Pornography Industry Considers Justice Barrett a ‘Catastrophe’

Justice System articles banner

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are. Sometimes you can tell even more by examining their enemies. Amy Coney Barrett’s foes are legion, and increasingly hysterical. Their loathing for Judge Barrett, who seems like a generally decent person and competent judge, was the best argument for putting her on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, who hates Judge Barrett? Pornographers! How do we know? Yahoo News, America’s biggest news aggregator, recently ran a story headlined: “Adult Film Stars Speak Out on How Amy Coney Barrett Could Be ‘Catastrophic’ for Porn Industry.” It begins by claiming that Judge Barrett’s nomination “spells potential trouble for a multitude of reasons impossible to overstate.” Jumping Jehosaphat and sufferin’ succotash! Trouble so terrible it is impossible to overstate? That sounds downright . . . catastrophic. Apparently if Judge Barrett joins the Supreme Court, the end of the world is nigh.

So how will the world end? Nuclear war? Asteroid strikes? Solar flares? Alien invasions? Ecological catastrophe? Nope. It’s worse . . . much worse. Now that Judge Barrett has joined the Supreme Court, Earth and its population will perish due to—get this—a shortage of pornography!

Christmas_Book_Catalog
16-page AFP 2020 Christmas book & video catalog

A presumably pseudonymous person who fornicates on camera for large sums of money—a certain “Siri Dahl”—explains that Judge Barrett will be “ ‘catastrophic’ for the industry if any First Amendment-focused cases hit the Supreme Court.” And, as we all know, a catastrophe for the porn industry would utterly annihilate the global economy, eclipsing the Covid-19 plannedemic and pretty much ending life as we know it.

How could Judge Barrett wreak such havoc? The Yahoo News article suggests that while “pornography” is protected by the First Amendment, “obscenity” is not, meaning that opponents of pornography “could hide behind the ludicrous argument of obscenity”—and Judge Barrett might support them.

In reality, what is ludicrous is the notion that either pornography or obscenity (or incitement, libel, blasphemy, blackmail, genuine threats, and so on) could possibly qualify as “protected speech” under the First Amendment. Judge Barrett, as a constructionist, correctly reasons that we should interpret the Bill of Rights along the lines of what its authors actually meant. Clearly, they did not mean to protect pornography; nobody in the 18th century could have even imagined anything that insane. The First Amendment was designed to protect meaningful, thoughtful discourse about matters of public import—political, philosophical, and religious discussion. It was designed to create a society in which people could and would speak truth to power. It was not designed to protect people who want to get rich through public degeneracy.

Power of Prophecy, Texe Marrs

If pornography and obscenity are protected speech, Jeffrey Toobin should sue The New Yorker for violating his First Amendment rights, Jeffrey Epstein was a misunderstood free speech hero, and child pornographers who get caught are martyrs in the sacred cause of freedom of expression. Then after we get done tearing down the statues of the Founding Fathers, let’s erect monuments honoring people like Toobin, Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Michael Aquino, the Franklin Scandal pedophiles, Jacob Frank, Sabbatai Zevi, and the Marquis de Sade. Such are the panoply of heroes who exemplify the deepest values and aspirations of the perverted elite that dominates contemporary America.

Then again, we could always return to sanity, overthrow our perverted elite, and admit that pornography, like gambling and narcotics, is a debilitating vice that evil gangsters use to prey on ordinary people and turn them into addicts. After resurrecting vice squads and putting the filth-and-depravity profiteers out of business, we could get serious about helping people overcome their vices, purify their hearts and souls, and lead productive (and reproductive) lives.

Unfortunately, the “vice” that woke types are most worried about isn’t drugs, pornography, or prostitution—it’s “white supremacy.” The University of Minnesota has even instituted a 12-step recovery program for “white supremacy addicts”—meaning that vast majority of white people who don’t consider themselves racist. To “recover” from the debilitating addiction of not being racist, you basically just say “I guess I must be racist” and feel guilty forever.

My Stretch of Texas Ground movie

Maybe the worst vice in America isn’t drugs or pornography; it’s actually liberal idiocy.

__

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not related to Amy Coney Barrett. Nor do I support her. In fact, I think she probably ought to be sent to Guantanamo for taking money from the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the world’s most psychotic terrorist cult, while it was officially listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government. But Judge Barrett is hardly unique in succumbing to the blandishments of the puppet-masters who created oxymoronic “Christian Zionism.” And her opponents don’t even care that she violated U.S. anti-terror laws by working for an Israeli-proxy terrorist group that has slaughtered 12,000 Iranian civilians.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


css.php