To see the whole article go to: http://thefredmartinezreport.blogspot.com/
November 13, 2005 (Press Release) --
Children's Right to Porn
The California appeals court ruled that libraries must not use computer filters to disallow kids from viewing Internet pornography. A San Jose Mercury News editorial inferred that the First Amendment was invoked so the adult’s right to view porn would not be encroached.
One can see the Civil Liberties Union-who won the case- standing with hand over heart as the Constitution upheld this new right.
If Internet smutt is authorized why not have smutty magazines lying around the newspaper section. Also, we mustn’t forget the kid’s right to check out dirty magazines and videos.
It would never get that far because parents don’t allow their children into porn shops. The libraries funding would soon be voted down.
Why aren’t parents angered by library Internet obscenity? It is the same reason abortion is legal while infanticide is not.
Babies and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet porn usually are unseen by parents. Of course, the media could show the American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public funded Internet smutt.
But, the national media wants to preserve our Constitutional rights so they bans or prohibits those dangerous images. Thus, for the sake of the First amendment they in practicality prohibit our First Amendment rights.
All the news and drama stories-on primetime- are about courageous feminist saving women from back street abortions. Or, valiant publishers fighting against hypocrite who would destroy our freedom.
They can hide the truth because...
The California appeals court ruled that libraries must not use computer filters to disallow kids from viewing Internet pornography. A San Jose Mercury News editorial inferred that the First Amendment was invoked so the adult’s right to view porn would not be encroached.
One can see the Civil Liberties Union-who won the case- standing with hand over heart as the Constitution upheld this new right.
If Internet smutt is authorized why not have smutty magazines lying around the newspaper section. Also, we mustn’t forget the kid’s right to check out dirty magazines and videos.
It would never get that far because parents don’t allow their children into porn shops. The libraries funding would soon be voted down.
Why aren’t parents angered by library Internet obscenity? It is the same reason abortion is legal while infanticide is not.
Babies and dirty magazines can be seen, but babies in the womb and Internet porn usually are unseen by parents. Of course, the media could show the American public killings of unborn babies and kids looking at public funded Internet smutt.
But, the national media wants to preserve our Constitutional rights so they bans or prohibits those dangerous images. Thus, for the sake of the First amendment they in practicality prohibit our First Amendment rights.
All the news and drama stories-on primetime- are about courageous feminist saving women from back street abortions. Or, valiant publishers fighting against hypocrite who would destroy our freedom.
They can hide the truth because...
Email
Print
SPAM
