Isn't it odd that this week's topic and the biggest court decision of the year are about the same subject?
The ACLU's position on the distribution and possession of child pornography and Michael Jackson's acquittal all in the same week. We couldn't have planned this better. We decided on this topic last Friday without even discussing the Jackson trial at all.
Well first off, I think that Jackson is guilty as sin. BUT, I also feel that the prosecution was tainted by the past actions of this family. It is my opinion, the reason Jackson picked this child was because of his families background involving lawsuits. I think that he knew that he would be able to cover his sick tracks by taking advantage of the press that could work against an accusation. What he didn't count on was the zeal of the prosecutor. This same zeal which led to the trial also clouded his judgment.
That being said, Jackson is the type of "person" that would benefit from the legalization of the possession and distribution of child porn. Michael Jackson and NAMBLA would be fueled by such a miscarriage of justice. And the perpetuation of crimes against children would continue to expand.
This year alone, several high profile cases involving children being abducted for the satisfaction of a sexual deviance and we are still talking about the possibilities because the ACLU continues to believe that owning this trash should be legal. Images of children engaging in sexual acts expands the need for predators such as the likes of John Evander Couey to act on their urges. Urges sparked and heightened by these very images.
Where is the conscience of the ACLU? Do they not see that these images are harmful to the children of this nation? Can they not make the connection between the legalization of this material and pedophilia? A blind man can see this. But the ACLU continues to push issues like these.
This all falls into the Communist agenda in America. Destroy the morality of this nation and Communism would have no obstructions. And how do they do this? By starting in the schools, television, video games, and other child rich activities.
And for the benefit of the nay sayers on the left who think that I'm attempting to blow smoke up the collective asses of America by accusing the ACLU of backing something without proof, I have a court case to back my position up. The case is New York v. Ferber, and the ACLU filed the amicus (friend of the court) brief in 1982. And here is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States courtesy of Cornell University Law School.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
458 U.S. 747
New York v. Ferber
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 81-55 Argued: April 27, 1982 --- Decided: July 2, 1982
A New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals. Respondent bookstore proprietor was convicted under the statute for selling films depicting young boys masturbating, and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment as being both underinclusive and overbroad. The court reasoned that, in light of the explicit inclusion of an obscenity standard in a companion statute banning the knowing dissemination of similarly defined material, the statute in question could not be construed to include an obscenity standard, and therefore would prohibit the promotion of materials traditionally entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774. (a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for, and are thus an integral part of, the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New [p748] York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Pp. 756-764. (b) The New York statute describes a category of material the production and distribution of which is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Accordingly, there is nothing unconstitutionally "underinclusive" about the statute, and the State is not barred by the First Amendment from prohibiting the distribution of such unprotected materials produced outside the State. Pp. 764-766. (c) Nor is the New York statute unconstitutionally overbroad as forbidding the distribution of material with serious literary, scientific, or educational value. The substantial overbreadth rule of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, applies. This is the paradigmatic case of a state statute whose legitimate reach dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications. [W]hatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which [the statute's] sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra, at 615-616. Pp. 766-774. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 774. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 775. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 777. [p749]
William A. Donahue stated in his book Twilight of Liberty:
" The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." n id= ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its performers; this would be " a gross violation of privacy."
And this is the organization that so many liberals believe is protecting the civil rights of Americans. On the contrary, they are destroying your civil liberities from within. By hiding their subversive agenda in the least likely of places.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.
Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU, click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!
Some of The Sites Already on Board:
Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr. Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times
TMH's Bacon Bits
Right Decisions
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America
Congressional Emergency
Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the award of federal funds for the purpose of recovering legal fees in Establishment Clause challanges to the 1st Amendment. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government.
We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment