Re: i don't know if it's been signed yet but pass this on

[jph@sas.upenn.edu (THANATOS)]

As I don't have a whole lot of time just a couple of points...

1) Proverbs give messages, not literal truths.
2) Saudi Arabia's standards are less valid because we are not in Saudi 
Arabia.
3) Yes, I've read the Constitution.  Would you quote it as gospel?  Hmm, 
that's interesting.  Do you consider your black friends 2/3 as important 
as yourself?
	
Nobody said anything about *my* standards of what's decent.  None of 
those senators or representatives asked me about what I consider 
indecent.  But the people who elected them obviously care what they 
consider decent- and who am I to deny the duly elected representatives of 
the american citizens the right to make laws?  Last I checked, that was 
actually their bloomin' job.

In any case, my position is one that would advocate the protection of 
children from harmful material.  Nudity in and of itself is not harmful 
per se; but most of the nudity used for the purposes of entertainment can 
be.  Just as the miracle of life can be shown in public schools and 
debbie does dallas cannot be, because one is purely educational and the 
other can corrupt those who are still learning what is appropriate 
behavior and what is not.

I'm not talking about protecting some higher moral ground, I'm talking 
about protecting people.  Besides that, if you read my first post on the 
subject, I was not defending the law just passed.  I was merely 
questioning why so many people blindly follow the dogmatic 1st ammendment 
rhetoric the people can say whatever they want, whenever they want, 
however they want.  Not only has that never been the case (in America 
anyway), it never will be.  Because people are too stupid not to abuse 
that privelige.  

in any case, my point was more along the lines of the society having the 
obligation to itself to not destroy the minds of the next generation.  
Private sector isn't doing it, because of their search for the almighty 
buck, so why shouldn't the gov't step in?  They have both the authority 
and the power, so why not?  If they screw up with this law, it gets 
struck down in court and they try again.  That's the way the system was 
designed to work.

PS- without any precedents set in the supreme court, the congress has no 
choice but to rely on its own interpretation of the constitution and 
other laws.  not yours, not mine.