View Single Post
Old 04-26-2011, 04:44 PM
Starving Artist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,127
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Now THERE'S a stupid Liberal idea.
See, this is the problem right here. Watching pornogrophy isn't "speech". This is a clear perversion of the amendment's original intent, which was to insure that people could practice their religion or speak out against the government without fear of arrest, and it's a perfect example of how liberals in this country (and their willing lackeys in the judiciary) have indeed found hidden meanings in the constitution that were never intended.

For that matter, thanks to liberal stupidity (in keeping with the OP) the way that entire amendment has been interpreted would be unrecognizable to the people who wrote it. For example, another perversion is the religion thing, where simply keeping Congress from establishing a religion - like the amendment states - isn't enough. Oh, no. We've also got to make sure that no religious imagery may be found or viewed upon government property. The amedment was intended to prohibit Congress from establishing a church-state government such as had existed in Europe, and had nothing to do with "Merry Christmas" banners hanging from a goverment building or keeping the word "God" from appearing on our money.

There must not have been much liberalism about in the days when the Bill of Rights was passed, as the framers were clearly unaware of the hoops liberal judges and Supreme Court justices would leap through to make the Constitution say what they wanted it to.

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya
People like you are cuntwaffles who should live in small boxes in remote, mosquito-infested bogs where you don't need to interact with human beings.
Yes, I'm already aware that people like you would like to see criticism of what you've wrought suppressed, in one way or another. And the fact that you can't comes much closer to the original intent of the 1st Amendment than does the freedom to view disgusting sexual images in public venues where anyone can happen upon them. "Mommy, why is that man eating that lady's poop and that other lady has his pee-pee in her mouth?" "Nevermind, dear, don't look. Let's just find your copy of 'Cinderella' and get the hell out of here."

What's next? Is jacking off is free speech? How long do you think it will be now until the New York Library system decides that jacking off to their computers' hardcore pornography is merely another expression of free speech?

And then you people wonder how someone like Sarah Palin finds such a large audience.