<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:18 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/06/24/floridians-tax-dollars-at-work-fighting-smut/#comment-1454779</link><description>I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) the Fourteenth Amendment point. But I'm not sure I see how the incorporation doctrine makes things confusing. For the First Amendment, it seems to me that replacing "Congress" with "state and local legislatures" produces a pretty clear meaning. And with the exception of the Tenth Amendment, the others don't appear to make any distinction between the federal and state government at all, so I don't see how the incorporation doctrine creates any confusion.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">binarybits</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/06/24/floridians-tax-dollars-at-work-fighting-smut/#comment-1454777</link><description>Yes, I don't buy the orthodoxy that the Fourteenth Amendment "applied the Bill of Rights to the states" in some wholesale fashion.  But my opinions on that subject are crankish and unlikely to matter in any real way.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My point was simply that incorporation leads to confusion about the meaning of the other Amendments, most of all #1 and #2.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bszoka</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:20:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/06/24/floridians-tax-dollars-at-work-fighting-smut/#comment-1454781</link><description>So Berin, are you rejecting the idea that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states? I don't see anything incoherent with the notion that the First Amendment prohibits state governments from regulating "obscene" speech.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">binarybits</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:42:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/06/24/floridians-tax-dollars-at-work-fighting-smut/#comment-1454780</link><description>The simple answer is, of course, that the First Amendment (like the Second Amendment) only makes sense as an absolute prohibition when one understands that it was originally to apply only to the Federal government, and not to the states.  The Federal government wasn't meant to regulate guns or speech &lt;b&gt;at all&lt;/b&gt;, but the states were meant to be able to chose their own rules.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Like it or not, that was at least a coherent rule--one that goes right out the window as soon as we start talking about applying either amendment to the states.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bszoka</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:37:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Floridians&amp;#8217; Tax Dollars at Work Fighting Smut</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/06/24/floridians-tax-dollars-at-work-fighting-smut/#comment-1454778</link><description>Tim... Have you ever read Jeff Rosen's essay on "&lt;a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-end-of-obscenity" rel="nofollow"&gt;The End of Obscenity&lt;/a&gt;"?  I summarized it in &lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2004/09/16/lessig-vs-rosen-on-net-porn-regulation/" rel="nofollow"&gt;this old TLF post&lt;/a&gt; where I was contrasting it to Lessig's proposal to comprehensively regulation online speech and expression.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Adam_Thierer</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:23:16 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>