Speaking of Ben Shapiro, who just published a book on the evils of pornography, Radley Balko says:
While on the telly-vision, Ben apparently asked where in the Constitution it says you have the right to look at porn.Well, Ben, how about the First Amendment? If not there, then certainly in the Ninth.
You remember the Ninth, don't you? It's the one conservatives once decried the liberals for forgetting about. It was put in the Constitution for the sole purpose of preventing people like you from saying things like, "where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to look at porn?"
Bingo.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
While I was unable to post this weekend, I did see this column by Ben Shapiro (though I saw it at the Worldnutdaily) and planned to comment on it. Shapiro, for those who don't know, is a budding right wing pundit who wants to ban pornography and pretty much anything else he finds offensive. And in…
Indian Cowboy left a comment on a thread below and I'm moving it up here so it doesn't get lost. It was in response to some of the conservative catchphrases that I and others came up with for the refrigerator magnet game. In particular, he seems to be responding to two catchphrases I pointed out, "…
The Baltimore Sun's article on the Bush administration's anti-pornography efforts begins with this:
Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other…
A: Probably.
* * *
DN: So Ben, what's up with those mountain tops?
BRC: They're fewer than there used to be, that's what I know.
DN: Less places to ski and stuff?
BRC: But many more places to golf, apparently.
DN: Ben, is that for real? Mountain top removal for coal, for golf, for kicks,…
I argued the ninth amendment with a anti-porn crusader recently. He pointed out the word "retained" and use that to argue that the ninth can only be construed to protect rights that were clearly understood in 1787.
Not that this would lend any credence to his obviously ridiculous position...but how does he know people didn't look at porn in 1787?
His argument was that, of course people did, but in his view, it is obvious that the founders would not consider it to be a right.
People most certainly did look at porn in the 1700s; pornography has been around since at least the Renaissance.
But if we are to retain only the rights we possesed in 1787, then we should have no right to divorce, or to interracial marriage, or to women wearing bikinis, or to birth control, or to masturbation, or to...
And here we see exactly what these crusaders want.
People most certainly did look at porn in the 1700s; pornography has been around since at least the Renaissance.
Of course this is true. The French classic L'ECOLE DES FILLES (Girl's School) has been around since the mid 17th century.
In 1655 Samuel Pepys wrote, "Thence homeward by coach and stopped at Martins my bookseller, where I saw the French book which did think to have had for my wife to translate, called L'Escholle des Filles; but when I came to look into it, it is the most bawdy, lewd book that ever I saw, rather worse than Puttana Errante - so that I was ashamed of reading it."
He bought the book.
On subjects like this, I prefer to turn the question around and say "Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the right to stop you from looking at porn?"
"...is obvious that the founders would not consider it to be a right."
Let's hold a seance and find out! The ghosts will tell us what to do.
And while we've got the wig-wearers on the line, let's ask if there's a right to fly airplanes, use electricity, or live west of the Mississippi River.
If the seance doesn't work, I'm sure Art Bell can hook us up with a time-traveling, mind-reading Remote Viewer. Assuming we have a right to remote viewing, of course.
Ben Shapiro published a book? I wonder who wrote it.