Justice Scalia - Enemy of Free Speech?

[Laurel]

What right does this jackass have to even contemplate banning movies based on classic literature and/or Academy Award-winning films?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nyt/20..._law_barring_virtual_child_pornography_1.html

From the article:

Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "What great works of art would be taken away from us if we couldn't see minors copulating?"

Mr. Sirkin appeared taken aback by the question. The movie "Lolita," he said after a moment.

Justice Scalia exclaimed with sarcasm, "A great work of art!"

Mr. Sirkin offered, "It was critically acclaimed," and added to his list the movie "Traffic," which, he noted, won an Academy Award.

Justice Scalia was not satisfied. "With all due respect," he said, "this is not the Mona Lisa or the Venus de Milo."

"How about `Romeo and Juliet?' " Justice John Paul Stevens broke in with a smile. As the audience chuckled, Justice Scalia signaled a truce. "Hey, you've seen a different version of that than I have," he said.

 

[Never]

As a lesbian, see, I was right..

 

[modest mouse]

It is a shame....

It never fails that some idiot cannot realize the difference between differing PERSONAL TASTE and Criminal Behavior.

"Lolita" is a great example. The book is amazing, written in a prose that is so dense it seems each word was pondered for days. And it was written by a Russian in a language he was just learning(sorta). The people who deride this book almost never have read it. If they had they would find it is not sexy(arousing) in the least(to me), is really a tragedy, the "lolita" is in charge of the situation, and it has more themes than they think.

I wish I knew who said it but it goes like this...."Not all stupid people are Conservative, but all Conservatives are stupid." This is obviously a tad simplistic but what the hell.

The solution to all this is simple; if u do not like something, or it offends you....do not buy it, view it, listen to it, etc. etc.

Nothing scares people more than a thought!

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Yet another jurist who just doesn't get it...

I have to wonder what they teach in law schools, and just whether pols and legal eagles have ever read anything that the founding fathers read. I also have to wonder just how smart these people are who are supposed to be so intelligent.

Oops! Almost fell into my own trap; they can be very intelligent but not very wise. I was about to say I know a lot of these people are smarter than I am, yet what seems so simply obvious to me is an incomprehensible concept to them; free speech is not about what is acceptable to society - just the opposite.

It is a thorny case though; "virtual" child pornography is an area of tech where our laws and thought just haven't kept up.

The old saw they used of "don't worry, we only go after the big bad guys, we aren't going to prosecute you for renting Lolita" is the typical bullshit argument they always use. The feds have entrapped a number of the "little people" on child porn, and current promises don't mean shit once a law is passed or held constitutional.

As much as I hate to say it - strike the law down as un-Constitutional; it clearly is.

 

[Laurel]

I agree. Trouble is, most close to the situation see this law passing with a 5-4 partisan split, which would make it illegal to have sexual situations involving minors in movies, even if said characters were clothed. No Romeo & Juliet, no American Pie, no Nabokov, etc. etc.

 

[Mensa]

Let's see if I can get Laurel's goat

Romeo and Juliet was written by the Bard, himself, William Shakespeare. In his time all roles on the English stage were performed by males. So the chances of seeing anything risque were rather limited. Ergo, Justice John Paul Stevens riposte was inapropos; you weren't likely to see any minors copulating in it!

 

[Phoenyx]

I agree. Trouble is, most close to the situation see this law passing with a 5-4 partisan split, which would make it illegal to have sexual situations involving minors in movies, even if said characters were clothed. No Romeo & Juliet, no American Pie, no Nabokov, etc. etc.

wernt american Pie teenagers?
whats the age of consent in the US

 

[IA951]

I agree. Trouble is, most close to the situation see this law passing with a 5-4 partisan split, which would make it illegal to have sexual situations involving minors in movies, even if said characters were clothed. No Romeo & Juliet, no American Pie, no Nabokov, etc. etc.

If there were to be no Romeo and Juliet or Nabokov, that would be a loss as these are truly great works.
"American Pie" or its equally loathsome sequel "American Pie 2"
would not a terrible loss IMHO.

 

[Azwed]

wernt american Pie teenagers?
whats the age of consent in the US

Depends on the state but for the most part it is 18. Some states it is less and some even more.

Also Shakespear did not really come up with the idea of romeo and juliet. He took it from a medium length Italian poem from the 1400's.

 

[Azwed]

Scalia must be ignorant. Anyone who has studied romeo and juliet at all knows that both characers were supposed to be in their teens. Juliet was supposed to have been 14 or so and Romeo not much older.

One film version of the play I have seen has a 14 or 15 year old actress playing juliet. The whole play is their including the sex scenes which are very revealing.

I have never have liked that guy. Not one bit at all.

 

[letsallgetlaid]

Venus

Great works of art from history include a very broad range of things including child porn in all honesty.
For a long time people were supposed to be married in their teens, women often were married before they had even gone through puberty. This was acceptable and often praticed. And if we are going to criticize things I think you need to be careful. I don't want people getting hurt or exploited but I think people are smart enough to make thier own decisions. Given proper resources everyone is either smart or just fit for the Darwin awards.
Of course this is America, not everyone is given the proper resources...

