deepundergroundpoetry.com
The Mistakes of the Supreme Court
Free Speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the first Amendment.
They go together! They are given side by side for a reason.
Free speech wasn't supposed to hurt freedom of the press.
But the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted "free speech"
(to include photos and even motion picture) has really hurt freedom of the press.
At least, we see that circulation of newspapers is going down.
Eyes that should be reading the news are instead
viewing the nudes in internet porn or other forms of porn.
Why, because the meathead Supreme Court repeatedly
struck down reasonable obscenity laws,
rampaging like a bull in a china shop.
Not only are the Justices dressed in black,
they have done our nation a grave monumental disservice,
a BLACK injustice each time they struck down laws against obscenity.
Imagine the Justices with their fancy black robes whirling like whirling dervishes,
then turning into human tornadoes laying down a path of destruction
and mayhem from one end of this land to the other.That vision has come tragically true !!
Things like photography,movies,
the internet all were created by men of science.
One way to show our appreciation of such heroes
is to use what they gave us in such a way that science
is furthered,glorified. But porn is not pro-science. It is the epitome of anti-science.
That is just one more reason why the Court deserves our total contempt.
If you are going to DC, be sure to carry a cup of urine or feces
to besmirch the steps leading up to the Supreme Court building.
Getting back to reality, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Moving pictures, ten thousand maybe.
If movies are so powerful, should they be treated as ordinary speech?
Lets suppose, you have two vehicles, one (a bike) that goes 15 miles an hour,
while the other (a car) can go 150 mph.
You wouldn't put the same brakes on both vehicles.
The more powerful vehicle deserves a more powerful brake
system than the bike brake, of course.
Ditto, for the "brakes" or restrictions that need
to be put on different forms of the media.
Books without pictures need less restraints than do motion pictures
that have the power to suck you into the plot.
The nice thing about bad books, the illiterate can't be
abused by their words. For they can't read them.
Not so with bad or obscene movies.
So, movies shouldn't be granted the same amount
of freedom that books and newspapers have.
This is not rocket science. Anybody with a brain,
or even a brain stem, can figure it out. Why can't the Supreme Court ??
We come from the animals.
Our bodies, I should say. Including our brains.
What the Bible calls, "the war between the spirit and the flesh"(Galatians 5.17,24;1 Peter 2.11)
is really the struggle of the human part of the brain
versus the animal brain to some extent.
Such as the limbic region which deals with sexuality.
Lets say, the animal part of your brain says, "I want to eat."
but your intellect overrules that desire.
That kind of contest goes on all the time.
Our laws should reflect that struggle,
favoring positive outcomes as opposed to negative ones.
Our laws should continue the ages-long struggle of civilization
to promote, strengthen mankind's ascendancy
over the brute beasts. Including the beast within each of us.
In the first chapter in the Bible, God says,
"Have dominion over the animals"(Genesis 1.26-28).
That was the beginning of the Torah("the Law of Moses")
but it should also serve as the foundation of our laws today.
Laws are for the purpose of controlling the animality
within society. Not to crush it but to harness it.
But the Supreme Court in its superior wisdom thinks that
freedom is another term for animality, giving vent to the animality within.
So laws against obscenity must be struck down in the name of freedom.
Why is there so much porn on the Net? Because of the Supreme Court!!
The internet serves as a sort of collective brain of society, of the human race.
If so, it is more like the brain of a subhuman species,
one whose intellect is limited while it's sexuality isn't.
Using the human brain as our model of what we want the internet to be,
it's clear we need to restrict porn on the Net - and in society.
When children, teens, young adults, are drawn away into various forms
of "entertainment" to the point that their school work suffers,
dwindling down to where it doesn't exist, to the point that they are illiterates,
or think like illiterates, doesn't that tell us that "Entertainment" is the problem ??
And what makes it so powerful?
The total lack of control society has over it is largely due
to the Supreme Court striking down law after law !!
If you have a dog on a leash and I come along and cut the leash,
the dog runs wild.That's what the Court has done.
Animality is running wild because the leashes (the laws), have been cut.
Children are having to go thru a gauntlet just to get educated.
Between them and their goal of becoming educated,
there lies the obstacle of TV, radio, cds, dvds, drugs, garbage on the internet.
Not to mention sports.and crime capers.
If entertainment were cut back to the point where kids did better in school,
that would be a boon to society. Supreme Court, are you listening?
They go together! They are given side by side for a reason.
Free speech wasn't supposed to hurt freedom of the press.
But the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted "free speech"
(to include photos and even motion picture) has really hurt freedom of the press.
At least, we see that circulation of newspapers is going down.
Eyes that should be reading the news are instead
viewing the nudes in internet porn or other forms of porn.
Why, because the meathead Supreme Court repeatedly
struck down reasonable obscenity laws,
rampaging like a bull in a china shop.
