Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
i am not aware of any of her papers that suggest modifying the constitution to serve an agenda.
she didn't advocate that in the anti-porn essay. she does not do so in her paper re: hate speech/1st amendment.
|
"neutral speech restrictions; (3) the enhanced use of the constitutionally unprotected category of obscenity; and (4) the creation of
carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"
when people say "enhanced" this means modifying or bending the existing rule.
when people say "creation of carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"
they are talking about modifying.
is that not clear?
she is lumping pornography in with hate speech...you find this acceptable?