Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dissention
Okay, sorry, I had to take out the trash, darlings. 
Their argument was a simple 1st amendment one: they weren't breaking any laws (no child porn was posted, etc.) and they had the right to free speech. They said that even if it was offensive, they Constitution afforded them the right to publish it. |
That is a tricky area because what is not present in the content is present in the intent. I gotta fall on the side of the govt. there, even though I am usually loathe to abridge any free speech rights.