SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-marriage-is-formed-between-one-man-and-one-electronic-computing-device dept.
More than a dozen state legislatures are considering a bill called the "Human Trafficking Prevention Act," which has nothing to do with human trafficking and all to do with one man's crusade against pornography at the expense of free speech.
At its heart, the model bill would require device manufacturers to pre-install "obscenity" filters on devices like cell phones, tablets, and computers. Consumers would be forced to pony up $20 per device in order to surf the Internet without state censorship. The legislation is not only technologically unworkable, it violates the First Amendment and significantly burdens consumers and businesses.
Perhaps more shocking is the bill's provenance. The driving force behind the legislation is a man named Mark Sevier, who has been using the alias "Chris Severe" to contact legislators. According to the Daily Beast, Sevier is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop. Reporters Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny uncovered a lengthy legal history for Sevier, including an open arrest warrant and stalking convictions, as well as evidence that Sevier misrepresented his own experience working with anti-trafficking non-profits.
The bill has been introduced in some form [in] Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming (list here). We recommend that any legislator who has to consider this bill read the Daily Beast's investigation.
[...] It’s unfortunate that the Human Trafficking Prevention Act has gained traction in so many states, but we're pleased to see that some, such as Wyoming and North Dakota, have already rejected it. Legislators should do the right thing: uphold the Constitution, protect consumers, and not use the problem of human trafficking as an excuse to promote this individual’s agenda against pornography.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet
(Score: 1, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:33PM (48 children)
Pornography is not speech. And a pornography ban or restriction no more hampers your right to free speech than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:36PM
With this half baked bill, where does it stop though?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:43PM
Or, alternatively, it is speech and is protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:56PM
How indoctrinated must one be to believe that the USA has free speech, even when that requires making exceptions for everything that gets censored?
Porn = "not speech"
Disagreeing with the ruling party = "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
Even China has free speech under the US definition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:01PM (14 children)
Pornography is not speech.
Well, then what is? If you carve out an exception for pornography and all the other acts of speech that someone doesn't like, then what's left? There has to be a limit to it or the people in control will keep cutting away till there's nothing left except the freedom to parrot the official line.
The point of freedom of speech is not to merely allow things that everyone likes. It's to allow any sort of communication and performance art to exist, no matter how unpleasant it happens to be to you.
than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
Which let us note, do hamper your "ability" quite a bit.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:27PM (9 children)
Pornography is not and should never be protected by free speech laws because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography. That is not why pornography is made. A video can be speech, that video can even include nudity and sex, but pornography is a sub type of video that is never speech.
We have serious activists trying to outlaw actual speech, actual talking, outlaw people stating their philosophy, ideas, or opinions. The West is rampant with illegal thoughts and illegal opinions [ifcdn.com]. In that light, it does not seem like defining a profit making enterprise that has nothing to do with expressing oneself as not speech as a controversial statement.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography.
Lolwut?
That's like saying no one has ever tried to express themselves through dance.
Just because fucking is fun to watch doesn't make it non-expressive.
Maybe its not some grand philosophical treatise. But it is at least as expressive as small-talk and anyone who tried to outlaw small-talk would be quickly laughed out of the state-house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:29PM
Dang, Son! You should have posted this under a Nick, rather than as AC. I'm sure this will be one of the quotes of the decade!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:01PM
So we should burn all romance novels then?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
Hate speech is not an opinion if you don't actually believe what you say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:10PM
On the other hand, if you don't believe what you say, you should probably keep your trap shut.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
> because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography
There are so many counter-examples to that statement, which are now major attractions in museums all over the world, that I don't even know where I would start a list.
You may need a book or a class in History of Art and Censorship...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:48AM
It's Eurocentric of me, but I'd start my list with those paintings of horny animals in the Lascaux caves. Disgusting!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:51PM
Too bad the Supreme Court was unable to properly define pornography without referring to the subjective mental state of the viewer and producer.
