What do you mean? I’m referring to free/restricted “Speech” being continuously refined since 1790.

Not all speech is protected and that our understanding of what speech is and is not protected has been refined by judicial interpretation since 1798.

You can say whatever you want to a willing audience. An audience that tunes in to a public tv broadcasts expects a certain modicum of common decency as established by law. That’s the way its always been, although the standards have been loosened over time. It has nothing to do with sexual obsession. If I want to obsess over sex, I have HBO et al for that.

Please explain how the text of the 1st Amendment bears this. Personally, I believe everyone (except for a lunatic fringe) thinks that the 1st does not mean an unfettered right to free speech, and I feel that generally, the Supreme Court has done a good job in clasifying unprotected speech (obscenity, defamatory speech, incitement, child pornography (which doesn’t need to qualify as “obscene” in a legal sense, etc.).

My point is that if one is going to get on the “no law means no law” canard, there is no room for community standards, as the 1st Amendment is not just about speech acceptable by the majority of people–that is why Nazis have just as much a right to speak their hateful minds (speech I feel is a lot more offensive than a female breast, but in sex-obsessed America what do you expect?).

The government deciding what to censor is not the same as the public deciding to censor offensive material. If you can’t censor yourself and violate prevailing societal rules then it will be done for you.

Janet was nothing less than a hoochie mama bringing her trash into the family room. Her right to express herself ended at her side of the camera before it could be channeled to the public. Because CBS failed to do so, they got hit hard and rightly so.

Heck as much money as they make, the FCC should be charging 1 million per incident or the going rate is for advertising $$, whichever is higher.. rounded to the next highest minute. With fines like that, CBS might as well bring out the mouseketeers next year. At least my kids would enjoy that.

The airwaves are public property and it would not be unreasonable to arrest er for public lewdness the same as if she paraded around on a public side walk in violation of public decency laws.

By the way, you’re wrong about copyright since the founding fathers addressed that right along with the 1st. No conflict there and without it, we wouldn’t be as wealthy as we are now. Although, I will agree that current laws on behalf of the mouse and other monied interests is an obscenity in of itself.

Then why are so many people wanting the FCC to level massive fines against the TV station that aired the Janet Jackson imbroglio.

When it comes to censorship and advocating censorship, the Republicans have absolutely no ground to stand on.

Moreover, if we take “shall make no law . . .” at face value, then all copyright, obscenity, and defamation laws, would be unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black was 100% against defamation laws, and he was about as textualist as one can get.

Or something like that. I’d cite the precise wording, but that fascist Clarence Thomas won’t let me borrow his copy of the Constitution.

Obviously you all go to camps.

Or it could just be that the chants don’t matter to the upcoming election, or that Kerry won’t be at campaign rallies where he can be heckled.

That’s why people like the soon-to-be-world-famous LaShawn need to keep on making noise. Silly hate mail notwithstanding, the message IS getting through- especially when it’s backed up with God’s Word.

God bless one and all…

As a WASP, conservative republican, I love it when you tell the libs to get out of your lives, you are completely capable of making it without them. I have worked with, for, had working for me African-Americans (is that the right word) and had them for close friends. None of them needed a handout to make it and do very well for themselves. I personally think that this whole mess from the libs treating you like half-wits, which is what it is, is the most insulting thing they can do.

I welcome the comments of Bill Cosby and think he makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

IOW, I’ll call off my dogs if you call off yours, otherwise, let the games continue.

The moonbats have more money and dogs in this fight than we do, yet they cry and whine about every zinger that counts–granted, we rarely misfire.

Don’t blame Bush. Blame that independently minded but idiotic McCain for creating this mess. And to think he went on the news yesterday to insist that we fight with our hands tied behind our backs while giving MoveOn and ACT a free pass.

Talk about Manchurian VietCong Candidates.

This is ridiculous, and despite being a Bush supporter, I can’t help but being angry with the President’s stance on this issue, and for that matter, his signing of the Campaign Finance Reform Bill a few years back.

Speech is not up for regulation. If what the Swift Vets are saying is wrong, then the light of day ought to expose it for the lie that it is. On the other hand, if it’s the truth (as I believe that it is), then we should all be enlightened by the light the ad has shined on John Kerry.

In any event, ideas ought to be left to a free and open marketplace, and we should never be “alarmed” because speech is unregulated. If anything, we should be alarmed by the tone of both parties, that seem to want to monopolize speech.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m still a Republican, and I’m still voting for Bush, but we should all consider urging Bush to change his stance on this important issue.