Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
Not if it infringes on ones free speech rights. Those are granted explicitly by the constitution in the First Amendment.
|
Right - but "free speech" as guaranteed by the 1st A. is not universal ... I'm sure you're aware of limitations such as those for obscene materials.
It appears that SC has couched this fine under a law that is, at least on face, a ban on obscenity. Now you're in a hornet's nest, as I mentioned before, since obscenity often depends on "community standards," and can be temporal, and blah blah blah. There might be a lot more going on here than one would think at first blush.
Also, I was mostly joking about the state's rights thing - although I suppose one could argue SC should have the 'right' to determine for itself what is or isn't obscene? Keep those loosey-goosey New Yorkers out of my obscenity rulings!