Xref: utzoo news.admin:3669 misc.legal:6004 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: alt.sex,news.admin,misc.legal Subject: Re: Is alt.sex about to be legislated away? Message-ID: <4272@bsu-cs.UUCP> Date: 11 Oct 88 13:50:40 GMT References: <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <0732.AA0732@salem1> Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Followup-To: misc.legal Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana Lines: 28 In article <0732.AA0732@salem1> brianop@salem1.UUCP (Brian McBee) writes: >In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US writes: >> Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. > >Unfortunately, this is true. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court >says it is, and they have decided pornography isn't covered. Actually, although the Supreme Court claims that pornography isn't protected by the First Amendment, some things to remember are: o The fact remains that the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This is a *fact* that is not subject to interpretation. The current interpretation of the First Amendment is the one that is currently *enforced*, but this doesn't change what the Constitution *says*, only what is *enforced*. As times change, what is enforced will continue to change. o The Supreme Court has not clearly defined pornography. The best definition I have is that pornography is anything that offends anybody who can convince a judge to agree. This interpretation, too, will change as judges/lawyers/arguments/public perception/ published literature/juries change with time. Since this argument really belongs in misc.legal, follow-ups are directed there. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi