pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.
It's a complicated subject but it's important to note that:
A, pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
B, pornography as we know it today is essentially a creation of Jews
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
I'm pretty sure no jewish people were involved in the creation of La Blue Girl.
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.
Yes they do, it's basically:
Lol
Well, a Jewish woman wrote the Japanese Constitution, so I guess in a way...