I'm glad I didn't see this yesterday, or I would have set a record for angry, drunken posting.

Quote:

i feel like your analogy still says, "blame the guy who wasn't an asshole because some other guy is an asshole." if we hadn't been under the impression we had rights and that there was free speech, it wouldn't be so irritating that some asshole wants to take them away. who gave us rights, anyway?



Yeah, the analogy does have that feel to it, Doesn't it? But Conky's right, arguing over who's to blame is pointless, especially since it's clearly the Religious Right and their flunkies in the White House/DOJ.

As for Who gave us these rights, the Framers believed that thes rights were "inalienable,' which Wictionary (I'm at a Starbucks, alright) defines as "Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright." Other Framers believed these rights were derived from God, although, being Deists, it was a rather vague sort of God not at all in keeping with the God of the Religious Right.

The notion that our rights are "Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another" stands in direct contrast to the position of most Republicans, most notably Rudy Giuliani, who has stated on numerous occasions that "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." Scary words in a scary time.

Moxie is correct about the need to argue that the age of the internet has rendered many obsceneties laws obsolete, and I'm sure Counsel for Jeff, Max and now the Harb Brothers have been scouring Supreme Court Decisions dating from the turn of the 20th Century, where the Court has recognized Statutory Obsolescense. Many of these will involve Transportation related cases, as that's where the majority of such rulings occur. There are many from more recent times involving the telecommunications industry as well, which I believe cite these earlier cases as well.

Still, as I've said before, given the venues (District of Arizona, Middle District of Florida, District of Utah) and the likelyhood that convictions will be upheld for Max and the Harbs (in the 11th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively*) These cases will in all likelyhood end up before the US Supreme Court in a few years, certainly after the 2008 election. There, so long as the make-up of the Court remains unchanged, it will come down to Justice Kennedy, the lone swing vote on the court since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. As I've said before, I havent had time to research Justice Kennedy's voting record regarding Obsceneties and related issues. Maybe I'll stop by the Library later today.

(*Jeff gets a "break" of sorts, in that the 9th Circuit, of which both California and Arizona are a part, is the most Liberal Circuit in the Country, routinely ruling on the side of freedom in First Amendment and other Civil Liberties issues. The flip side is that it is the most Appealed Circuit by the Government, and the most overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, there have been several tougne-in-cheek remarks made to the effect that there should be Two Supreme Courts: One for the 9th Circuit and One for the Rest of the Country. So even when he wins on appeal, the Government will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court.)

I still maintain that a Democratic Administration would, quietly, kill these prosecutions. Or, at the very least, pursue them half-heartedly. Even a (shudder) Hillary Administration would be too busy with revenge cases against Kenneth Starr, Linda Tripp, Richard Mellon Scaiffe and others to deal with Porners. Whereas ANY of the Republicans (Ron Paul doesn't count) would pursue the charges with equal if not greater vigor. It's just that simple.