Not only are the Justices dressed in black,
they have done our nation a grave monumental disservice,
a BLACK injustice each time they struck down laws against obscenity.
Imagine the Justices with their fancy black robes whirling like whirling dervishes,
then turning into human tornadoes laying down a path of destruction
and mayhem from one end of this land to the other.That vision has come tragically true !!
Things like photography,movies,
the internet all were created by men of science.
One way to show our appreciation of such heroes
is to use what they gave us in such a way that science
is furthered,glorified. But porn is not pro-science. It is the epitome of anti-science.
That is just one more reason why the Court deserves our total contempt.
If you are going to DC, be sure to carry a cup of urine or feces
to besmirch the steps leading up to the Supreme Court building.
Getting back to reality, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Moving pictures, ten thousand maybe.
If movies are so powerful, should they be treated as ordinary speech?
Lets suppose, you have two vehicles, one (a bike) that goes 15 miles an hour,
while the other (a car) can go 150 mph.
You wouldn't put the same brakes on both vehicles.
The more powerful vehicle deserves a more powerful brake
system than the bike brake, of course.
Ditto, for the "brakes" or restrictions that need
to be put on different forms of the media.
Books without pictures need less restraints than do motion pictures
that have the power to suck you into the plot.
The nice thing about bad books, the illiterate can't be
abused by their words. For they can't read them.
Not so with bad or obscene movies.
So, movies shouldn't be granted the same amount
of freedom that books and newspapers have.
This is not rocket science. Anybody with a brain,
or even a brain stem, can figure it out. Why can't the Supreme Court ??
We come from the animals.
Our bodies, I should say. Including our brains.
What the Bible calls, "the war between the spirit and the flesh"(Galatians 5.17,24;1 Peter 2.11)
is really the struggle of the human part of the brain
versus the animal brain to some extent.
Such as the limbic region which deals with sexuality.
Lets say, the animal part of your brain says, "I want to eat."
but your intellect overrules that desire.
That kind of contest goes on all the time.
Our laws should reflect that struggle,
favoring positive outcomes as opposed to negative ones.
Our laws should continue the ages-long struggle of civilization
to promote, strengthen mankind's ascendancy
over the brute beasts. Including the beast within each of us.
In the first chapter in the Bible, God says,
"Have dominion over the animals"(Genesis 1.26-28).
That was the beginning of the Torah("the Law of Moses")
but it should also serve as the foundation of our laws today.
Laws are for the purpose of controlling the animality
within society. Not to crush it but to harness it.
But the Supreme Court in its superior wisdom thinks that
freedom is another term for animality, giving vent to the animality within.
So laws against obscenity must be struck down in the name of freedom.
Why is there so much porn on the Net? Because of the Supreme Court!!
The internet serves as a sort of collective brain of society, of the human race.
If so, it is more like the brain of a subhuman species,
one whose intellect is limited while it's sexuality isn't.
Using the human brain as our model of what we want the internet to be,
it's clear we need to restrict porn on the Net - and in society.
When children, teens, young adults, are drawn away into various forms
of "entertainment" to the point that their school work suffers,
dwindling down to where it doesn't exist, to the point that they are illiterates,
or think like illiterates, doesn't that tell us that "Entertainment" is the problem ??
And what makes it so powerful?
The total lack of control society has over it is largely due
to the Supreme Court striking down law after law !!
If you have a dog on a leash and I come along and cut the leash,
the dog runs wild.That's what the Court has done.
Animality is running wild because the leashes (the laws), have been cut.
Children are having to go thru a gauntlet just to get educated.
Between them and their goal of becoming educated,
there lies the obstacle of TV, radio, cds, dvds, drugs, garbage on the internet.
Not to mention sports.and crime capers.
If entertainment were cut back to the point where kids did better in school,
that would be a boon to society. Supreme Court, are you listening?
Published 26th Nov 2015
| Edited 29th Nov 2015
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 2
reads 650
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
On a technical note, I struggled to find the timing of the piece. Though I must admit that I am not very well versed in prose, and timing may not be all that important for such a poem. In any case, it was relatively easy to follow.
As a matter of content, I find it interesting that you see freedom of speech as limiting the freedom of press. It's an interesting concept. I would ask you gt my observations.
When the net was becoming mainstream, I had the good fortune to be a highschool student. This means I was oversexed and understimulated. As such, I enjoyed tons of por....err, I mean...uh...poetry....yeah. Anyways, in those days, I would say that porn was about 95% of the internet. The rest was chat rooms with people trying to hook up. Now days, there is much more porn freely available on the internet, however, it accounts for a much smaller percentage. The oint being that the internet has no bounds. One thing does not take the place of the other. So when you say that the publication of porn hurts freedom of the press, I have to disagree. The presence of Porn does not take space away from the internet because there internet will simply grow to accommodate. Porn doesn't exist because I the supreme Court permits it, it exists because we (society) demand it.
