>The intention was not to enshrine a right to smut in the constitution...That's something that was read into it by judicial activism The phrase "judicial activ

>The intention was not to enshrine a right to smut in the constitution...That's something that was read into it by judicial activism The phrase "judicial activism" has a bit of a pejorative tone to it, but I'm not sure that we can identify a single right enshrined in the Constitution that hasn't been so challenged or invoked in ways not initially "intended". There's no practical way to avoid that, and I don't think we'd want to in any case. But, this was anticipated and we have a system for adjudicating such questions. So, I don't take exception to the idea that these things can be considered, tested and decided. In fact, I take exception to those who pretend that's not the case or that we have and must blindly enforce 1A and other rights.