lol

yeah that's definitely me doing that

Well you're focusing on his usage of "publishing" vs "speech" rather than looking at the perspective as a whole sooo.... lol

yet another thing - is porn a right?

neither Matt nor you give a clear answer on that

My ability to do what I see fit that doesn't harm anyone else is a right. My viewing of porn doesn't inherently harm someone else. Therefore, it is part of my right to do what I see fit, yes.

alright, so by your standard, what is destructive personally is completely fine, even if it alters your own nature, as long as it "doesn't hurt anyone else"

of course by this standards anything like a ban on drugs or narcotics is a violation of your rights

Sure. It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself. It is their job to protect me from others

as is any actions against child pornogrophy

> hur dur only my rights matter
t. Lolbergs

as is a great number of other things we have made illegal already

At least, that was the original intent. Obviously the government has grown exponentially to the point where it intrudes even in my ability to do what I want that doesn't harm others

What I'm saying is, that's the ideal via our founding documents. Not how it is implemented today.

ummmmm

have you read what those same founders did in the first and second congresses, and what the states did?

*founding documents*

not founders

so the people who wrote the documents changed their minds completely about government the second after they adopted the constitution?

Lol. I love this idea that Madison and Adams would have been okay with PornHub existing...

It's baffling.

didnt you know? the Founding Fathers were full blown fedora tipping atheists

"the founders would be okay with all my favorite moral degeneracies"

It doesn't matter what they would be ok with. They lined out a government that allows it. The outline of which is supposed to still be our standard for law today.

@UnrelatedComa
When you're right, you're right.

t. person who has never read what the founders wrote

@ScootDood it literally does not

the constitution was in place for less than 10 years before *federal* obscenity laws

Lol, you're welcome to that opinion man, but the documents are right there to read if you want 👌

the right to speech was not the right to obsenity, is literally what the founders who wrote *the right to speech* legislated

Never said it was speech. But keep putting words in my mouth lol

> It doesn't matter what they would be ok with.
>what the people who wrote the law meant doesn't matter
🤣
> They lined out a government that allows it.
Lol. No. If they had, they would not have immediately passed obscenity laws.
> The outline of which is supposed to still be our standard for law today.
But the actual standard is literally the opposite of what you're claiming.

makes your argument convincing

also implied I've never read our founding documents lol

you may have read the declaration, or the federalist papers, or even the constitution. Doesn't mean you know what the founders meant

@Unironic Ohio Supremecist Where in our founding documents does it say the standard is that you cannot do something if it is morally objectionable but doesn't harm anyone else?

personally I think looking at what the founders said and thought about the documents they wrote is better than what I, or 5 unelected judges thought 170 years later

Where does it say the opposite?

Again, doesn't matter what the founders thought. What matters is what the documents say

What a brainlet question.