>>1406072
A lot of stupid faggots in this thread. Let's look at the first amendment.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech
It says nothing about "obscenity"; a nothing word that you can't define. There are only two ways to read this. Either you read speech as literately meaning just the act of vocalization, or you read it as meaning any form of expression at all. The former is very stupid and would mean that freedom of expression only existed if you're chatting in a pub or a newspaper publisher. Books aren't "the press", nor is art or music. Congress can't introduce a bill banning rock 'n' roll music because it offends them, obviously. The same applies to porn. The first amendment just clearly has no stipulations about "obscenity" whatsoever. Now, I can understand wanting to keep kids away from porn; I want that as well. The solutions we have now are pretty clunky and a bit invasive, but I don't think that kids should be on the internet at all. Ban all kids from the internet before 18. Maybe we make a special walled off "school internet" that lets them get to Wikipedia and shit. The argument that was have to ban porn because we have to protect kids is laughable. Why do you think it's so important that your five year old has access to Youtube?

Back | Go to board

Board:

/news/

Thread:

The Reds (still) want to ban porn