The U.S.Supreme Court yesterday rejected the notion that child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. All but two of the justices concurred. Justices Black and Stevens, demurred.
Can you imagine any reasoning whatsoever that would defend the use of children in sexual situations for the lust profit of adult perversions? Black and Stevens asked: what if they weren't real children, maybe computer generated facsimiles that would fool the consumer?
Well that would be "avatar porn", wouldn't it. The issue remains: who is to say that no children were used, if no one can tell the difference. The large majority of the court agreed; no protection is conferred upon child pornography, period.
Pornography in general remains "protected" by the First Amendment, according to the court. So is anti-religious hate speech. But addressing current affairs as moral issues is prohibited if it emanates from the pulpit, or so goes the threat from the left. Hedonism has been promoted in all its forms, while morality is declared immoral; its a sure sign of Atheist logical inversion at work.
No comments:
Post a Comment