"The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography"

Phyllis Schlafly, a popular conservative activist and stalwart advocate for standard worths, typically voiced issues about the ethical instructions of society as affected by legal and constitutional interpretations. In the quote, "The justices have constitutionally safeguarded profanity in libraries, filth over cable, and now limitless internet pornography", Schlafly is critiquing what she perceives as an overreach in the security of totally free speech and expression by the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court.

Schlafly's declaration is a reflection on the tension in between First Amendment rights and societal requirements of decency. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees flexibility of speech, and for many years, judicial interpretations have progressed to provide broad protections even to questionable and out of favor forms of expression, including what some may identify as "profanity", "dirt", or "pornography.".

In her critique, Schlafly seems to argue that the judiciary, through its rulings, has gone too far in protecting these forms of expression, which she thinks fail moral and societal requirements. To her, the existence of "profanity in libraries" recommends that products readily available openly, consisting of those accessible to kids and youth, might not align with what she recognizes as appropriate. Likewise, "filth over cable tv" indicates a concern that controlled media networks broadcast content that may deteriorate family values. Last but not least, her reference of "unrestricted internet pornography" highlights how digital developments present challenges in content control, with large, quickly available adult content online, which she feels is improperly managed.

Behind Schlafly's declaration lies a deeper discourse about the balance between safeguarding totally free speech and maintaining societal morals. Her position reflects a belief that uncontrolled expression might weaken cultural standards and public morality. This point of view invites argument about where the lines should be drawn in between freedom and guideline, and to what extent federal government organizations need to intervene in protecting social worths while honoring constitutional rights.