View Single Post
  #127  
Old 04-26-2011, 06:14 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,072
Should have expected ol' Starkers to have a hadron about porno. And to a limited extent, he has a point, the First Amendment was not intended to protect porn. The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech. That does not mean that other expression is somehow excluded from any protection, only that it doesn't rise to the importance and significance of political speech. Political speech is of the very essence, the right to sway others to your opinion. So of course there is a special emphasis on its protection above others.

But that doesn't mean its open season on everything else. Our restrictions on commercial speech seem to have few if any boundaries. We freely permit the commercial blandishments for harmful activities, smoking, drinking, etc. Why then should we have restrictions to prevent people from producing or seeing pictures of people fucking?

The main reason we cannot outlaw porno is that we cannot define what it is, it is unjust to outlaw behavior that you cannot actually define, the potential criminal cannot be sure whether his actions are lawful or not. I know what the word "porno" means to me, I cringe to imagine what it might mean to you. To be perfectly frank, don't much like it. Erica Jong said it best, I think: "For the first ten minutes of a porn movie, all I want to do is fuck. After fifteen minutes, I never want to fuck again as long as I live."

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the Founding Fuckups intended for the First Amendment to protect porno.