On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech.
So legislate the ACTS, not the speech.
But they are auto-catalytic. You draw a false distinction that the 'act' and the 'picture' are somehow disconnected. They are not. Note that I am not in any way addressing text or artificialy created images, or images created by consenting adults. Only those which involve a minor. It is the involvement of a minor which is the deciding line, why? Because they don't have the life skills/experience/maturity/whatever to make the informed decision themselves. The act preceedes the speech and as a consequence looses its protection. It's very like an admission of guilt. The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts. And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter.
No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'.
But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and
No, one is not. There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution. It does talk about 'personal' (and yes, I am aware of the legalistic quibbling this injects into the discussion - I agree with your equating 'personal' and 'private' - IANAL.)
self-determination.
And what about the self-determination of the children? How does allowing porn protect that? It doesn't.
If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that results is then just speech.
Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between consenting adults. 'porn' falls into two categories. Only one of which makes any sense. That is regarding minors. The other is a religous perspective based on some of the most twisted Judeo-Christian spin-doctoring around and involves sex other than between a man and wife in the missionary position in the dark with their clothes on. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------