Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Prostitution is illegal and state controlled in the few places it is not. Porn is none of the above. Besides, advertising porn sites in newspapers is probably not a very good ROI.  |
You're right BUT it depends on how the opinion is written. Anytime a federal court decides to limit free speech and it involves sex - it could be used in any manner of ways against this industry.
And here's some quotes from the decision that bother me...prostitution is bad for marriage... lets curtail free speech to protect the institution of marriage...
Quote:
The network of laws setting off married couples
from unmarried individuals testifies to the central role of sexual
intercourse in civil society in Nevada as elsewhere in the
United States. Nevada?s interest in preventing advertisements
for the sale of an activity central to the domestic life of its
inhabitants does not need to be spoken by its attorney general.
Its interest is stated in its statutes.
|
And here is the slippery slope ... why stop at sex for sale....
Quote:
The answer, implicit in Judge
Berzon?s opinion, is that California, Arizona, or the United
States may constitutionally suppress speech that offers sexual
intercourse for sale.
|
Apparently the selling of sex services ... which this industry is founded on does not sit well with these judges...
Quote:
Though attitudes towards the sale of sexual services
have continued to change and evolve since the early twentieth
century, this history reinforces the conclusion that Nevada?s
objection is genuinely to the buying and selling of sex. Banning
commodification of sex entirely is a substantial policy
goal that all states but Nevada have chosen to adopt.
|
Well here's a link to the entire decision if anyone wants to read it...
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...1/07-16633.pdf