Thursday, January 24, 2013



A difficult case

I have to agree with the writer below that there is no exception for pornography in the 1st Amendment

Consider the recent case against Ira Isaacs who was sentenced to four years in federal prison last week for the “crime” of producing and selling “obscene” material. His conviction is part of several other obscenity prosecutions that began under the Bush administration in 2005 with the formation of an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force.

Isaacs produced, starred in, and distributed pornographic films through a website he advertised as "the Web's largest fetish VHS, DVD superstore." Some of his films, which depict bestiality and sexual situations involving human excrement, were shown to the jury during his trial.

Again, please take note here that the First Amendment makes no exception what-so-ever for obscenity, pornography, fetishes, or any other kind of sexual activity – all of which existed in the print media at the time the founding fathers created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Never-mind that ruled the court; this criminal was allowed no First Amendment defense even though his “crime” consisted entirely of speech, albeit, speech which many people would find disgusting.

But again, the First Amendment makes no exceptions for disgusting speech, patently offensive speech, or prurient speech. Obscene speech is speech which shall not be abridged by the government authorities.

"They were so disgusting I couldn't even watch them," said Isaacs' own attorney, who said he averted his eyes and read a book as the 90-minute films were played in court. "But that doesn't mean they're not free speech."

Source

16 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

When he is released HUGH HEFNER or LARRY FLINT will be wanting to hire him

Use the Name, Luke said...

These @#$%@#! scammers are getting out of hand.

Anonymous said...

@#$%@#! is sooo PC. Say what you mean.

Anonymous said...

"Freedom, like pure clean water, is essential to our way of life. Lest we forget what too much water can do..."

Use the Name, Luke said...

@#$%@#! is sooo PC. Say what you mean.

"Found electrocuted at their keyboard" was too long.

Nik said...

Paying for sex is illegal unless you film it but a potty fetish is perfectly legal unless you do film it? Oh, I see, it *all* makes sense now.

-=NYC=-

Anonymous said...

Seems like someone has left the screen door open and pests are starting to come in.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Somehow I can't imagine the guys who put the First Amendment into place wanting to protect pornography.

Anonymous said...

Luke once again begs the question - this time with what people think is pornographic. Perhaps the authors of the First Amendment collected "naughty" pictures for all Luke knows

Use the Name, Luke said...

Do you even understand what "begging the question" is? Apparently not (based on your comment).

Anonymous said...

Annon 1:17, calling Luke a names just demonstrates how clueless you are. Abe Lincoln once said that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Anonymous said...

Luke often "begs the question" - as in "God" this, and "God" that! So does he understand what "begging the question" is? (Yes that's a "rhetorical question"!)

Anonymous said...

Luke also often uses the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to claim that any criticism of questionable Christian practices or beliefs does not invalidate the essential religion of Christianity. In that excuse he again uses the "Begging the Question" fallacy, as his definition of "true" Christianity is not everyone's, indeed that is the reason for all the fragmentation of the religion over the centuries and now into myriad sects and denominations, often involving much violence and bloodshed, and even all-out wars.

Use the Name, Luke said...

The troll must be feeling its oats today.

Anonymous said...

Someone else commented on Luke responding to all come-backs he's incapable of responding to sensibly by childishly calling them "trolls". Clearly Luke must be the Über-Troll on this site!

Use the Name, Luke said...

Troll:

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

If the bridge fits… (and it does)