Because of that, allowing the censorship of pornography opens the door to all manner of censorship.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:55PM
Pornography is not and should never be protected by free speech laws because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography.
[...]
A video can be speech, that video can even include nudity and sex, but pornography is a sub type of video that is never speech.
Sounds to me like pornography doesn't exist then since I don't buy that there exists deliberately constructed video, including blank and static-filled video, that doesn't express anything.
We have serious activists trying to outlaw actual speech, actual talking, outlaw people stating their philosophy, ideas, or opinions. The West is rampant with illegal thoughts and illegal opinions. In that light, it does not seem like defining a profit making enterprise that has nothing to do with expressing oneself as not speech as a controversial statement.
Except of course, that profit-making enterprise is traditionally one of the first illegal thoughts and opinions. Everyone with a little Hitler in them wants to control porn for some reason.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:02PM (3 children)
How is pornography communication or performance art?
What is "Back door man 5" communicating? What sort of beauty or emotional power does it display?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:28AM
It is performance art because the girls are acting: fake enjoyment when being treated in painful ways in front of a bunch of strangers.
Emotional power: Well, isn't that a powerful statement on human desperation and power of the almighty dollar, to take significant risks and face future ostracism (e.g. exclusion from many professions), for the sake of a pizza delivery guy who wanted just the tip?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:36AM
How is pornography communication or performance art?
That should be obvious from the definition of communication and of performance art. Just saying. But let's look at these things. It communicates a tale and has genre specific elements (kink traditions, if you will). Thus, you can write down aspects of the porn that are unique to it, even if it comes to a paragraph or so. Any viewer can afterward come up with such a description of the video. That's a similar length to a telegram or tweet, both which are protected speech for most of the democratic world already. That these aspects are communicated in a lengthy video than in a short burst is irrelevant. That makes it communication no matter how simple or how dirty the tale is.
And a fair bit of porn does explicitly communicate political messages, particularly advocating free speech. That makes it protected speech right there.
And I'll note from earlier in the thread, expression (as used by sjames) is even looser a term than communication. One doesn't even need to communicate a thing. It is merely the exercise of speech with no consideration given to the content of the speech (which makes sjames's subsequent claim that pornography can't express anything to be ludicrous). If I'm yelling incoherently for grubby money, that's still expression.
Further, there is a legal point to freedom of expression which I didn't cover before. If I have a machine with an emergency cutoff switch, how do I know the switch works, if I never test it? Things like porn serve as tests of our freedom of speech.
Second, it's performance and it's art. Performance is subjective to the viewer and as a result anything getting on video is performance - even if it weren't originally intended as such or heavily modified (such as mixing in mundane sounds in music). If I watch a parent because they're having an entertaining problem with their child, they're unintentionally performing for me. So I conclude that everything in porn is performance, no matter how unwilling, unintended, or vile. It can be for various reasons illegal (due to coercion of participants or using their likeness in a porn video without their permission), but it's still performance.
And while art is a hard to nail down term, one can see that porn videos, for example, follow the same creative process as due sophisticate films which are considered works of art and is subject to the same legal structure (copyrights and trademarks - this is quite relevant because it means the law already treats porn as it would any other work of art). And no threshold of quality exists for art. We already have that "Piss Christ" is just as much a work of art as the Mona Lisa, even though I'm not paying money to see the former.
And from a legal perspective, we really haven't been served well by arbitrarily deciding what quality of art is art. For example, US TV has deliberately tried for many decades to get as much stuff past the censors as it could - interracial kisses, side boobs, naughty words, whatever. While that's entertaining, it does indicate that the viewers of these relatively daring programs weren't in agreement on the thresholds for censorship else they wouldn't have watched them.
And most such art is intended to trigger emotions in the viewer, both pleasant and not. Of course, porn triggers lust and similar emotions. That's its whole point.
Or perhaps we should use peoples' interest in the material? Porn has a lot of interest from its viewers and readers, otherwise it wouldn't exist. It's a huge industry.
