Post

really stunned that, in all the reporting about Project 2025's goal of banning pornography, very few journalists are noting that pornography and sexual speech are protected by the First Amendment.

Junior Scholars: Project 2025 is now breaking through to public consciousness. The more people learn about it, the more they hate it. Now is a great time to search that website, go to the section of your expertise, and write an oped. Keep the drip of bad news for them coming, all the way to Nov.

like… I'm not naive about the project's efforts to, y'know, entirely rewrite huge portions of constitutional law, but this is just flat wrong.

And, even if you think the 1A obscenity exception could be broadened (eg Alito), what Project 2025 considers porn (queer or trans literature, any nudity in children's books, etc.) goes well beyond even the widest conception of "obscenity."

Until two weeks ago, I would have taken solace in your (absolutely correct) assessment of the current state of the law. After the obscenity of Trump v. US, I have lost any faith that the 6 GOP appointees on SCOTUS will adhere to the law, if Trump demands otherwise.

That's fair. But, US v Stevens (2010) represents one of the only times SCOTUS announced that they are done making exceptions in an area and the doctrine is what it is. Only, Alito dissented. The Court composition has changed a bit, but that was an unusually strong signal.

Every single word you write is true. Nevertheless, after Trump v. US, I do not trust Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to follow doctrine in the face of a demand from Trump/MAGA that they rubber stamp their latest demand. They are shameless and untrustworthy.

True, and for this reason alone it is ridiculous for Biden to step away after winning the primary election.

Oooh look at them someone read Robert Bork in the Indiana Law Journal in originalism class oooh

Well… they're wrong, but not as wrong as one might think. "Pornography" isn't a thing, legally. Something's obscene, or it's not. "Sexual depictions that aren't obscene" are protected by the 1ad. Obscenity is an existing 1ad carve out. And the definition of "obscene" is entirely about… 1/n

… what a court has found obscene. The thing holding back the feds from going after adult content people right now is (a) lack of interest by previous administrations, and (b) fear of a bad precedent. These barriers are not hard to remove. 2/end

I think they’re going after interstate sale and ramping up dissemination to minors vis the internet. Expect a lot of laws criminalizing books like Gender Queer.

There’s a whole Woody Harrelson movie about this. These uncultured fools

Maybe they've realized that all constitutional protections are now nullities, since our system blindly follows a Supreme Court that has unbound itself completely from law?

This is one reason why I think it's probably more immediately productive to focus on the plans to damage Social Security and other universally popular programs. It's something about which the greater swath of the population isn't the least bit wishy-washy.

Well, until a good enough case is sent by the 5th to Alito.

the entire document illuminates the phoniness of the right’s faux commitment to free speech.

Yep. The boys who cried censorship.

This court though? The court that gave Trump completely fabricated presidential immunity? They will absolutely overturn precedent and the scum at Project 2025 know it.

This topic came up in a case in a privacy law class, and the students were *extremely* reluctant to discuss it, and quite a few were under the impression that it was all unprotected speech.

Why wouldn't the media work to manufacture consent for our own oppression? They won't even truthfully write the Supreme Court accepts bribes before every article published about every ruling. They've ignored it since Scalia www.chicagotribune.com/2016/02/17/w...

Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a remote West Texas resortwww.chicagotribune.com Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death over the weekend at a remote West Texas ranch spawned a host of questions about how authorities in the area responded. It also raised questions about the…

The right’s preoccupation with pornography is downright prurient, hence unprotected, in my view.