I'd really better shut up now.

But I do agree that Scalia is a moron.

 

[Mensa]

Scalia must be ignorant. Anyone who has studied romeo and juliet at all knows that both characers were supposed to be in their teens. Juliet was supposed to have been 14 or so and Romeo not much older.

One film version of the play I have seen has a 14 or 15 year old actress playing juliet. The whole play is their including the sex scenes which are very revealing.

Actually Romeo was supposed to be about 14 y/o while Juliet was 12 y/o. Today even those opposing this legislation would feel hard-pressed to defend what they now consider to be "kiddie porn"

While those of a less-liberal persuasion would rightly consider it a true masterpiece.

BTW. All of Shakespeare's plays were based on prior works or historical incidents. It was his adaptation of same that made all the difference.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Great. Just what we need. More creeps on the anti-First Amendment bandwagon.

When the founding fathers were writing, incidentally, the whole "children are innocents we must protect from any hint of reality" thing was just coming into existence. The "age of consent" didn't exist. The notion that anyone under 18 shouldn't participate in or in any way be exposed to the existence of sex wouldn't have made any sense to them, as many married teen brides, as did many to most of their contemporaries.

Here's an interesting legal question--is the legality determined by the age of the actors or of the characters? If a 20 year old plays Juliet in a somewhat explicitly filmed version of R & J, would that be legal?

Be very wary whenever someone decides they want to transform their personal preferences into restrictive legislation and that affects us all.

 

[Azwed]

I know why I got confused on the ages. I spent HS in a very, very conservative part of VA. Some of the childeren in my class were not allowed to study Romeo and Juliet by their parents. When we watched the video in class even more people would not watch it and some even complained about it.

They were getting all bitchy because the girl playing juliet was 15 i think. She might have even been younger this was 6 or so years ago so I don't remember exactly. There was like a flash of most of a breast in the movie and a one or two second ass shot, of Juliet and Romeo, and many people could not handle that.

The teacher warned everyone about this and so many people would not watch the video. Many parents also complained. The teacher was a fairly far out there feminist and did not teach at the school the next year. She got pregnant and that is why they said she left but she did not strike me as the type who would quit her job as soon as she got pregnant. I think they fired her for pissing off the conservative parents.

 

[Unclebill]

The biggest problem with this brand of stupidity is that supposedly intelligent people labor under the idiotic precept that laws of prohibition actually work. They never have and never will. They merely raise the price of whatever commodity is prohibited; notable examples are alcohol and drugs.

Here's an interesting legal question--is the legality determined by the age of the actors or of the characters? If a 20 year old plays Juliet in a somewhat explicitly filmed version of R & J, would that be legal?

I don't know if it's this law or a previous draft, but under the one I recall from a couple of years back, the movie Big starring Tom Hanks would be illegal since Hanks portrayed a 13 YO.

Now I won't even comment on the rationality or intellect of such a position. It just wouldn't be poitically correct to come right out and say just how utterly idiotic and moronic this idea is.

 

[crystalhunting]

For once I agree with unclebill.






CH

 

[Calamity Jane]

wernt american Pie teenagers?
whats the age of consent in the US

This brings up an interesting question. I don't think there is a 'National Age of Consent', so would these movies be illegal, or would showings of them be restricted to places where the age of consent was lower than the age of the actors?

Are we legislating a sort of 'dry county' for movies?

 

[Calamity Jane]

The biggest problem with this brand of stupidity is that supposedly intelligent people labor under the idiotic precept that laws of prohibition actually work. They never have and never will. They merely raise the price of whatever commodity is prohibited; notable examples are alcohol and drugs.

WARNING: Random Topic Tangent

I disagree with your thought that these prohibition laws 'merely raise the price of whatever commodity is prohibited...'. These same laws also criminalize previously acceptable behavior, and therefore, foster an environment in which more crime is likely to be committed.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

If there were to be no Romeo and Juliet or Nabokov, that would be a loss as these are truly great works.
"American Pie" or its equally loathsome sequel "American Pie 2"
would not a terrible loss IMHO.

You are entirely missing the point - I think.

Great works of art or not, free speech is not about what is acceptable or good, but about what is not acceptable. Now I agree child porn is both not acceptable and harmful and therefore needs to be illegal - but I believe so because children are harmed in the making of the porn. The other issue, the using of the porn to induce children to have sex; while I agree child porn is used for that and is harmful that way too, that is a slippery slope as other porn is used for inducing children to have sex with pedophiles - do we ban all porn?

Have any of you ever seen the Japanese x-rated cartoon porn books/magazines? In some frames of the cartoons the characters are portrayed as childlike for a few frames (including sex acts). I would imagine such porn could be construed as child porn if some prosecuter got a hair up his ass - even now without the new law.