I can go on some. There are other definitions of art and such ("It's art if I like it"), but the point remains. Porn is art. Porn is performance. Porn is communication. It has all the characteristics of speech that we would protect under free speech laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:57AM
Since you're the one trying to ban it, the onus is on you to explain how it is not communication or performance art.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:01PM (9 children)
Pornography is not speech.
I think most people take "free speech" to mean "freedom of expression" in the wider sense - and you obviously missed the stories about breast cancer sites being blocked by "porn" filters or the famous photo of the Vietnamese kid running along the road being blocked by Facebook.
The main problem, though, with any censorship is who gets to decide what should be censored. How many novels have you read with explicit sex scenes? Not pornography? Says who? Plenty of puritans out there who'd say that Princess Leia in a gold bikini was porn. Also, if you require manufacturers or ISPs to automatically block porn or (presumably) face prosecution then they are going to use crude filters which err on the side of caution and raise lots of false positives.
Note that you're already talking about a lobbyist who has used "Human trafficking" as a smokescreen to disguise an anti-pornography campaign - so don't expect any good faith there.
Its not as if there aren't already laws about the really nasty stuff.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:49PM
Indeed. I've read exactly one one James Patterson book, just to see why he's so popular with women, and discovered that women love murder mysteries with a graphic sex scene that does absolutely nothing to advance the story.
James Patterson is a pornographer and women love pornography as long as it's buried inside a murder mystery.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:48PM (6 children)
That's the whole point, who gets to decide.
You get to decide for you, I get to decide for me, he for him, she for her, they for themselves.
Freedom of speech not only means freedom of expression, but the freedom to consume(*) other people's expressions as well.
(*) consume for lack of a better word, English isn't my first language
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:56PM
"Consume" is not just good English, it's a sophisticated word choice. Your English skills may be far better than you think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:40PM (3 children)
It is unfortunate that this is cast as an issue of speech, because it's really an issue of a much more fundamental nature (and doubly unfortunately, not one that is constitutionally well defined, although it should be.)
That issue is personal liberty.
When the issue at hand is a matter of informed, personal or consensual choice, it is not a matter that any government can make any rightful claim to legislating, much less actually legislate the matter into unlawfulness. That's not saying they can't make unrightful claims – they have the power to do so, and they repeatedly do so – but they are inherently and fundamentally in the wrong in so doing.
Further, when the law is wrong, it should be treated as invalid on its face. Some time in the 300's-400's AD, Augustine of Hippo (Christianity's "Saint Augustine") stated "Lex iniusta non est lex", which, not too roughly translated, means "An unjust law is no law at all." More recently, Martin Luther King quoted this in aid of pointing out various unjust laws, and it is fair to say (and Wikipedia goes ahead and says it, though certainly not as authoritatively as Augustine or King [wikipedia.org]) that it is a standard legal maxim.
Our history is replete with bad law that should have never been obeyed by anyone, at any level, other than under duress. Some of it is gone now; but there is a great deal remaining.
