[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Michael Moore moore.michael.m at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 17:43:53 UTC 2009


On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul <paul at punkrockbunnies.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 10:56 -0700, Michael Moore wrote:
>
>
>> Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.  See:
>>
>> http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06constitutional/cases.html
>>
>> for a good list of Supreme Court rulings in obscenity cases.
> ...
>
>> Such a law could be enforced, if it applied to websites that met the
>> legal definition of obscenity. Since obscenity has no First Amendment
>> protection, there's nothing to stop any legislative body from passing
>> laws restricting access to it or banning it altogether.
>
> This is *Portland* LUG talk list and the Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8
> says:
>
> "No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or
> restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject
> whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this
> right."
>
> and the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled:
>
>
> ''In this state any person can write, print, read, say, show or sell
> anything to a consenting adult even though that expression may be
> generally or universally 'obscene,' ''
>
> (see:
> http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/oregon-court-broadens-free-speech-rights.html)
>
> This was in regards to an attempted prosecution to selling obscene
> materials so there very much are restrictions on the legislature
> attempting to outlaw it, in fact it would be unconstitutional here in
> Oregon.

Except that the federal government could pass a law, say, along the
lines of what M. Robinson is advocating, making it a crime to make
available obscene material on the Internet without requiring payment.
That law, presuming it passes Constitutional muster (the U.S.
Constitution, not Oregon's state constitution) would be enforceable in
Oregon.

It's similar to the situation Oregon and other states that allow
medicinal marijuana are in:  it's legal under state law to possess and
use limited quantities of the substance under state law, but such
possession and use is prohibited by federal law.  You can be in
compliance with state law and thus safe from arrest by state or local
law enforcement, while at the same time be at risk of arrest by
federal law enforcement.

We have been moving inexorably, pretty much since the FDR
administration, toward concentrating more and more power over our
lives in the federal government, and less in state and local
governments.

Michael M.



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list