How sick is the ACLU and those who associate themselves with it?
From EconoPundit:
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, [Barry] Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography...that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers' ages was impermissible.
Since children are legally unable to give consent to engage in sexual activity or to engage in any legal contract how can anyone have the legal right to distribute their image? I mean, if I need a signed consent form from a model to use his/her image for commercial purposes then how can the image of a child, who cannot legally give that consent, be used?
Of course sane societies base laws against the distribution of child pornography on principals more fundamental and important than those requiring models to sign release forms, however it is instructive to observe how eager their legislative counsel is to support its distribution.
For more on the ACLU go over to Stop The ACLU.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Anti-ACLU Thursday
Posted by Lemuel Calhoon at 9:44 PM
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|