Cheif Justice candidate speaks on porn today... - GoFuckYourself.com

jaYMan · 09-13-2005, 04:09 PM

Roberts Recognizes Lesser Protection For Porn
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...=Breaking+News

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/13/2005 4:51:00 PM

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts agrees that court precedent has established a lesser protection for pornographic speech than for political or "core" speech, but that, in a judicial sense, he won't know porn until he sees it.

That tidbit came in response to questioning from Mike DeWyne (R-Ohio), who pointed out that two Internet-related speech bills, the Child Online Pornography Act and Communications Decency Act had both been struck down by the courts.

But, as careful with his answer to that question as he has been with so many others, Roberts did not indicate what level of protection that graphic speech deserved.

"The difficulty that the court has addressed...is always defining what is or is not pornography and what is entitled to protection under the First Amendment and what is not," Roberts said.

That question is antecedent to the question of what the level of the protection is. You determine whether it is entitled to First Amendment protection in the first place."

He said the courts had found that "certain types of speech, like child pornography, are not entitled to protection. There are different categories and the court has struggled over the years in figuring out how to determine what belongs in what category. Beyond that I do not think I can give a more precise answer."

dropped9 · 09-13-2005, 04:10 PM

hmmm i gotta read that a few more times...

pornstar2pac · 09-13-2005, 04:11 PM

screw that, i want to see you in a schoolgirl's outfit

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-13-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

he won't know porn until he sees it.

Roberts probably f*cks with his socks on...

ADG Webmaster

Matt 26z · 09-13-2005, 04:21 PM

Negative comments towards porn may have been considered a safe answer from him, which he did not do. I think the answer he gave was equally as safe, but he didn't try and cater to the conservatives either...

Tat2Jr · 09-13-2005, 04:32 PM

God, I hope the liberal judges can hang on for another 3 years. If we lose even one of them to a bush appointment we're screwed for decades.

Linkster · 09-13-2005, 04:59 PM

Ya'll need to realize he is just saying what they want to hear - same as he did when he represented Hefner at Playboy

lchaim · 09-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

Ya'll need to realize he is just saying what they want to hear - same as he did when he represented Hefner at Playboy

He represented Hef in the past?

sounds like airbrushed vanilla porn will be ok then

$5 submissions · 09-13-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

God, I hope the liberal judges can hang on for another 3 years. If we lose even one of them to a bush appointment we're screwed for decades.

There's 4 of them right now on the Court...
Souter -- appointed by a Republican
Stevens -- appointed by a Republican

Ginsberg -- appointed by a Democract
Breyer -- appointed by a Democrat

As you can see above, there's no way of knowing where Republican appointees will lean. Some of the most memorable LIBERALS on the court--Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan were Republican appointees.

09-13-2005, 04:09 PM	#1
jaYMan peace&profit, Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 4,885	Cheif Justice candidate speaks on porn today... Roberts Recognizes Lesser Protection For Porn http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...=Breaking+News By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/13/2005 4:51:00 PM U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts agrees that court precedent has established a lesser protection for pornographic speech than for political or "core" speech, but that, in a judicial sense, he won't know porn until he sees it. That tidbit came in response to questioning from Mike DeWyne (R-Ohio), who pointed out that two Internet-related speech bills, the Child Online Pornography Act and Communications Decency Act had both been struck down by the courts. But, as careful with his answer to that question as he has been with so many others, Roberts did not indicate what level of protection that graphic speech deserved. "The difficulty that the court has addressed...is always defining what is or is not pornography and what is entitled to protection under the First Amendment and what is not," Roberts said. That question is antecedent to the question of what the level of the protection is. You determine whether it is entitled to First Amendment protection in the first place." He said the courts had found that "certain types of speech, like child pornography, are not entitled to protection. There are different categories and the court has struggled over the years in figuring out how to determine what belongs in what category. Beyond that I do not think I can give a more precise answer." __________________ peace&profit, jaYMan

09-13-2005, 04:11 PM	#3
pornstar2pac Omaha Hi/Lo Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 17,380	screw that, i want to see you in a schoolgirl's outfit __________________ Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can do

09-13-2005, 04:32 PM	#6
Tat2Jr Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sunny California Posts: 4,882	God, I hope the liberal judges can hang on for another 3 years. If we lose even one of them to a bush appointment we're screwed for decades. __________________ NICHE MONEY >> Ass Worship • Panties • Solo Teen • Pantyhose Serving up exclusive fetish sites since 1997!

09-13-2005, 04:59 PM	#7
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	Ya'll need to realize he is just saying what they want to hear - same as he did when he represented Hefner at Playboy __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

09-13-2005, 04:10 PM	#2
dropped9 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Your moms box Posts: 26,727	hmmm i gotta read that a few more times...

09-13-2005, 04:21 PM	#5
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Negative comments towards porn may have been considered a safe answer from him, which he did not do. I think the answer he gave was equally as safe, but he didn't try and cater to the conservatives either...