Article

2008-05-20 Home Front: Politix

Justices: Child pr*n is not protected speech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2008-05-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Looks like Souter and Ginsburg can't tell the difference between child pr*n and a movie. How the Fuc& did they get to be on the supreme court?

Sick as Hell, GodLess, Socialist, Trash is the correct answer Gorb.

/but Ima just a regular redundant guy.

Posted by RD">RD 2008-05-20 05:14|| 2008-05-20 05:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Ruthie? Whaddya expect.
Souter? Probably pissed he's gotta get rid of his collection.

Posted by tu3031 2008-05-20 09:17|| 2008-05-20 09:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Souter and ginsberg are a disgrace to that court.

Good job guys.
Victimizing young children does not fall under a "right"

Stupid. So damn stupid this is a legal question at all.

Posted by newc">newc 2008-05-20 09:27|| 2008-05-20 09:27|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm just glad it went down in such a blaze of defeat.

As for the other two wastes of black cloth, they will jump the other way of what is right just to show they are "progressive". Even if it means harming children in the most disgusting way possible.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-05-20 09:53|| 2008-05-20 09:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Want more of the same types ? Just put Hussein in as Prez.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-05-20 11:18|| 2008-05-20 11:18|| Front Page Top

#6 There was a lot of fluff in the report. However, I do not think this was a good decision. It overturned a strongly worded opinion from the 11th Circuit (FL,AL,GA):

"The Atlanta-based court said it makes a crime out of merely *talking about* illegal images or possessing innocent materials that someone else might believe is pr0nography."

The closest thing I could compare this to is hate crimes legislation, where you can be punished for what the court thinks you *might* have been thinking.

For example, the SCOTUS holds that it is a crime to "promote or pander" child pr0n, irrespective to if you even *have* child pr0n.

So if you say that the laws against child pr0n are too harsh, are you "promoting" it? In fact, can child pr0n even be discussed anymore? Might this Rantburg thread be potentially unlawful, if some harasser decides that it has "pr0nographic" content?

How about if a software filter detects that a potentially unlawful word or words has been used?

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-05-20 12:08|| 2008-05-20 12:08|| Front Page Top

#7 More like walking into a bank with a toy gun and demanding cash. Unless the orange cap is still on the end of the gun, the usually clueless teller will act as though it is a real gun. Most jurisdictions don't differentiate whether the robber had a real gun or not, the intent understood by the second party was what is considered the determining factor. The defense that it really wasn't a gun doesn't hold up.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-05-20 13:04|| 2008-05-20 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 meh. Paco?

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-20 14:43|| 2008-05-20 14:43|| Front Page Top

23:50 Old Patriot
23:45 bigjim-ky
23:32 Frank G
23:27 rjschwarz
23:18 bigjim-ky
23:13 bigjim-ky
23:05 bigjim-ky
22:58 Frank G
22:54 Free Radical
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:48 Jan
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:32 bigjim-ky
22:31 Redneck Jim
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G
22:23 Ryan McGeeney
22:11 JosephMendiola
21:56 trailing wife
21:53 trailing wife
21:51 JosephMendiola
21:50 Bobby
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:24 tu3031