Pro-Decency Groups Urge President to Pick a Supreme Court Nominee Who 'Understands the Difference Between Liberty and License'
To: National Desk
Contact: Robert Peters of Morality in Media,
NEW YORK, July 18, /Christian Wire Service/ -- 57 individuals, including representatives of more than 40 pro-decency groups, sent a letter to President Bush on July 14 urging him to nominate for the Supreme Court "a person who understands the difference between cherished liberty and ruinous license and who will not invalidate reasonable and necessary laws intended to protect society and children from obscenity and indecency."
The letter, drafted by Morality in Media President Robert W. Peters, contrasts the Supreme Court's record on obscenity and indecency issues throughout most of our nation's history with more recent decisions. In earlier cases, the letter states, the Court "agreed" with "our founding fathers [who] viewed the First Amendment within a framework of ordered liberty ? not as a license to publish pornography, to strip in public places for the purpose of sexually arousing patrons, to assault citizens in public spaces with indecent talk and pictures, and to commercially distribute entertainment that is harmful to minors without any legal obligation to adopt sensible measures to restrict children's access."
The earlier cases are described in the letter as follows:
In Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, at 716 (1931), the Supreme Court said, "the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications."
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, at 571 (1942), the Supreme Court said, "There are certain?classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the?obscene."
In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Supreme Court noted, "this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press" (at 481) and held that obscenity is "not?constitutionally protected speech or press" (at 485).
In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the Supreme Court upheld a "Disseminating indecent materials to minors" law on the grounds that those responsible for children's well-being "are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility" (at 639) and that the "State also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth" (at 640).
In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the Court said, "This much has been categorically settled by the Court that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment" (at 23) and, "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material?is a 'misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press'" (at 34-35).
In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) the Court held that there are legitimate governmental interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, "even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles" (at 57-58). These include "the public safety (at 58) and "the right?to maintain a decent society" (at 59).
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, at 748-749 (1978), the Court upheld the broadcast indecency law, observing that broadcast indecency confronts citizens "not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home" and that "prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener" and that broadcasting is "accessible to children, even those too young to read."
More recently, the letter points out, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision that limited the hours during which the federal broadcast indecency law can be enforced, and in other cases:
1. Limited the reach of obscenity laws to "hardcore pornography"
2. Held that cities must provide "adult businesses" with a reasonable opportunity to open
3. Held that "nude dancing" enjoys First Amendment protection
4. Invalidated a law prohibiting "pseudo child porn"
5. Invalidated a law restricting children's access to indecent material on the Internet
6. Invalidated a law restricting children's access to pornography on cable TV
The letter adds, "Other federal court cases are headed towards the Supreme Court that, if decided in favor of the pornography defenders, will push our nation ever closer to the brink of moral anarchy.
"In Philadelphia, a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that a federal law restricting children's access to Internet pornography is unconstitutional. In Pittsburgh, a federal judge has ruled that federal obscenity laws are now in large measure unenforceable. In New York City, petitioners have filed a suit in federal court arguing that a federal obscenity law cannot be applied on the Internet?.
"Mr. President, we realize that there is often a fine line between Justices properly interpreting the Constitution and in effect rewriting it, but if that line no longer exists and Justices are free to effectively rewrite the freedom of speech and of the press clause to reflect their own libertarian views, then ours is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln aptly put it. What we have is a judicial oligarchy accountable to no one."
To: National Desk
Contact: Robert Peters of Morality in Media,
NEW YORK, July 18, /Christian Wire Service/ -- 57 individuals, including representatives of more than 40 pro-decency groups, sent a letter to President Bush on July 14 urging him to nominate for the Supreme Court "a person who understands the difference between cherished liberty and ruinous license and who will not invalidate reasonable and necessary laws intended to protect society and children from obscenity and indecency."
The letter, drafted by Morality in Media President Robert W. Peters, contrasts the Supreme Court's record on obscenity and indecency issues throughout most of our nation's history with more recent decisions. In earlier cases, the letter states, the Court "agreed" with "our founding fathers [who] viewed the First Amendment within a framework of ordered liberty ? not as a license to publish pornography, to strip in public places for the purpose of sexually arousing patrons, to assault citizens in public spaces with indecent talk and pictures, and to commercially distribute entertainment that is harmful to minors without any legal obligation to adopt sensible measures to restrict children's access."
The earlier cases are described in the letter as follows:
In Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, at 716 (1931), the Supreme Court said, "the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications."
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, at 571 (1942), the Supreme Court said, "There are certain?classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the?obscene."
In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Supreme Court noted, "this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press" (at 481) and held that obscenity is "not?constitutionally protected speech or press" (at 485).
In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the Supreme Court upheld a "Disseminating indecent materials to minors" law on the grounds that those responsible for children's well-being "are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility" (at 639) and that the "State also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth" (at 640).
In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the Court said, "This much has been categorically settled by the Court that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment" (at 23) and, "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material?is a 'misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press'" (at 34-35).
In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) the Court held that there are legitimate governmental interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, "even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles" (at 57-58). These include "the public safety (at 58) and "the right?to maintain a decent society" (at 59).
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, at 748-749 (1978), the Court upheld the broadcast indecency law, observing that broadcast indecency confronts citizens "not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home" and that "prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener" and that broadcasting is "accessible to children, even those too young to read."
More recently, the letter points out, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision that limited the hours during which the federal broadcast indecency law can be enforced, and in other cases:
1. Limited the reach of obscenity laws to "hardcore pornography"
2. Held that cities must provide "adult businesses" with a reasonable opportunity to open
3. Held that "nude dancing" enjoys First Amendment protection
4. Invalidated a law prohibiting "pseudo child porn"
5. Invalidated a law restricting children's access to indecent material on the Internet
6. Invalidated a law restricting children's access to pornography on cable TV
The letter adds, "Other federal court cases are headed towards the Supreme Court that, if decided in favor of the pornography defenders, will push our nation ever closer to the brink of moral anarchy.
"In Philadelphia, a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that a federal law restricting children's access to Internet pornography is unconstitutional. In Pittsburgh, a federal judge has ruled that federal obscenity laws are now in large measure unenforceable. In New York City, petitioners have filed a suit in federal court arguing that a federal obscenity law cannot be applied on the Internet?.
"Mr. President, we realize that there is often a fine line between Justices properly interpreting the Constitution and in effect rewriting it, but if that line no longer exists and Justices are free to effectively rewrite the freedom of speech and of the press clause to reflect their own libertarian views, then ours is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln aptly put it. What we have is a judicial oligarchy accountable to no one."
Comment