Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

Words and Pictures, Words and Pictures

Alan Sears: Where is that in the Constitution?: “Does the U.S. Constitution really protect the distribution of graphic—even hard-core pornographic—videos depicting rape and murder?  Unfortunately, a U.S. District Court judge in Pittsburgh seems to think so.”

Look!

It’s our good friend Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund! You all remember Alan. He’s the guy who dreamt up that completely ineffectual National Campaign to Stop the American Civil Liberties Union. In this article at Townhall.com, he’s whining about a district judge who had the good sense to rule that “…public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public’s sense of morality.”

Hurray for Judge Lancaster!

I don’t know what planet Alan Sears has been living on but, here on Earth, you don’t have to rent porn videos to see graphic depictions of torture, rape, and murder. All you need to do is tune in to pretty much any episode of CSI. You’ll get all the gore you can handle. (And maybe more.) Or if mere depictions aren’t enough, many television newscasts will be happy to provide images of real dead people for you to look at. (I well remember accidentally being exposed to pictures of the burned, mangled bodies of Sadam Hussein’s sons. Those were some pictures I could really have done without.)

Alan’s big point is that there’s no Constitutional basis for a “right to privacy”. Sez Alan, “Activist judges and their cohorts in the ACLU and elsewhere contend that these peripheral rights help make the actual rights named in the Constitution and its amendments more secure.”

Damn those ACLU cohorts! They’re at it again!

“Rights to equal protection and due process have morphed into privacy zones that include the right to unlimited abortion, the right to sodomy, and now the right to distribute pornographic videos depicting women being beaten, raped, and murdered.”

Huh?!? Uh…Alan? You have just provided us with a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as “the slippery slope”. For those of you unfamiliar with this sort of thing, the online version of the Mcgraw-Hill dictionary provides us with a helpful definition:

Slippery slope: The assumption that just because one event occurs, it will automatically lead to a series of undesirable events even though there is no relationship between the action and the projected events.

Anyway, Alan goes on to write, “Zones of privacy, though not authorized in the words of the Constitution or its amendments, give ever more creative activist judges the ability to undermine morality and the public good.”

Heh…”morality and the public good”. Yeah, right. Whatever THOSE are. Who gets to decide what’s moral, Alan? You? I don’t think so.

While the Constitution may not specifically guarantee a right to privacy, thank goodness we’ve had judges with enough insight to understand that privacy is essential for realization of the rights that are specifically mentioned.

I think Alan is just pissed off because other people are “getting some” and he’s not. (I mean… what else could it be? Either that or someone shoved a stick up his butt years ago and he hasn’t been able to get it out.)