Republicans say "we'll enforce the law, whatever" as democrats ponder CDA III
 

In the news -
When asked, republican candidates said sure, we'll enforce the existing laws.

Meanwhile, the democrats haven't yet declared whether they will pass a third unconstitional ban on porn after the supreme court struck down Clinton's first two efforts, CDA and CDA II, as unconstitutional.

I assume you accidentally made this thread early? Hehe. Waiting on the edit, this should be an interesting one.

where is obama's war on porn? it's 2012 not 1996.

Ok, much better, thanks for the heads up, raymor.

Just think, 2 more years of listening to conservatives apologize for the idiotic stance their party takes on every single important issue. The cognitive dissonance required is almost unbelievable.

I think you mean "COPA" and "COPA II."

There was only one Communications Decency Act, and while the part of it that would have been most detrimental to the adult industry has been permanently enjoined by the court, the rest of the Act, including Section 230 (a rather important part of the immunity from liability enjoyed by ISPs/OSPs) is very much still in effect. :2 cents:

and the sheer delusion that the bulk of the party is made up of small government pro-business south park republicans instead of mouth breathing science hating dark ages religious idiots ... that have to be pandered to.

As I recall COPA is known as CDA II because it was basically Clinton trying to do CDA again after the court already ruled it unconstitutional.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/2...st-pornography

Stop it. There's only one party that feels the need to appease their constituents by pledging to attack "sin"

not exactly. clinton signed COPA. Put most democrats that run for election on the record, they will vote for family values. Only the democrat judges protect free speech.

this is exactly what happened with COPA.

I posted a morality in the media article how weak Clinton was on porn. Janet Reno thought going after adult porn was a waste of resources. if u look at history the right love fucking with porn.

What does that meta tag do?

presumably add a rating tag to web pages so parents can use netnanny etc to block them.

Ah, it may be the case that some people have referred to COPA as "CDA II," I've just never heard it positioned that way before.

When I discussed this with the ACLU attorneys who handled the case (I covered ACLU v. Mukasey for a couple of publications and I'm good friends with one of the expert witnesses called in the case), they used "COPA II" to refer to the second adjudication of COPA, which resulted in the 3rd Circuit holding it to be unconstitutional in 2008, to differentiate it from the 2004 case (Ashcroft v. ACLU) which resulted in the Supreme Court upholding the injunction issued by the Circuit court.

Since you consider it "Clinton trying to do it again," I have to ask: does the Bush Administration simply get a pass on defending COPA in court, repeatedly?

I don't see being anti-porn as an exclusively Republican, or exclusively Democratic, position. It has been a bipartisan majority position, unfortunately, where Congress, the White House, the DOJ, various State Assemblies, nearly all County Supervisors, virtually every City Council, etc. etc. are concerned, dating back to the dawn of obscenity prosecutions.

IMO, the ONLY 'ally' the porn industry has in the U.S. government is the Court -- and not because the Court has any sort of favorable view of porn. It is because the Court has an expansive view of the scope of the First Amendment.... as it should, and as is consistent with the last 40 years of case law. :2 cents:

Not all of them, one did a lot of good for us
http://www.ynot.com/content/117421-d...aved-porn.html

:thumbsup