Considering that John Ashcroft covered the bare breast of the status of Lady Justice in the capitol, it's pretty clear that he probably doesn't feel too warmly towards pornography. It was Reagan that gave us the Meese Commision and their discredited attempt to link porn to crime.
The allegations about Scalia's stance on the first amendment as it pertains to porn look to be true. Here are some quotes from his dissenting opinion in the
the US V. Playboy
Quote:
“The deliberate representation of petitioner’s publications as erotically arousing . . . stimulate[s] the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content.” Id., at 470. Thus, a business that “(1) offer[s] … hardcore sexual material, (2) as a constant and intentional objective of [its] business, [and] (3) seek[s] to promote it as such” finds no sanctuary in the First Amendment.
Since the Government is entirely free to block these transmissions, it may certainly take the less drastic step of dictating how, and during what times, they may occur.
|
Given the hstory of the Bush administration as well as the fundamentalist Christianity that seems to permeate it, they are definitely more likely to interfere with or prosecute pornographers. Whether you consider this a bad thing probably depends on whether or not you think that the First Amendment applies to porn or not.
I seriously doubt that this will have any discernible effect on the election, though, so conservative "outrage" will probably be minimal.