A New Constitutional Right!

[mlchance]

Judge Lancaster, appointed by President Bill Clinton, discovered last week a constitutional right to sell obscene films depicting women who are beaten, raped and killed. This heretofore unknown right, Lancaster says, emanates from the U.S. Supreme Court’s far-reaching 2003 decision in Lawrence v Texas striking down state sodomy laws. This may be the end result of Lawrence, though it’s likely the Lawrence majority plans to cherry pick only those laws they find disagreeable. Murder, theft, and child abuse laws seem safe for now. However, Judge Lancaster is giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to eliminate anti-pornography laws, something those Justices dissenting in Lawrence predicted could happen as a result of that decision.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Timidity]

Please remember that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, so it’s quite possible that Judge’s can protect fundamental rights that are not listed.

(No, I’m not claiming that snuff films are a fundamental right).

 

[gilliam]

Timidity:

Please remember that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, so it’s quite possible that Judge’s can protect fundamental rights that are not listed.

(No, I’m not claiming that snuff films are a fundamental right).

This is correct. In fact, the way the Constitution is written, it primarily enumerates what the federal government can and cannot do. Everything not listed is considered up to the States to cover.

 

[puzzleannie]

there is still a law against rape and murder, and pornographers are usually convicted on those charges, which are unfortunately harder to prove and harder to find evidence for. the films themselves are not even considered definitive evidence because the prosecuter has to prove the acts actually occured, not a dramatization, and to locate the victims. that free speech provisions of the first amendment can be so warped to include pornography at all, let alone that depicting violence against women and children, is so horrible a misreading of the constitution as to unfit any judge who does so from his office (in my opinion).