PCLine:
The First Amendment is not intended to create an anarchy of free expression -- it is actually intended to limit the power of government. Current interpretation of the Constitution is that the government can limit speech, provided that such speech can be proven to be harmful, and that the need to limit speech substantively outweighs the right to protection of speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, has found on numerous occasions that the need to protect children from the detrimental results of protected speech outweigh the right of protecting the speech itself. This includes laws that require a minimum age to purchase magazines such as Playboy or Penthouse, limits on where and how tobacco companies can advertise, and limits on where and how alcohol companies can advertise.
But in your specific example of pornography, the problem is defining "pornography" in a legally meaningful way. There are some Puritans in the United States, for example, that would include the U.K.'s famous "Page 3" girls in a list of pornographic material.
On the other hand, there are also some First Amendment purists who have already stated that should a SARS outbreak similar to the one in Canada happen in the U.S., the government should not be legally allowed to issue quarantine orders, because this would violate another part of the First Amendment, namely that of the right to free assembly.
xutopia:
Saying
it does in France so why it shouldn't in North America evades me does not take into account that the U.S. and France do not have the identical legal systems. Some things can be accomplished legally in France but not in the U.S., and vice versa -- but the differences are real.
If you can figure out a way to make spam illegal in the U.S. without violating First Amendment protections, please send your ideas to the U.S. Congress.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!
