Free speech shouldn't include violent porn

[RawAlex]

Define "violent" in legal terms.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Define "violent" in legal terms.

Describe "pornography" in legal terms.

[sarettah]

Hanging an American flag upside down in a window

Hmm. That is the international distress signal, hanging your flag upside down. How does that get grouped with declaring communist view...lololol

Anyway, free speech means that you take the good with the bad. It is an all or nothing proposition.

The one(s) that get to me lately are the one(s) advocating different free speech for different people/groups of people. ie: It is ok for a person of African-American ancestry to say nigger but it isn't ok for anyone else to say the word.

It is all a bunch of bullshit. Like I said to a student when they accused me of making discriminatory/rascist comments at one point:

"There are a whole lot of words in the English language and I reserve the right to use any of them that I please, anytime I please."

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Describe "pornography" in legal terms.

I don't have to. Pornography is remarkably legal and the AG has even admitted that much of it is protected free speech.

You never have to define legal, just define illegal in a manner that can be measured and used in court. This thread starts down the same road as trying to define obscenity.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

This thread starts down the same road as trying to define obscenity.

That is because it is one and the same. The only porn that is illegal (other than kp of course) is that which is obscene.

So, whether porn is legal or not pretty much solely depends on whether it is obscene or not and of course, here in the US, that has been left to that wonderfully crystal clear standard of "community standards"

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by sarettah

That is because it is one and the same. The only porn that is illegal (other than kp of course) is that which is obscene.

So, whether porn is legal or not pretty much solely depends on whether it is obscene or not and of course, here in the US, that has been left to that wonderfully crystal clear standard of "community standards"

Sarettah, thank you for understanding my point. You have become my Thursday night hero.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by sarettah

...So, whether porn is legal or not pretty much solely depends on whether it is obscene or not and of course, here in the US, that has been left to that wonderfully crystal clear standard of "community standards"

OK, next step, define community.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by Toby

OK, next step, define community.

That's kinda the whole point, though, isn't it? The entire legal status of porn is hinged on very tremulous definitions that can vary wildly and have no standard.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

OK, next step, define community.

This is actually the most important part of the new action by the DoJ. One of the most pressing issues will be the definition of community as it deals with the internet. The community of the internet isn't made up of nothing but bible thumpers and no-booze no sex mormons, but rather the entire population of the US (over the age of 18, as the under 18 crowd cannot access the internet without parental permission, because they cannot legally enter into a contract with an ISP).

Further, the internet (and internet porn) has been around for at least 12 years now (longer, yes, but commercial, call it 1995 or 1996 for real), which means that porn has long since been established within this community, including all forms from straight sex to fisting, cumshots to squirting, anal to plushies. The community that I see as a whole tolerates it in the same manner that we tolerate ignorant blogs, poor taste youtube home movies, Perez Hilton, and goatse.

I think that the DoJ is about 10 years too late on this one.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Define "violent" in legal terms.

I love this question...

The reason all these free speech cases are lost and a waste of tax payer money is the hypocricy; point Boxing and Ultimate Fighting which is quite violent and doesn't come with a disclaimer for minors to view is not mentioned. These people just use adult to sensationalize their position - they all need to get a life or have sex.

[Mediaguy]

In the Great White North, the only definition of "obscenity" used is sex with violence, ie., a violent act during the penetration, slapping and fucking, whatever...

Violence can precede the penetrative act, or follow it, but can't occur simultaneously.

Hey, I met Max Hardcore, he's a mellow dude, quiet and polite, and good conversationalist, and if his freak or kink or turn-on is violent, degrading sex, it doesn't affect his demeanor or treatment of people (men and women) outside the boudoir.

Personally, it turns me right off... I'm also not turned on by women in diapers, or foot fetish (though I 've seen the occasional pretty foot) and balloons.

But, some people are and do get into those fetishes... to me that's all it is.