As a matter of content, I find it interesting that you see freedom of speech as limiting the freedom of press. It's an interesting concept. I would ask you gt my observations.
When the net was becoming mainstream, I had the good fortune to be a highschool student. This means I was oversexed and understimulated. As such, I enjoyed tons of por....err, I mean...uh...poetry....yeah. Anyways, in those days, I would say that porn was about 95% of the internet. The rest was chat rooms with people trying to hook up. Now days, there is much more porn freely available on the internet, however, it accounts for a much smaller percentage. The oint being that the internet has no bounds. One thing does not take the place of the other. So when you say that the publication of porn hurts freedom of the press, I have to disagree. The presence of Porn does not take space away from the internet because there internet will simply grow to accommodate. Porn doesn't exist because I the supreme Court permits it, it exists because we (society) demand it.
29th Nov 2015 8:48pm
Thanks for a comparatively long comment. About your last statement, society's appetite for sex is relatively stable if we go by internal drive, hormones, etc. I mean society is made up of people with the same sex organs as their forebears. When legislators passed laws in each state against pornography, THEY were heeding the call of the people, parents especially. The IDIOT supreme court struck down law after law, total judicial butchery, a massacre of the culture and of DEMOCRACY.
If people are "demanding" porn nowadays, it's like a drug addict demanding drugs only AFTER he has become familiar with them, hooked on them. If the drugs had been kept from him, his appetite wouldn't have grown to addiction level. Take yourself, for example. If you had lived before the Net, tv, radio, you may well have filled your free time by reading books. And been as satisfied (with knowledge), as you are now with sex, sensation, etc.
You disagree with my claim that porn hurts freedom of the press. You say that whatever space that porn takes up on the Net, that doesn't matter. For the Net can grow and is basically unbounded.There's plenty of room for other stuff. But my point was that people have finite amounts of time in the day. Hours spent on porn or violent video games is time LOST as far as reading about the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR, ok? People are giving up newspapers partly due to lack of time(interest) to read them. Because their time is being used up by viewing porn, etc. ENTERTAINMENT, not just porn, is a threat to the press. It's like kids playing hooky.going fishing - instead of to school...Thank God there are many nations -- China is one -- that keep porn in check. Like we could be doing here. Except that Janet Reno, Attorney General under Bill Clinton, let porn on the Net go unchallenged.
John Ashcroft under Bush was "about to" go after porn. Then 9/11 happened and arrests, etc were cancelled. (But I don't see why. Surely SOMEbody at the Justice Dept could have handled those cases.) Yes, Islamic terrorism is just one more reason for outlawing porn. Fighting terrorism is psychological warfare. Each side basically is saying "Our morality is better than yours." The religious fanatics are saying, "Americans deserve to die because they are immoral hedonists." So when the porn industry keeps growing or even just operates without being indicted, this gives credibility to the holier-than-thou Islamic fanatics' claims.
If the Supreme Court had simply upheld the laws of the 1950s concerning the entertainment media, (straight up til today) we wouldn't have the present Islamic terrorism problem, I believe.
If people are "demanding" porn nowadays, it's like a drug addict demanding drugs only AFTER he has become familiar with them, hooked on them. If the drugs had been kept from him, his appetite wouldn't have grown to addiction level. Take yourself, for example. If you had lived before the Net, tv, radio, you may well have filled your free time by reading books. And been as satisfied (with knowledge), as you are now with sex, sensation, etc.
You disagree with my claim that porn hurts freedom of the press. You say that whatever space that porn takes up on the Net, that doesn't matter. For the Net can grow and is basically unbounded.There's plenty of room for other stuff. But my point was that people have finite amounts of time in the day. Hours spent on porn or violent video games is time LOST as far as reading about the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR, ok? People are giving up newspapers partly due to lack of time(interest) to read them. Because their time is being used up by viewing porn, etc. ENTERTAINMENT, not just porn, is a threat to the press. It's like kids playing hooky.going fishing - instead of to school...Thank God there are many nations -- China is one -- that keep porn in check. Like we could be doing here. Except that Janet Reno, Attorney General under Bill Clinton, let porn on the Net go unchallenged.
John Ashcroft under Bush was "about to" go after porn. Then 9/11 happened and arrests, etc were cancelled. (But I don't see why. Surely SOMEbody at the Justice Dept could have handled those cases.) Yes, Islamic terrorism is just one more reason for outlawing porn. Fighting terrorism is psychological warfare. Each side basically is saying "Our morality is better than yours." The religious fanatics are saying, "Americans deserve to die because they are immoral hedonists." So when the porn industry keeps growing or even just operates without being indicted, this gives credibility to the holier-than-thou Islamic fanatics' claims.
If the Supreme Court had simply upheld the laws of the 1950s concerning the entertainment media, (straight up til today) we wouldn't have the present Islamic terrorism problem, I believe.
