Quote:
Originally Posted by Malicious Biz
Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.
|
Yeah... I guess I shoulda qualified it a bit more. Thanks for doing it for me. It's all on the Federal Level, of course.
But I can't say I agree with your analogy. States can, in the status quo, stop porn if they want to... ask any adult DVD distributor. Constitutionally, it's a right reserved to the States to regulate pornography as they see fit - short of a breach of the first amendment... and the courts, with the aid of groups such as the ACLU, have been rather decent about watching over our rights in that regard, I think.
The problem, I feel, comes when the Fed tries to impose their own regulation on this industry (2257, etc), which - if not for the loophole created by the Interstate Commerse Clause - would be decidedly unconstitutional. One of Ron Paul's platform points is to restore a bit of sensibility to the application of that clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as - in it's current legal scope - it covers everything.
That, I think, would be pretty good for our industry. Not bad.