Interesting Reads
 

Senator Santorum's view on Freedom of Speech:

"But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren?t really the point, are they? ?Speech? implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be ?worth a thousand words,? of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America?s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all."

For full article, visit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0507210812.asp

Also, did you know that the Catholic Church keeps secret archives in each diocese? It is required by Cannon Law and records "matters of morals."

Read more about the secret inworkings of the Catholic Church at:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/Special_i...on%20Paper.pdf

your name spelled backwards is Border

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Redrum!!

It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit - this bit makes me horny!

Very perceptive..... you get a gold star by your name.

I'm not sure I agree with all of that or even that we are experienced enough to fully debate the issue.

I think I know what he is trying to say. Freedom of Speech was given for the purpose of talking or writing against the government. (political).

I also believe that it has to applied to all speech, not just political. Seems like he wants different levels of allowed speech.

Not sure that will work.

I seems that he want an "activist court" to reinterpretate the Constitution to fit his own "Uber-moralistic" needs. How, unconservative is that!

It seems that he wants an "activist court" to reinterpretate the Constitution to fit his own "Uber-moralistic" needs. How, unconservative is that!


Please excuse my typos in the above thead. I will do better.

YOu are right that "re" interpreting the constitution to fit political needs is the opposite of conservative.