|
|
Ashcroft Decision on ‘Hate Crime’ Case Seen as ‘Fuel’ for Kennedy Bill 5/2/2002 ‘Gay’ Pedophile Slang: ‘Chicken’ = Young Boys The following is the definition of the “gay” slang term “chicken” as listed in the homosexual-authored book “Gay Talk”: “chicken (fr naut [from nautical] chicken = a young recruit // sl [slang] usu [usually] in negative context as “You’re no spring chicken”) 1. any boy under the age of consent, heterosexual, fair of face, and unfamiliar with homosexuality “So many chickens were flapping around that I thought we were touring Colonel Sander’s (sic) plantation” 2. juvenile, youthful, young-looking. Syn: chicken-looking (“You’re chicken-looking enough to pose for Maypo cereal boxes”); tender 3. (rare, kwn LV [known in Las Vegas], mid ‘60s) to [sodomize] a pretty boy.” — Book “Gay Talk: A (Sometimes Outrageous) Dictionary of Gay Slang” (Formerly entitled The Queens’ Vernacular), by Bruce Rodgers (Paragon Books: New York, 1972), p. 44. Two full pages of the book list various “chicken”-related slang expressions. A “chickenhawk” is defined as an “older man whose lustful peculiarities are shared solely with young, unjaded boys.” “Chicken dinner” is defined as “sex with a teenager.” Bork Assails Supreme Court for Creating ‘Right’ to Porn Editor’s note: May is Victims of Pornography month. In a Wall Street Journal column, former U.S. Solicitor General Robert H. Bork took aim not only at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition to overturn portions of a federal law outlawing the production of child porn using computer imagery, but also the court’s overall role in destroying society’s defenses against the flood of pornography. “The importance of the Free Speech Coalition decision is less in its particular rejections of the governments necessarily limited rationales, however, than in the light the case throws upon the entire direction of First Amendment decisions that have brought the court to this point. There was, to put the matter bluntly, no good reason to throw free speech protections around pornography, nude dancing, raw profanity, and calls for law violation in the first place. Our jurisprudence has gone so far astray that there appears to be a right to display a picture of the Virgin Mary festooned with pornographic pictures and cow dung; but the presence of a crèche on government property is a forbidden establishment of religion under the same amendment. “There is nothing about the First Amendment that requires these results. That until relatively recently pornographers did not even raise the First Amendment in defending their sordid trade indicates how far we have come. It would seem merely common sense to think that graphic depictions of children in sexual acts would likely result in some action by pedophiles. The court finesses that problem with the statement that its “precedents establish … that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it.” Quite right. But why is pornography within the rights of adults to hear and see? “And why — to take only one category of speech undeserving of the court’s solicitude--are the rawest forms of profanity exempt from regulation? Cable television is saturated with words never before used in public, and the broadcast networks are racing to catch up. The New York Times reports that in “A Season on the Brink,” the character playing basketball coach Bobby Knight “drops the F-word 15 times in the first 15 minutes,” and that the characters in “South Park” used a “well-known word for excrement 162 times in 30 minutes.” The industry response to criticism on this score is that such words give the programs authenticity because this is the way people talk. In reality, however, the arrow probably points in the other direction. “People increasingly talk this way because they hear the words on television….” — Robert H. Bork, “The Sanctity of Smut: How did ‘virtual child porn’ end up with constitutional protection?” Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2002. Bork is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
