BAYNE Home Who is Floyd Other Sites Email Me Commentary-- Updated 2/6/06! WC Archives |
Floyd's Opinion
First Amendment?This letter was sent to the Richmond Times-Dispatch on April 19, 2002. I was honored as Correspondent of the Day for this one. April 19, 2002
Richmond Times-Dispatch Dear Sir, Headline - Wednesday April 17, 2002 - Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Child-porn ban limited". Same issue - page B4 - article titled, "Porn case plea is guilty". I read both with interest as they are touted as first amendment issues. I couldn’t help being struck by the dichotomy that they raised. On the one hand our Supreme Court tells us that legally we cannot stop "depiction’s" of child pornography as it would violate someone’s first amendment rights. I then asked myself, "If the man who pled guilty in the story on B4 had been sending 'depiction’s' of child sex to his friends would he have had to go to court at all?" So let’s see if I understand this free speech matter. If I approach a female co-worker and tell her that I think she’s "hot" I risk the loss of my job and the possibility of a law suit. However, if I wish to create and distribute "depiction’s" of children having sex then I am well within my free speech rights? Am I missing something here? If my words to a co-worker can be offensive enough to lose my job and get sued, then why is the use of a child’s face (some parent’s child) superimposed (with the proper software) on a nude body, committing sex acts acceptable? Isn’t someone being offended by the use of a real person’s face or body? Unlike many, who profess to be first amendment supporters, I have actually read the Constitution and the first amendment. I have also read many of the writings of our founding fathers. I see nothing anywhere that would lead me to conclude that they had the protection of child, or any pornography, in mind when they signed their names to that amendment. In fact it is designed to protect "POLITICAL" free speech. Not vulgarity! The first amendment allows me to stand up at a political rally and say to the politician (even the President), "I think you are wrong and I will do all I can to see that you are defeated in the next election", and not have to fear being thrown in a gulag somewhere in upper Siberia for the rest of my life. It allows me to disagree with elected officials without the fear of recrimination from the government or any of it’s entities. THAT is what the first amendment protects. I can’t help but wonder if the first amendment absolutists are as vehement in their interpretation of the second amendment and the absolute right of individual citizens to bear arms as they are of their perception of the free speech afforded by the first amendment? Just thought I’d ask. Sincerely, Floyd C. Bayne
|
