Judges Promote Pornography

Every second of every day more than $3,000.00 is spent on pornography around the world — an industry that takes in $97 billion yearly. In the United States, the revenues exceed $13 billion — an expenditure greater than the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC. On the web, 4.2 million pornographic websites — with over 100,000 of those sites devoted to child pornography — are available to the browsing adult or child. The average age for a child to be first exposed to Internet pornography is 11 years old.

So what are the courts doing to curb this alarming trend? Nothing, instead our judiciary has encouraged pornography’s growth and expansion. Robert Bork stated it well when he noted that “the suffocating vulgarity of popular culture is in large measure the work of the Court. The Court did not create vulgarity, but it defeated attempts of communities to contain and minimize vulgarity.”

The infamous Warren Court paved the way for the dissolution of laws protecting children from exposure to pornography. In a mere four years, that Court handed down 34 opinions on obscenity, under the premise that the obscene practices and behaviors were protected First Amendment rights. These rulings, of course, flew in the face of precedent that deemed such “speech” was unprotected, as it was not political. However, as the “sexual revolution” grew, so did the coffers of the porn industry. The enriched purse of the porn industry allowed them to take case after case all the way to the Warren Court, where the judges always found in their favor.

In The Supremacists, Phyllis Schlafly points out the results of these errant judicial opinions: “This new ‘freedom’ brought obscene language, near-total nudity, graphic sex scenes, and sadistic violence to neighborhood movie theaters. The abrupt change was reflected in the Academy Awards as well, when in 1969, the Best Picture was Midnight Cowboy, an X-rated film about a homeless male hustler” (p.77).

As the protections for our children were one-by-one stripped away by the well-organized and well-financed business ventures of Hollywood moguls, the growing porn industry, and a court filled with justices who answered to no one, the people began to work with Congress to find solutions. For example, in 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, which banned computer-generated child pornographic images. The Court, however, invalidated half of the Act before it could even be enforced!

What are the people to do if Congress cannot even assure them their children will be protected? Again, the Founding Fathers provided protections to ensure a true balance of power within the Constitution, but those provisions must be exercised by Congressional legislative action! Whether it is limiting the Court’s ability to hear cases surrounding certain laws limiting use and access to pornography, to overriding their “opinions” with new laws — actions must be taken.