If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
I'm not saying child pornography is legal. I have never said that.
But there have been plenty of people that have tried to use Free Speech as a means to publish child pornography. And they have tried to get laws prohibiting child pornography dismissed under the argument it violates free speech.
That is why child pornography is specifically listed as a limitation on free speech.
"Certain types of hard-core pornography, labeled obscenity by the law, may also be punished, as the Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973). Exactly what constitutes obscenity is not clear, but since the 1980s the definition has been quite narrow. Also, obscenities in the sense of merely vulgar words may not be punished (Cohen v. California [1971]).
Material depicting actual children engaging in sex, or being naked in a sexually suggestive context, is called child pornography and may be punished. Sexually themed material that uses adults who look like children or features hand-drawn or computer-generated pictures of fictional children does not fall within this exception, though some such material might still be punishable as obscenity."
Free speech laws didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are specific limitations on free speech just because someone tried to use free speech to do exactly those things.
My point was that free speech is not absolute. Its not just child pornography that is limited, though. Things like slander and libel and inciting violence.
Yes, we have laws against those things, or some of them, anyway. It doesn't stop people trying to use the First Amendment to do them anyway,.or to use as a defense.
So, the fact that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment doesn't mean that it's not already illegal, it means that it can't be used as a defense or argument in their defense trial, either.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
Sure. But isn't that what it always comes down to with the Constitution?
It's just a question of which side you land on, and what the current Supreme Court thinks of those laws. Because they're the ones who determine if a law is constitutional or not.
Sometimes you're happy with them. Sometimes you're not.
10 years ago, were you happy with what the law was saying about the constitutional rights to abortion? How about now?
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
I see a fallen world where lies are truth and the Constitution 'just a bunch of words' I know NOTHING about Voltaires views only that written in the now perverted Constitution where judges can enforce the wicked and jail the rightous- I am 78 years old I remember an America of morality (except for DC) when I could say what is on my mind without getting beaten up. All that in spite of USA Inc. and me being a corporate asset ALL my life. Forget Voltaire he wasn't a founding father of anything but evil..
Voltaire was the one who originally said the quote you used about defending what others say, even if it makes you furious.
Ok, so is that a yes or no, then, on if you support child pornographers argument of free speech?
Which part of the Constitution do you believe to be perverted by placing limitations on freedom of speech that prevents child pornography?
Because it seems like you want to support absolute free speech when it benefits you, but you want limitations of free speech on things you don't like...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Because that's what it seems here.
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
So you are actually retarded.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
I'm not saying child pornography is legal. I have never said that.
But there have been plenty of people that have tried to use Free Speech as a means to publish child pornography. And they have tried to get laws prohibiting child pornography dismissed under the argument it violates free speech.
That is why child pornography is specifically listed as a limitation on free speech.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression
"Certain types of hard-core pornography, labeled obscenity by the law, may also be punished, as the Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973). Exactly what constitutes obscenity is not clear, but since the 1980s the definition has been quite narrow. Also, obscenities in the sense of merely vulgar words may not be punished (Cohen v. California [1971]).
Material depicting actual children engaging in sex, or being naked in a sexually suggestive context, is called child pornography and may be punished. Sexually themed material that uses adults who look like children or features hand-drawn or computer-generated pictures of fictional children does not fall within this exception, though some such material might still be punishable as obscenity."
Free speech laws didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are specific limitations on free speech just because someone tried to use free speech to do exactly those things.
My point was that free speech is not absolute. Its not just child pornography that is limited, though. Things like slander and libel and inciting violence.
Yes, we have laws against those things, or some of them, anyway. It doesn't stop people trying to use the First Amendment to do them anyway,.or to use as a defense.
So, the fact that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment doesn't mean that it's not already illegal, it means that it can't be used as a defense or argument in their defense trial, either.
So, hopefully we have that cleared up.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover criminal activity.
It does cover the rights of a pedophile to publicly preach on about their pedophilia if they wish.
I never said it did.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
So we're arguing fundamental constitutional rights vs how the constitution has been perverted by dipshits.
I think that's the disconnect.
Sure. But isn't that what it always comes down to with the Constitution?
It's just a question of which side you land on, and what the current Supreme Court thinks of those laws. Because they're the ones who determine if a law is constitutional or not.
Sometimes you're happy with them. Sometimes you're not.
10 years ago, were you happy with what the law was saying about the constitutional rights to abortion? How about now?
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
I see a fallen world where lies are truth and the Constitution 'just a bunch of words' I know NOTHING about Voltaires views only that written in the now perverted Constitution where judges can enforce the wicked and jail the rightous- I am 78 years old I remember an America of morality (except for DC) when I could say what is on my mind without getting beaten up. All that in spite of USA Inc. and me being a corporate asset ALL my life. Forget Voltaire he wasn't a founding father of anything but evil..
Voltaire was the one who originally said the quote you used about defending what others say, even if it makes you furious.
Ok, so is that a yes or no, then, on if you support child pornographers argument of free speech?
Which part of the Constitution do you believe to be perverted by placing limitations on freedom of speech that prevents child pornography?
Because it seems like you want to support absolute free speech when it benefits you, but you want limitations of free speech on things you don't like...