"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:528on3hsjgf2m8dl75urcmgnnm8h41m3p9@4ax.com...

Child pornography -- especially the trade in it, the generation and
sale of it, are not Speech. But that which is outlaws is the Action
-- and not speaking of it.

Hey dummy! The supreme court has consistantly ruled that such things
as films, books and artwork as well as "speach" are under the protection
of the first ammendment.

The issue here, however is not what is protected by the first ammendment.
The issue is the right of a defendant to have the assistance of a counsel.
This is why the ACLU was involved in the case of NAMBLA.

[snips]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:38:58 -0800, Don Homuth wrote:

Child pornography -- especially the trade in it, the generation and
sale of it, are not Speech.

Of course child porn is speech, just as, oh, a video criticising the
current political leaders is speech. There are, however, two critical
differences between kiddie porn and such a video.

First, while the video may go so far as to inspire some form of harm (eg
calling for the overthrow of an oppressive government, even knowing that
such an action would involve many people being harmed) it does not, in
itself, actually cause harm: one must still take an action before harm
comes to place.

Not so with the kiddie porn; content such as this cannot exist (barring
virtual, computer-generated "actors") without harm being done; the film
cannot exist unless some kid was harmed in its production. Freedom of
speech guarantees you the right to speak your piece, it does *not*
guarantee you the right to harm someone in so doing.

Second, the video (political) has some redeeming social value; it suggests
something is wrong and why and perhaps even what to do about it. Such a
notion can be extended; someone else pointed out that explaining *how* a
paedophile catches their victims may actually help a few paedophiles do
so, which we'd rather not see happen, but on the other hand, it also lets
parents, police and others be aware just how the process works, meaning we
can now protect kids - ours or those of others - better, because we know
how the molesters work. This is a definite benefit, to us and to any kids
we can, as a result of the work, prevent being molested.

The kiddie porn video, by contrast, has no such redeeming value. It
doesn't tell us how to prevent the kids being coerced/captured/whatever,
it simply shows "Got one, watch what I do with him/her." There's no
benefit to be gained from the production for society as a whole.

The first point - the involvement of harm - explains why such a thing
isn't protected as free speech, the second explains why we shouldn't
expect that to change.

This doesn't mean they're not speech; they are. They're simply not
protected speech.

[snips]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:38:58 -0800, Don Homuth wrote:

Child pornography -- especially the trade in it, the generation and
sale of it, are not Speech.

Of course child porn is speech, just as, oh, a video criticising the
current political leaders is speech.

On Dec 31, 6:06 pm, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:58:24 +0000 (UTC), Terry Ollin

<terry.ollin.and.smirk...@you.hahaha> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:36:54 -0800, Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:29:51 +0000 (UTC), Terry Ollin
<terry.ollin.and.smirk...@you.hahaha> wrote:

Yup, it's true, the Anti-American Communist Losers Union defended
NAMBLA,...

Only wrt its members' Freedom to,...

Thank you for admitting that the Anti-American Communist Losers Union
DEFENDED a rat's nest of lust filled, murderous pedophiles

They defended the Right of Freedom of Speech.

Someone should.  It apparently won't be you.

... by attacking
the family of a 10 year old child who was raped and murdered by one of
those violent pedophiles :-)

Cheers :-)

The ACLU attacked no one.

NAMBLA doesn't even exist anymore.

The American Criminal Limbaugh
Union is a nasty bunch of lice, though.

NAMBLA doesn't even exist anymore.