[penartur]

Originally Posted by eric11210

Which is why that rationale was not used in a case regarding child pornography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

So, there is a constitution in USA, and thousands of precedents which allow the government or the person to violate the basic principles of constitution?
"There is a global and unrestricted freedom of speech. Then comes the Miller Test, so that freedom of speech doesn't applies to some 'disturbing' materials. Then comes first precedent which allows pornography (along with pedobooks) to pass the Miller Test. Then comes second precedent which disallows pedobooks to pass the Miller Test as pornography does".
Hey, what is the point in "Constitution" then?