I submit that resistance to such law is a clear mark of someone who truly wants the best for the citizens of their country: the mark of a true patriot who is actively working to see to it that the lot of the people is bettered. The creators of, enforcers of, and dictators and implementors of punishment for such laws are inherently the polar opposite: evil, unpatriotic people who are actively seeking to do harm to their fellow citizens. They should be resisted at every practical level.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
I am sure you have used the Internet enough to know that consuming Pornography is not necessarily consensual at all. Their is no gateway, behind which all the pornography lays, it is everywhere and whether you consent or not you will see it. If we actually cared about the consentuality of pornography viewing, would we not require some way to turn it off? What you seem to be advocating is to remove personal choice, to allow pornography to be anywhere and everywhere, to prevent someone from being able to choose not to view it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:11PM
Then why don't you take the same stance for other speech? What if I'm offended by religious speech and don't want to see it? Should we have government-mandated filters on all computers to make sure that I don't encounter this speech unintentionally? The fact of the matter is, whenever you visit a location where people are allowed to speak freely, you run the risk of hearing someone say something you don't like or seeing something you don't like; deal with it or go isolate yourself from the rest of society. I don't care about your feelings or your desire to not see things you don't like, so vanish.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:33PM
You still have personal choice, even in such an extreme environment. You can choose to restrict your moves to a walled garden, such as Facebook, where the proprietors of the garden regulate what can be posted. It's their garden; they get to set the rules. You can create your own such garden. You can surf away when out on the open web. Your options should end, however, when you think for even a moment that you have the right to force anyone else to restrict themselves beyond the matter of informed consent. Likewise, in your home, you set the rules. Not me; not the government; when it comes to the available choices, you have a great deal of control, and reasonably so. It's your garden, essentially. You want a porn filter? Fine. Install and enjoy. You can set up a whitelist and see to it that you're in your own hand-crafted safe Internet space. But if you try to put such a thing on my computer, I will defend against that. And I don't give the south end of a northbound rat for any kind of porn, either way. See skin, don't see skin, meh. I'm more into geological porn. Naked crystals. Yum! And I like pinups. Preferably clothed pinups. Plumage is much more interesting to me than skin. I simply object very strongly to the idea that you have any right at all to force me to do anything that is in the realm of my personal, informed decision making. You can ask me to, and I respect absolutely your right to ask. And you will then endure me laughing at you, as I pursue the reciprocal right of appropriate information transfer when someone asks me to do something absurd.
Let me illustrate this for you. I am, in point of fact, highly offended by religion. I think it is a travesty; enormously harmful to raising children in a reasonable fashion, and in the public square, including on the Internet, any instance of it is the cognitive equivalent of a huge, steaming pile of dung. I am truly offended. However, I can ignore it; I can turn away; I can stop looking; and I can whine about it. At various times, I choose one or the other of these. What I do not do, however, is claim that because I saw it, I am forced to consume it, and so I should have the right to tell others they may not indulge in such practices. I have no right to not be offended, because now we're talking about force applied from me towards non-consenting others. That's out of bounds. Way out of bounds.
When the government coerces me with regard to religion: via blue laws in re business closures or consumption of alcohol, drugs, meats, etc.; expects me to "swear by god" or "on a bible" in court, imposes school prayer upon and/or forces my children to bear teaching that "creationism" is a valid scientific theory, etc. – they have picked a direct fight with me. Now it's not about offense. Now it's about abuse. Now we are at polar odds. I'm not just offended. I am injured and have no choice in the matter, informed or otherwise. I respond in various ways, from carefully and in detail informing my children that the government is wrong, stupid, and does not deserve their respect in these matters, to adjusting my votes, political contributions, and so on, and of course, never, ever participating in or consuming religious hokery.
You too can avoid encouraging or consuming in this thing that offends you, and – as far as I know – there is no circumstance where you can be compelled to participate. Further, should you be so motivated, you can construct a site that offers your opinions on the matter to the world, and attempt to sway others into avoiding porn in some way resembling how you feel it should be avoided. You can, as you have here, speak up in online fora and present your case. You won't see porn here – they don't allow images of any kind here at present, so you're in a perfectly safe space as far as that goes. The amount of freedom you retain, even in the face of potentially being offended here and there, is (well, should be) huge.
However... it seems to me that you are under the very mistaken impression that you have, or should have, a very specific right: the right to not be offended by what you see and hear as you explore the world. Such a right right cannot exist outside the bounds of pernicious or gross coercion, because it depends entirely on an authority you cannot derive from the principles of liberty – it is by its very nature an imposition on the rights of others to make personal / consensual informed choices for themselves. Therefore, the only way you can create such an imposition is via coercive force. At that point, you are swinging in range of other people's noses, and you deserve what you get, IMHO.
Your valid options, just as mine, are:
o Ignore whatever it is.
o Turn away.
o Stop exploring.