Rocky Horror Picture Show is probably not thought to be a classic by many people - what would come of that if free speech was only about what is acceptable?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

The biggest problem with this brand of stupidity is that supposedly intelligent people labor under the idiotic precept that laws of prohibition actually work. They never have and never will. They merely raise the price of whatever commodity is prohibited; notable examples are alcohol and drugs.

I agree and disagree; prohibitionary laws do and don't work, people still murder and steal, yet many people don't because it is unlawful. Same goes for drugs. The reasoning as to whether prohibitionary laws should be enacted are:

1) Does the law prohibit something that is harmful to someone other than the person breaking the law (murder qualifies, drugs/alcohol/etc. do not).

2) Does the cost to our Natural Rights inflicted by enforcement tend to be greater than the benefit? Anti-murder/anti-stealing laws and enforcement tends to protect our Natural Rights, whereas anti-drug laws and enforcement tends to infringe greatly on our Natural Rights (In-Rem laws, no-knock warrants, three fourths of the people in prisons there for drug offeenses, etc.)

 

[Desert Amazon]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Justice Scalia - Enemy of Free Speech?

It seems some people like to appoint themselves as "moral" majority leaders, seeking to impose their own narrow-minded ideology.

Narrow is a relative term; we all try to impose our "narrow minded ideology" on others in one form or another. There are psychopathic murderers out there that think it is very narrow minded of us to object to their murdering others. NAMBLA objects to our narrow minded views on pedophilia.

What the real problem consists of, is not developing a workable set of Natural Laws that most people can agree on, that do not infringe on our Natural Rights, and then consistently applying them, even when the application seems objectionable.

For example, those who advocate school prayer or other aspects of advocating religion in government institutions are fine with this as long as it is Christian prayer and not Hindu or Wiccan prayers.

What is needed is a return to the fundamentals of the simple principles of Natural Rights, refrain from enacting laws that conflict with those principles, repeal those laws that violate those principles, and apply the principles with consistency from then on.

 

[~heyjoe~]

I vote no for every fucking judge!!! They all suck!!!!

 

[Mischka]

I'm going with ~heyjoe~ on this one. Who can argue with all those exclamation marks?

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by pagancowgirl
I disagree with your thought that these prohibition laws 'merely raise the price of whatever commodity is prohibited...'. These same laws also criminalize previously acceptable behavior, and therefore, foster an environment in which more crime is likely to be committed.

Pardon my lack of clarity. I was addressing the effect such laws truly have on the availability of whatever commodity is banned.

As to "criminalizing" a behavior or action, I tend to think in starkly clear and defined terms. A criminal act in objective, consistent terms is the initiation of the use of force. Laws just make something illegal, not wrong, and the difference is significant.

Originally posted by Shy Tall Guy
I agree and disagree; prohibitionary laws do and don't work, people still murder and steal, yet many people don't because it is unlawful. Same goes for drugs. The reasoning as to whether prohibitionary laws should be enacted are:

1) Does the law prohibit something that is harmful to someone other than the person breaking the law (murder qualifies, drugs/alcohol/etc. do not).

2) Does the cost to our Natural Rights inflicted by enforcement tend to be greater than the benefit? Anti-murder/anti-stealing laws and enforcement tends to protect our Natural Rights, whereas anti-drug laws and enforcement tends to infringe greatly on our Natural Rights (In-Rem laws, no-knock warrants, three fourths of the people in prisons there for drug offeenses, etc.)

Using your first definition, how much latitude do you allow in the perception of harmful to another? Are not children harmed when they are raised by irresponsible parents without regard to the manner of irresponsibility? And by whose perception of irresponsible shall we draft such a law?

But this is the fundamental idea endorsed by the advocacy of prohibition laws.

And it seems laws cannot be crafted in simple terms readily understandable by the layman. Perhaps because politicians must put forth extraordinary efforts to reassure themselves that they are worthy of the mantle of power they have bestowed upon themselves and are truly earning the lucrative salaries they award themselves.

Truly criminal codes would properly deal only with the consequences of the criminal act because to write a law prohibiting such is so utterly inane as to be laughable. No law will stop someone who is intent on a specific action.

Thus criminal law can only properly address the establishment of consequence for criminal acts.

As to whether the cost/benefit ratio makes the violation of individual rights acceptable, it cannot if there is any credence to be given the idea of freedom. This becomes much like the ideas of political correctness which is essentially the same principle at work; the "criminilzation" of those behaviors, thoughts, ideas or words deemed unacceptable by some segment of the populace. And once you accept this as a valid premise for the enacting legislation, then you obviate the idea of freedom for it is only a matter of time before your particular "deviant behavior" falls into disfavor with somebody who says, "There oughta be a law".

And as you so eloquently noted, freedom is the protection of the unpopular for the popular is seldom in danger of prohibition or "criminalization".

And just to put things in a very clear perspective regarding the ideas of illegal and criminal: it is illegal for you to retain 100% of your earnings; does this mean it is a crime?