Slashdot Mirror
Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case
CaptainEbo writes "A court has declared the federal anti-obscenity law unconstitutional in a criminal case against an Internet porn distributor: 'We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials.' The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
If it were a legitimate state interest, then we would need laws banning sloth and greed, too, and no one here in the U.S. really wants that.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Remember when Republicans were all about not getting involved state issues? (pre-Reagan) What happened is that they have discovered that it's so better to aggregate the power into the hands of the few via legislation and control the populace and impose "morality" that way.
Take the gay marriage issue. Should this REALLY be a federal issue? Of course not and thank heavens that Sen. McCain pointed out that such a federal law would interfere with "state's rights".
Federal anti-obscenity laws aren't any different. What doesn't play in Peoria could be considered as quite tame in NYC.
You would be right about this, except for one thing. Laws against murder and theft are not to protect morality, but to protect one's rights, specifically the right to life and property. Laws against obscenity are not protecting anybody's rights, only infringing on them.
This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
You are so absolutely wrong, the laws against murder and theft are not laws for moral reasons. Government has one basic purpose and one purpose only, to maintain a monopoly on the use of force and coercion, and prevent the use of force and coercion by one citizen against another (policing) and by other countries/states against its own country/state (military).
This is the one area where both the Democrats and Republicans piss me off the most.
The democrats are being hypocrites as they are the ones always yelling about the republicans legislating morality, when what is welfare but moral legislation to force it citizenry to care for those less well off.
And the repubulicans are just as bad yammering about keeping government from over regulating and restricting our freedoms, and then they turn around and support laws which restrict our freedoms with regard to activities were there is no force/coercion/victim.
You can have the best reasoning skills in the world, and if your initial premises are flawed, you conclusion will be wrong every time.
I just wish people would really take the time to think about the consequences and effects of all this legislation, instead of the indulging the knee jerk, liberal pandering to "society's needy", and the conservative drive to a theocratic tyranny.
Goverment is supposed protect us from others, not take care of us, and not protect us from ourselves.
Anything else is an abuse of liberty!
my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
Now hold on here. Of course most libertarians, just like anyone else in a civil society, see the value in laws and regulations. People always stereotype Libertarians as wanting to start some anarchist society, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole idea behind Libertarianism is that people have a fundamental right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And when someone does infringe on the rights of others, they must take full responsiblity for their actions. Of course we need laws and regulations... how else would you decide when someone does something wrong?
There is such a huge disconnect between common sense and many laws and regulations in this country. How is it that we trust 18 year olds to operate guns and missiles and WMD's and yet we can't trust them to drink alcohol until they are 21?! Why is it against the law to circumvent copyright protection to play a DVD in Linux? Why do public protests have to be carefully planned out and approved by the local govt?
With any group you get fringe people who would ignore thousands of years of common sense. But the vast majority of libertarians are a lot more moderate in their views than most people outside the party think
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.