You can also, of course, whine about it. That is perfectly within your rights; but remember that everyone else has essentially the same options in re your whining:
o Ignore you.
o Turn away.
o Stop interacting with you altogether.
o Whine about you in turn.
If the actors / participants in the recording or performance are informed and okay with their actions; if the audience that wishes to consume the performance is informed and okay with their actions; then it's okay. End of story. Nothing says you have to participate in the performance, or hang around and consume any more of it than an identifying glance would subject you to; nothing says you have to think about anything you might have seen; nothing says you shouldn't, either – but there is not even a hint in any of that which says that you have any right to interfere.
If you wish to live in a world without other people making choices for themselves, then stock up on food, money for the tax man, lock your doors and shutter your windows. Otherwise, suffer along with the rest of us, and risk being offended by the personal and consensual choices of others from time to time. It's not all that hard to live with. Sometimes – frankly – it's quite funny.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by canopic jug on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:32PM
I'd say receive rather than consume. Nothing is consumed or lost. But an idea is expressed, or communicated, and it's up to the recipient to make their own interpretation.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:00PM
Princess Leia in a gold bikini was depiction of both porn and exploitation - getting licked by Jabba was a bonus.
And... it is mainstream enough to be embraced by Disney, the same Disney that draws cartoon princesses in all sorts of sexy manner. So, do we stop porn when it's "more hardcore" than Disney will allow? What happens when Disney's tastes change? Some cultures consider showing a woman's face "indecent," do we need to cover all women's faces to respect their preferences?
Bottom line, every sociology, history, and social studies class I ever took defined porn as a form of first amendment protected speech - whether in written, photographic, video, or holographic form. Smellovision wasn't a thing when I was in school, but I'd bet it's covered too.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:25PM (10 children)
Can you please define Pornography?
Do you have an absolute test that can be applied to anything?
What about legitimate works of art that include nudity?
What about works of art that also are erotic in some form?
How many R rated movies would be swept up by your definition of pornography?
Next, how many G rated movies would be covered?
How many advertisements would fail your test?
What about jokes and comedy?
Just wondering.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:29PM (5 children)
In the Bible, would the book "Song of Solomon" be defined as pornography?
If not, then what about other writings such as novels, dime store books, or classic literature?
Pornography must be a new 21st century scourge because people in times past have never thought about sex. Nope. Nosiree.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:02PM (4 children)
In the Bible, would the book "Song of Solomon" be defined as pornography?
Semi-serious philosophical question: Is it possible to define pr0n without referencing some religion? Is pr0n as a concept an invention of religion?
Surely before we invented clothes, before we invented religion, we saw a hell of a lot of each other and obviously everything turned out alright, so I'm not overly worried about transparent skin tight yoga pants, essentially waist down nudity in public, or pix on the internet.
Surely before we invented the nuclear family, before we invented religion, when almost all of us were farmers, many of which livestock farmers, people saw a hell of a lot of sex both between animals and each other. Again, turned out OK, didn't it?
Isn't claiming a god is omniscient and hates pr0n somewhat insulting to that god? Surely he sees the same sex we do and a mere human can't be claiming he's immoral?
Assuming the above issues can be resolved, I guess once we have the state religion merged into the .gov we'll have the state URL pr0n filter added. Till then I'd think the separation of church and state neatly obliterates the issue of state defining pr0n, which is as nonsense as the state defining baptism or ... marriage.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
I can't answer your philosophical question. IMO some basic level of public modesty is a reasonable thing. I don't mind people doing otherwise if I can choose whether or not to see it. I just don't want it imposed upon me. Just like I can choose to go to a nightclub or not. Or drink alcohol or not. (I would add: or ingest weed or not) I don't mind if people want to see or to show people their bodies. I just would rather it not be the default for every day life.
I have my own beliefs. I don't wish to impose them upon others, especially as public policy.
I think any kind of state religion is the worst of ideas. I think any attempt to forbid people from practicing their religion is equally bad. That still leaves us with a problem that there are significant numbers of people that would impose their views upon everyone. To them I would say: you can't change what is in people's heart through force of law. You can't MAKE them believe.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
I can't answer your philosophical question.
