The California appeals court ruled that libraries must not use computer filters to disallow kids from viewing Internet pornography. A San Jose Mercury News editorial inferred that the First Amendment was invoked so the adult’s right to view porn would not be encroached.
One can see the Civil Liberties Union-who won the case- standing with hand over heart as the Constitution upheld this new right.
If Internet smutt is authorized why not have smutty magazines lying around the newspaper section. Also, we mustn’t forget the kid’s right to check out dirty magazines and videos.
It would never get that far because parents don’t allow their children into porn shops. The libraries funding would soon be voted down.
Why aren’t parents angered by library Internet obscenity? It is the same reason abortion is legal while infanticide is not.
Babies and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet porn usually are unseen by parents. Of course, the media could show the American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public funded Internet smutt.
But, the national media wants to preserve our Constitutional rights so they bans or prohibits those dangerous images. Thus, for the sake of the First amendment they in practicality prohibit our First Amendment rights.
All the news and drama stories-on primetime- are about courageous feminist saving women from back street abortions. Or, valiant publishers fighting against hypocrite who would destroy our freedom.
They can hide the truth because the evidence is not easy to see. As with Clinton, if not caught red handed they lie. When caught they will spin it in their favor.
If you ask the representatives of the media: why isn’t it, also, a child’s right to check out porno magazines and videos? Why is it wrong to show killed unborn babies when it was right to present dead G.I. in the Vietnam War? Why is it right to take hidden cameras into Crisis Pregnancy Centers, but wrong to use hidden cameras to catch kids watching public funded smutt? They will do a Clinton, if you ask these questions.
As Clinton switched from, ”I don’t know that [Monica] woman,” to” Sex is not that big a deal.” They will switch from; “We are only trying to preserve our Constitutional rights,” to the classic Kenneth Starr spin,” Why are you so obsessed with sex?”
We will never get a straight answer from the cultural elite, so we must ask ourselves the questions. How perverted is our country when we allow a president to sexually abuse a girl just out of high school? How corrupt are our courts and media when they promote a child’s right to pornography.
One can see the Civil Liberties Union-who won the case- standing with hand over heart as the Constitution upheld this new right.
If Internet smutt is authorized why not have smutty magazines lying around the newspaper section. Also, we mustn’t forget the kid’s right to check out dirty magazines and videos.
It would never get that far because parents don’t allow their children into porn shops. The libraries funding would soon be voted down.
Why aren’t parents angered by library Internet obscenity? It is the same reason abortion is legal while infanticide is not.
Babies and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet porn usually are unseen by parents. Of course, the media could show the American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public funded Internet smutt.
But, the national media wants to preserve our Constitutional rights so they bans or prohibits those dangerous images. Thus, for the sake of the First amendment they in practicality prohibit our First Amendment rights.
All the news and drama stories-on primetime- are about courageous feminist saving women from back street abortions. Or, valiant publishers fighting against hypocrite who would destroy our freedom.
They can hide the truth because the evidence is not easy to see. As with Clinton, if not caught red handed they lie. When caught they will spin it in their favor.
If you ask the representatives of the media: why isn’t it, also, a child’s right to check out porno magazines and videos? Why is it wrong to show killed unborn babies when it was right to present dead G.I. in the Vietnam War? Why is it right to take hidden cameras into Crisis Pregnancy Centers, but wrong to use hidden cameras to catch kids watching public funded smutt? They will do a Clinton, if you ask these questions.
As Clinton switched from, ”I don’t know that [Monica] woman,” to” Sex is not that big a deal.” They will switch from; “We are only trying to preserve our Constitutional rights,” to the classic Kenneth Starr spin,” Why are you so obsessed with sex?”
We will never get a straight answer from the cultural elite, so we must ask ourselves the questions. How perverted is our country when we allow a president to sexually abuse a girl just out of high school? How corrupt are our courts and media when they promote a child’s right to pornography.
Comments