WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]

[Sandy Sandfort]

Jimbo sniveled:

> The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives
> the act.

Nonetheless, they are separate and separable.  Outlawing the act does not
require outlawing the speech.

> 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.

Actually, it is just as reasonable to think that the MORE kiddy porn there
is out there, the LESS acting out there will be (think cathartic release).
Also, by letting what already exists circulate, REDUCES the incentive to
produce more and, thus, abusing more kids.

> And no, this does not violate the 1st in
> spirit or letter.

Of course it does.  What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech..." doesn't "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" understand?
:'D

> There is no mention of 'privacy' in the
> Constitution.

"Mr. Constitutional absolutist" should have another look at the Ninth.

> 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.

No, but speech about sex between consenting adults is porn.  Look it up,
"pornography" literally means, "writings about prostitutes," but has been
extended to encompass all writings (and other speech) about sexual conduct.
By the way, "porn" is not illegal, per se.  It's "obscenity" that's the
legal bugaboo.  Of course, "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" INAL (and never
could be).


 S a n d y