I think its a realistic argument against the proposed prohibition.
If we supposedly separate church and state, and if you can't define pr0n without religion any more than you can define blasphemy without reference to religion, then I guess the pr0n ban has to be flushed.
I have a hell of an imagination and I can't think of any argument the defines the parameters of pr0n that isn't anything other than some religious leader once said XYZ.
A purely scientific and expressly non religious definition of pr0n, free of belief systems... what would that be? I guess you could go massive overkill like cannon striking mosquito and burn all the idolators at the stake. But a surgical strike against pr0n specifically... hmm.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:10PM
It seems that you start with an objective definition like nudity. Then one is suddenly confronted with things such as recognized existing art that contains nudity -- and OMG -- is displayed in public. Remember when Ashcroft had to cover up the Spirit of Justice [wikipedia.org] statue because she had one bare breast? Suddenly under Ashcroft, it was an outrage worth spending $8,000 (of our money) for curtains to cover it up. The irony of the attorney general trying to cover up the spirit of justice.
I understand that Ashcroft has religious views. I may even share some of them. But what exactly did he think he was accomplishing? What was going through his mind? I would love to understand his thinking. How is this benefiting anyone? But such is the thinking of the people who want to mandate pr0n filters.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:14AM
Of course it is. Porn is shorthand for 'anything designed to cause sexual excitement'. Religion has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should grow up and learn how to spell.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:31PM (2 children)
What about ancient stone paintings and carvings that depict sexual acts? Would those qualify as pornography?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:05PM (1 child)
Well we all know that the Venus of Willendorf [soylentnews.org] was clearly used as a way for primitive hunters to correctly identify what not to hunt. Those Greek/Roman [wikipedia.org] pottery examples were nothing more that sex-ed as well. So clearly those would be allowed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:23PM
to correctly identify what not to hunt
"Venus of Walmart" the famous thousands of years old statuette of tubgirl in her native habitat... like people of walmart but for ancients. I don't believe the cultural relativism tripe fed to us at the time that in some cultures a bucket of blubber was considered the feminine ideal and a modern college cheerleader would be ignored as ugly. You can't indoctrinate teenage boys with a tall tall that ridiculous. Maybe some of the larger gravitational fields in class believed it; none of the boys.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:05PM
The classic definition is "socially redeeming value" such as entertainment. Of course, the classic definition is just used by law enforcement to temporarily shut down things they don't like, and it only holds in cases where the target doesn't fight back and take them to court - courts invariably come down on the side of free speech, too much precedence for them to ignore. Of course, that doesn't stop law enforcement from "ruining people" like Paul Reubens, but, legally, he was never even charged.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
people should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they aren't infringing someone else's right to life, liberty, or property.
What if it infringes a little bit?
Does that mean their speech should no longer be free?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48PM
If men were angels, speech would have no capability of harming anyone.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:23PM
Poe's Law strikes again!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Farmer Tim on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
Pornography is not speech.
Indeed, it's more sort of grunting noises punctuated by the occasional "ooh, baby!".
Came for the news, stayed for the soap opera.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:18PM
Set to background music.
Now consider: the background music of any pr0n is the same as the background music for any power point presentation.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
Living is not speech. And a living ban or restriction no more hampers your right to free speech than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
Easy, see?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:56PM
Indeed, living is not speech, and therefore not covered by the first amendment. However living is generally considered important, which is why there are separate laws specifically to protect living. Those other laws, in turn, do nothing to protect free speech.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:45PM
Please go to the Museum of Erotic Art in Hamburg and tell them that their exhibits are not speech or art.
How do you define pornography? This is the root of the problem. In reality, it is defined by people as "explicit material that I don't like". The classic, "I know it when I see it" definition.
So, really, your original claim is tautological, because what you consider pornographic is explicit material that you don't think deserves protection as speech.