Free Speech?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XnavxeMiyyep, Oct 6, 2008.

  1. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #1
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    WTF? People are into all sorts of things. From what the article mentions, it sounds fairly harmless. I've seen porn at leather conventions that'll make his stuff look like kindergarten class. This is ridiculous, and not at all surprising that it happened in Florida.
     
  3. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #3
    How does selling pornography relate to free speech?
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    In case you don't remember, Larry Flynt beat several charges brought against his magazine on the basis of freedom of speech.
     
  5. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    This is an absolute travesty. It was a waste of the court's time and the tax payer's money. If you don't like it then don't buy it.

    What a joke.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    BINGO! I mean, what the hell? It's not as if he was shoving it in people's faces in the super market. The Purity Police are at it again.
     
  7. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #7
    How does it not? It's a form of expression that's now being censored by the government.

    Offensives speech is the speech that needs the most protection.
     
  8. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
  9. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #9
    But ZOMCC teh childrenz!!! They can findz it on teh tubes!!! FFS people, take responsibility for your own children. Do the leg work youself, block the sites you know don't want them to visit. I'm tired of having our fundamental rights stripped from us day by day.

    Watch out Lee, the P.P. :)D) are coming for you next!

    Is there a difference between the two nowadays?
     
  10. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #10
    As a wise man once said:

    I'm against censorship. I grew up playing mortal kombat and listening to songs with dirty words. I think i've turned into a responsible adult. More than likely because my parents did their job. Instead of blocking what i shouldn't hear or see, they showed me why it was wrong and thought me what was right.
     
  11. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #11

    This is precisely why teh Interwebs needs a .sex or .xxx domain name.

    It makes the porn easier to find and to block = everybody's happy.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Don't think I'm not aware of that. :mad:
     
  13. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #13
    That's a touchy subject. While I agree it would make things easier to find and I still think it's a bad idea because you're automatically saying this is wrong and bad. Also, who determines what websites fall into those categories? No matter how you slice it, it's bound to be biased.

    I know Lee. I feel for you and everybody else that just wants a fair shake, if you will. I honestly don't know how you or anybody else deals with it day after day.
     
  14. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #14
    We definitely do not need more TLD's. That will make web businesses have to buy more domain names and classifying content as "inappropriate" is exactly what we DON'T want to be doing.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Well, this is exactly how this crap starts. They start with the people nobody wants to defend, and go from there.
     
  16. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #16
    I changed one word, as I believe this is what he was going for.

    If I am wrong I will delete this post.;)
     
  17. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #17

    Cheers, that's precisely why I couldn't, and shouldn't, be a politician!

    I feel that such a domain name would be in everybody's interest; pornographers, users, parents, etc.
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    But not those that would attempt to control your moral values. :mad:
     
  19. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #19
    Let me tell you my thought process going into reading this thread and the various articles thereafter. I see a thread named "Free Speech" with a question mark and an article attached about an individual who is sentenced to three years in prison for selling pornography deemed "obscene." My first thought was, how does [the act of] selling pornography relate to free speech?

    Yes, I did read the article. The way it was worded seemed like it could have came out of The Onion. Max Hardcore? :D:D:D Very cliché.

    Anyway, Lee mentioned someone named Larry Flynt. I don't enter the realm of pornography and am unfamiliar with the big-time publishers and what not. I read the Wiki article on him and most of the court cases are related to political cartoon-type entries in his publications. Not necessarily the act of distributing pornography with one exception. The first paragraph was about obscenity. So really this discussion could be about the merits of the "Miller Test" and whether actions are related and protected under the first amendment. Judging by some of the replies in this thread, I'd say the "Miller Test" is hogwash in your minds.

    He was released on a "technicality." Wikipedia fails to state that technicality. I'd like to know. But in my mind, it's one thing to say and another to do. Action, the act of does not equal speech.
    I agree it's a waste of time and money. I'm not big on regulating behavior just like I'm not big on regulating the market. As long as the people in those videos are free to leave. Think life, liberty and pursuit.
    The person was selling and acting in pornography. I'm not sure how much literary, artistic, political or scientific speaking he was doing during the "sex scenes that included urinating and vomiting." Hence why the court ruled the way they did. Based solely on this Miller Test, I'd say they're right. It doesn't make it o.k. to imprison in my personal view.

    So basically selling and acting in pornography is a form of expression that's now being censored by the government. Did I read this correctly? "It's" like you said is referring to pornography and specifically in this instance, selling and acting in pornography deemed "obscene" by Tampa Bay court is speech that needs most protection.

    So what should we do about this? Work to change the law.
     
  20. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    I never ceases to amaze me how many people can say that the free market will handle everything and then immediately sue, or appeal to the government the minute someone tries to build an adult entertainment establishment somewhere within an arbitrary radius of their home.

    I see it as one of the most entertaining conundrums for the religious right.
     
  21. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #21
    Art is subjective. The government does not get to define what is and isn't art. The laws in this case are already unconstitutional and unethical.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Exactly- this attitude of "work to change the law" really gets me. It's the same crappy attitude I've heard from people regarding gay rights forever. The "too bad, you'll have to go to jail in the meantime" attitude is BS. The law is wrong to begin with and most likely can't pass constitutional muster. This case should be reviewed by a higher court.
     
  23. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #23
    The US has no moral authority on free speech. Whenever nudity or profane language is involved, the US makes the old Soviet Union look like paradise.

    I remember this animated music video for Radiohead's Paranoid Android that featured a mermaid with naked breasts. MTV USA censored it by blurring out the nipples, and a later version had the mermaid in a bikini top. It's animated! It's a mermaid!! They did however have no problem with the guy in the video who chopped his arms and legs off with a meat cleaver.

    Just what is it exactly that people think will happen when they're exposed to nudity? I live in a country where full frontal nudity has been on TV since the friggin' sixties, and you know what? The sky hasn't fallen, people are not having sex in the streets or stabbing eachother in the face.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    You're obviously living in the wrong street. :p
     
  25. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #25
    Unfortunately.
     

Share This Page