IMMORALITY: COURT TAKES FREE SPEECH ...

... into the theatre of the absurd. Here, again, inmates in black robes have taken their liberal view of Oregon's "living document" to a place no normal or reasonable person would, and effectively told the asylum's owners (the people) to shove it!

The Oregon Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional today a state law against conducting live sex shows and a local ordinance regulating conduct of nude dancers.

Both restrictions violate the Oregon Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and free expression, the court said in a pair of 5-1 decisions.

So, if I get a .357 Magnum, go to a shopping mall, and blow away ten people, while a prostitute provides me an oral rendition of pleasure as Dylan groans from my iPod earphones, in order to satisfy a purient sexual desire involving sex and blood, the court would acquit me because of my free speech and expression rights? You think?

Well, the report said ...

The free expression rulings continued the court’s modern pattern of broadly interpreting state constitutional rights as forbidding virtually all regulation of obscenity.

Notice my emphasis on seven key words in the reporter's statement.

Okay, did the Oregon State Constitution allow for this interpretation? I'm not a judge, let alone a lawyer (thank the Lord), but I can read at the graduate level and my comprehension scores are as high as any I know. Let's see...

The state constitution, adopted in 1859 says, “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever.”

Do you think in 1859, the founding Oregonians had lap dancing, same-sex cunnilingus, and fellatio in mind? Words have meaning folks! What did the 1859 document say? What did it not say? What does it mean? There will be a test later ... I hope you're prepared! The Judge at that bar will be, that's for certain.

Justice Michael Gillette, who wrote the majority opinions in both cases, said it “appears to us to be beyond reasonable dispute that the protection extends to the kinds of expression that a majority of citizens in many communities would dislike — and even to physical acts, such as nude dancing or other explicit sexual conduct that have an expressive component.”

Well, paying to watch two women masturbate one another is sure expressive of something! Maybe it’s bad eyesight, stupidity, mental illness, or evil ... any ideas?

Lardy, lawyers and their deranged black robed cousins are killing this nation.


Civil Rights; Judicial Tyranny; Strict Constructionism