|
 Originally Posted by Pelion
 Originally Posted by andy-akb
Im not sure what you mean by "there probably werent any children,"
That was a joke 
Haha, I was hoping that is what you meant by it, I felt like that came straight out of Zoolander or something.
 Originally Posted by Pelion
 Originally Posted by andy-akb
anyways you seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the constitution. It isnt supposed to cover everything, and was made intentionally vague. The constitution does not act the same why laws do, it does not provide a black and white basis for legal and illegal, moral and immoral, it does not "define appropriate behavior," laws do.
Yes, but it defines what sort of laws are allowed to be written. Hence gun control laws not being passed because they are unconstitutional.
So how would we change the constitution to "fix" this "problem?" Would we amend the constitution to only apply in certain situations? Where would the oversight be? If you were to say "Constitutional protections dont apply in child porn cases, then how would you determine whether the case involved child porn without violating the rights of people who arent involved with that? Im having a tough time wording this, but what Im saying is that you can only say "this shouldnt apply" after the fact because you dont know what a search will bring up before you do the search. So amending the constitution to something like this would essentially get rid of all constitutional protections.
 Originally Posted by Pelion
 Originally Posted by andy-akb
I dont think anybody has made an argument for allowing child porn under freedom of the press as that doesnt even really make sense.
So what exactly is the "first ammendment violated?" title all about. I really dont see anything about this case that violates the first amendment. Really, please explain it if you know because I have totally missed it.
I just looked at that again, and honestly I have no idea. I hadnt seen anybody in the thread elaborate on a 1st amendment argument, I forgot to look at the thread title. Again though, we agree this definitely doesnt involve the first amendment.
 Originally Posted by Pelion
 Originally Posted by andy-akb
I dont think anybody is making a first amendment complaint here
Reread the thread title.
Same as above.
|