The line of reasoning that crime is "integral" to production of CP and therefore CP gets an exception to the first amendment is not worth thinking too hard about. You would think CP wouldn't need its own category since it's by definition obscene, and the reason it *does* have its own category is just an accident of history - NY made a l…
The line of reasoning that crime is "integral" to production of CP and therefore CP gets an exception to the first amendment is not worth thinking too hard about. You would think CP wouldn't need its own category since it's by definition obscene, and the reason it *does* have its own category is just an accident of history - NY made a law that outlawed CP even if not obscene, and rather than let defendants who had violated that law get off the hook, the Supreme Court created a new category of non-protected speech. As they say, hard cases make bad law. It's really unlikely that the Court will ever apply that same reasoning to widen a hole in the First Amendment.
The line of reasoning that crime is "integral" to production of CP and therefore CP gets an exception to the first amendment is not worth thinking too hard about. You would think CP wouldn't need its own category since it's by definition obscene, and the reason it *does* have its own category is just an accident of history - NY made a law that outlawed CP even if not obscene, and rather than let defendants who had violated that law get off the hook, the Supreme Court created a new category of non-protected speech. As they say, hard cases make bad law. It's really unlikely that the Court will ever apply that same reasoning to widen a hole in the First Amendment.