It will be interesting to see how the Court tries to straddle the line between allowable and impermissable when it comes to this particular case. (And pardon me if I get hideously euphemistic, but there are some searches in which I would distinctly prefer NOT to be in the results set.) I mean, is the issue between Virtual and Not Virtual going to be decided because Mr Justice Scalia believes that Lolita or The Tin Drum or Traffic aren't in good taste? I'm no fan of the smut at issue, virtual or otherwise, but somehow, it seems entirely illegitimate to have a constitutional issue decided on Scalia's "taste test". I don't know that society is impoverished without the images, but surely their existence (or lack thereof) should depend on whether or not the Constitution allows it and not on Scalia (or other justices) determining which version of Romeo and Juliet is appropriate.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!