11 July 2011

Bachmann vs. the First Amendment

GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, known for her extreme right-wing "religious" crusade against all things "evil" (like science), has officially joined a war against pornography.

It's part of a broader candidate pledge that she signed to save marriage and the family (i.e., the right-wing "ideal" for each). Bachmann was the first candidate to sign the pledge.

The pledge also registers opposition to same-sex marriage, birth control, and marital infidelity (as well as that huge looming threat of Sharia law replacing our Constitution).

But it's the pornography thing that concerns me right now. Signers of the pledge vow to support the "[h]umane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from ... all forms of pornography."

While I can understand wanting to shield children from porn, we already have measures in place for that, so there's nothing for Bachmann and her cohorts to do.

But they want to "protect" everyone - and especially women - from porn (as if I need to be protected from it).

I'm no constitutional attorney, but it seems to me that there have been several cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that pornography is protected under the First Amendment.

And that is healthy, in my opinion. After all, if you start censoring that which someone finds subjectively offensive, you construct a very slippery slope.

It's the very kind of thing that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to try to prevent.

It's sad and scary that Bachmann so hates our freedom.

No comments:

Post a Comment