Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
Originally Posted by PTravel
What is "CBP"? Are you talking about a country other than the U.S.?
Are you an actual frequent flyer?
Yes, I'm an actual frequent flyer, and have been since the 80s. Unlike some, I'm not obsessed with TSA to the extent that I've memorized the myriad acronyms that this administration has come up with to justify abrogations of Constitutional rights.
Originally Posted by PTravel
Interesting. Without researching it to see if it's ever been tested, I'd say it is unconstitutional on its face, or at least unconstitutional as-applied if it is extended to anything other than obscenity.
I questioned your nationality, now I'm doubting your claimed occupation. It is the "functional equivalent of a border." There are many cases discussing border searches.
Ah, once again, a non-lawyer knows better. Fine. Let me be very clear, since you seem to have missed the point:
The question is not whether the government has the power to inspect anything crossing the border, but whether it has the power to preclude the importation of material that is non-obscene, as a matter of law, but nonetheless deemed "immoral" and excluded solely on that basis.
The federal government is a government of limited powers, meaning it only has those specific powers that were ceded to it by the states and the citizens at the formation of the nation. It can not exercise powers that it does not have -- doing so is a usurpation of sovereignty, a violation of the Constitution, and simply illegal.
The Bill of Rights, consisting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is a reiteration of specific powers denied to the federal government, i.e. it is a limitation on federal power. The First Amendment precludes restrictions on speech. Two hundred plus years of consistent jurisprudence has held that the restriction, in part, prelcudes the ability to restrict protected speech on the basis of its content. "Obscenity" has a legal meaning, and is specifically defined as "not speech." For that reason, the federal government does not exceed its authority when it precludes importation of obscenity. "Immorality" has no legal meaning, and precluding importation of expression based on its supposed "immoral," but non-obscene, character constitutes impermissible content-based speech regulation.
Customs can look at whatever it wants. It cannot seize "immoral," but otherwise non-obscene and protected speech.
I hope this is sufficiently clear.