We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Republicans are fools In what is almost certain to become a long-running series devoted to the topic, let us now note one of the ways in which the Republicans are fools:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, like his immediate predecessor, John Ashcroft, has pledged to make obscenity prosecutions a priority. The department is expected to announce soon the creation of a special unit within its criminal division to focus on adult obscenity cases.
Surely no additional comment is needed, but let us note that there are apparently federal laws against obscenity in spite of a rather clear and unqualified statement in the Constitution of the United State to the effect that “Congress shall make no law… , ” so let us pause a moment to lob a brickbat or two at the apparently illiterate Justices of the Supreme Court who have upheld such laws.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I was willing to overlook the moralizing faction of the Republican Party as long as they were willing to be fiscally conservative, afterall the Libs/Dems have their own moral crusaders against obscenity (Tipper Gore?).
But now that they have caved on being fiscally conservative I’ve had no choice but to move on and remove the republican portion of my ‘libertarian-republican’ label. Now there are just two variations of the same theme – taking my money to fund the cramming of their moral creed down my throat.
I am not willing to overlook the moralizing factions at all, but I do know that if I can keep my money I stand a better chance of overcoming them. So in short, toolkien, we’re after the same thing….again.
Wow, the U.S. federal government will spend money and resources on keeping icky videos from being sold? Well, I sure am glad that terrorism and violent crime are no longer a problem.
I thought the pursuit of happiness was one of the inalienable rights declared in 1776? And watching icky videos makes some people very happy – at least briefly.
Consider obscenity a “Lost Cause” in the US, don’t forget that the Democrats were behind the CDA (remember all those ribbons on-line?) so neither of the two big parties are very likeable. I would be Libertarian all the way but then I’d have to overcome that LP has become a bunch of pacifists since 9/11.
What about Profanity, scatology, vulgarity and the ever popular coprophemia? Will we still be allowed to question the accuracy of a claimed genetic background? This is all too funny. I think I’m about to join 48 million other Americans in their buyers remorse. If Only the Dems had ran someone electable.
As Glenn Reynolds has said on his blog, has nobody told Gonzales that there is war against terrorism?
As long as they start with the adult obscenity case that is Hillary Clinton… go for it!
Really though… how pathetic. The Republicans are really making a go of pissing off every supporter they may have gained save their Christian fans base.
Don’t they already have said special unit?
E. Nough,
Well, since most of this stuff is streamed right to peoples’ homes via the internet, its not even an issue of renting.
JFC! There’s a “War on Terrorism” on and the AG is worried about obscenity? Need to pull the quote from “Star Wars” that Instapundit recently referred to: “You’re doing great, kid, don’t get cocky!”
I can understand why Tom Lehrer gave up song writing.
In his words, “it is a shame the founding fathers didn’t make ‘pleasure’ part of the bill of rights”
Republicans: Stupid Party
Democrats: Evil Party
Libertarians: Losers Party
Greens: Evil Losers Party
US federal elections are just sad….
Ah, but is pornography ‘speech’? The Supreme Court thinks not. So maybe the First Amendment does allow for obscenity prosecutions. BUT there are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and it’s because of those, I’d argue, that the Supreme Court, Congress, and Gonzales are acting illegally. After all, according to the Constitution, there are only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Not obscenity.
Chris-
I can’t remember the exact number, but I think the 9th Amendment has been cited all of once (twice?) in the history of the Supreme Court. Either that or never. As much as I like it, it’s jurisprudentially dead letter.
The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that what you do in your home has a lot more lee-way than what you do in public. If Lawrence of Lawrence v. Texas fame had been farking his partner out in the street, I don’t think they would have found for him. What concerns me is that this new AG unit will be going after the home privacy, or at least the channels of distribution to home entertainment.
I thought the pursuit of happiness was one of the inalienable rights declared in 1776? And watching icky videos makes some people very happy – at least briefly.
It’s also good for shares in Kleenex. I thought the Republicans were meant to be pro-business?
I think this is payback for the Christian support the Republicans have received.
Brock–yes, I do know the 9th is essentially dead, and that’s a pity. A lot of the better parts of the US Constitution–the 9th, the 10th, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, even the 2nd–aren’t given much respect by the courts, while the ‘elastic’ and Commerce Clauses are twisted by them in order to facilitate the expansion of the State.
I am curious – how does the Supreme Court interpret the constitution? How is it that they can just ignore parts of it? The Australian High Court, which rules on the Constitutionality of government laws, amongst other things, cannot simply ignore parts of it because they haven’t been brought up for a while. Why is this possible in the States?
Chris, its either speech or the press, just as much as any other segment of the information marketplace (whether movies, TV, or magazines).
Suffering, by violating the oath they take when they take office and by arrogating themselves the power to rule by fiat. Simple, really, for someone with a shrunken conscience and an inflated sense of his own cleverness.
Robert, if you think obscenity is speech or the press, that’s understandable and a debatable point. I’m not sure myself what it is. What I do know is this, though: the Miller test (outlined here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obscenity.htm ) is the current case-law under which obscenity is governed in the US. And the test states clearly that if its criteria are met, then obscenity may be outlawed.
For the record, I think this is a bad decision since it relies on the unfortunate 14th Amendment to extend the 1st to the states. This, I think, is Federal over-reach; more properly, such matters would be adjudicated in state courts and no further.
Many of you seem very intelligent. You are able to digest media story and make broader generalization conclusions. Except, you are much slower than most liberals. They are able to read a headline and conclude months before you that Republicans are the problem.
The biggest anti-government, tax-cutting politicians are Republicans in the United States. Period. And if given a chance to make major reform you all will be left in the dust.
Its happening as we speak, but you are blinded by media attempts to find some obscure quotes to prove that this time the Republicans really are up to something bad. Some people pounce on every story and forget about the last one. You all are like the sales man who comes knocking 30 times before you buy into it. Every story comes and goes. Comes and goes. On to the next thing. Sometimes it succeeds– like with Limbaugh or Lott, etc. If you want suppression of free speech perhaps think about ALL the things people CAN and have said from the left attacking Republicans and Bush personally and visibly. Then think of the number of Republicans who have suffered literally.
Am I the only one who’s having problems understanding what the hell Kmax is going on about?
The biggest anti-government, tax-cutting politicians are Republicans in the United States
Unfortunately the Republicans are not “anti-government”. They love the thing. Can’t get enough of it. Look at the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act II (even more patriotic that the first one!). Look at the way GWB has not vetoed a single spending bill. The USG may not be taxing and spending, but it is certainly borrowing and spending, and every day it gets a billion dollars deeper in a hole. One day these dollars will have to be paid back, and you can be pretty certain that the USG will make sure that a dollar in 10 or 30 years’ time will be worth a lot less than a dollar today. Even governments can’t postpone reality forever.
What a wonderful use of the American taxpayers’ money.