[kickabuck]

Thanks for the response, I had a bit of the drop or would not have been so ham-handedly confrontational. Your style is in fact somewhat refreshing on this board, although 'understanding' and 'conciliation' have no room in some subject manners that you choose to engage, in my not so humble view.

Well as to the matter at hand, to use a simple and common example, yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater is free speech, yet we quite correctly frown on such speech. A dogmatic interpretation of the First Amendment would allow it, as such when reading and interpreting the First Amendment, should it not be viewed with deference to social norms? Should my neighbor be allowed to yell obscenities at 2Am at the top of his lungs because the First Amendment says that no speech shall be abridged? If pornography is viewed in a similar vein then Bork argues that it should be restricted likewise, this is not a radical view in this context. How is my interpretation of Bork's perspective or the perspective itself wrongheaded?