be countered by an appreciation of what out Founding Fathers really wrote in that sacred document. To wit: better history and civics education.

With regard to your obtuse association between photos of child porn and photos of murders or other crimes: Let me add to the astute comments of Loboinok, Kender, R’cat, and Jay the following: I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure it’s the case with child porn that the crime IS the photo — the exploitation of the under-aged in a degrading and sexually explicit manner for pleasure and/or profit. Obscenity may be somehow relative, but the law is the law with child porn. If you can’t understand the difference, I weep for your children and any others with which you might come into contact.

1) “… Frankly, with that KINDDDDDDDD of attitude…”

and

2) “Get a ride on the Reality Bus(tm), OK?”

*grf!*

– R’cat

And how is knowledge of our Constitution or history supposed to convince us that child porn is supposed to be illegal? (emphasis mine — R’cat)

Um, well, d’uh! I will admit that the Constitution itself doesn’t address child porn… But neither does it address abortion, affirmative action, or estate taxes. *ALL* these things are subject to the State’s jurisdiction, legally.

And, I mean, MY GOD!!! – are you *really* promoting child porn???!!! (sorry, the exclaimations come with the subject) What the hell kind of pervert *are* you? Frankly, with that king of attitude, I would be supportive of hunting down your IP, finding your account, and investigating your shiney [insert color of your choice] ass for child pornography.

Geeeze, get a ride on the Reality Bus&#153, OK?

Did you read anything in it about ‘gay rights’?

How about ‘freedom of expession’?
I did find something about treason. I also found the 9th and 10th Amendment, which clearly implies that the Feds can’t do jack about “gay rights” one way or the other.

And while there’s no mention of “freedom of expression”, there is that bit about “freedom of the press”; Web pages are just a modern version of the press, and should be covered by any reasonable interpretation.

I still haven’t seen any connection between ignorance of the Constitution and early American history and lack of support for a federal ban that came about in much more recent times.

Miller v California sets out the “modern” test for obscenity. After years in which no Supreme Court opinion could command majority support, five members of the Court in Miller set out a several-part test for judging obscenity statutes: (1) the proscribed material must depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, (2) the conduct must be specifically described in the law, and (3) the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious value and must appeal to a prurient interest in sex. What is patently offensive is to be determined by applying community values, but any jury decision in these cases is subject to independent constitutional review, as the Court’s decision in Jenkins v Georgia makes clear. New York v Ferber underscores the strength of the state’s interest in protecting minors from the harmful effects of pornograpy. Ferber holds that state’s may proscribe sexual material involving minors, even if that material may not meet all of the prongs of the Miller test.

“I don’t recall the First Amendment including the phrase “except for child porn”

Did you read anything in it about ‘gay rights’?

Treason?

Sedition?

How about ‘freedom of expession’?
Did you find that?

Call it close minded if you will, but I have my limits on tolerance. This idea is unacceptable to me, and I if it is your opinion…you will be ignored completely here.