It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial

page: 22
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Hopefully I can explain this in a way that can be understood.

Apparently this porn producer was convicted under obscenity laws.
Obscenity is something that has been defined by the court system, and was posted earlier as...
"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."
The key phrase here is "contemporary community standards."
Apparently the community in question decided that what this man was producing was obscene and not in accordance with their self regulated standards. Thus his films are obscene. If he would like to continue working in his chosen field perhaps he should move to another community. Its really not that difficult to understand.
On a unrelated point concerning religion.
I have read on here that some folk think that there should be more porn and less religion, I have also read that no one likes to have someones religious and moral views crammed down their throat. I would offer this.
How is it possible to have a viewpoint crammed down your throat, when all you have to do is walk away?
Don't like religious television, change the channel.
Don't like religious radio? change the channel.
Don't like to read about religion, put the book down.
Think the community you live is to puritanical? Move away.
This has been the very argument put out by advocates of all forms of media for quite awhile now.
Again, its not that difficult to understand.
What does all this mean?
Simple.
We live in a world governed by people. People have opinions, among these opinions is a sense of right and wrong. If you don't have similar view on morality as the community in which you live, expect a hard time.
Is this wrong?
I would not imagine so, after all a community cannot function if the people within it cannot work together to achieve common goals set forth by the population of the community itself.
Prostitution is not a crime in Nevada, but it is in Ohio.
This is not that difficult to understand.
Now many people will claim that this is unconstitutional allow me to show everyone what the constitution actually says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You will notice that there is nothing to be found in the constitution that protects music, film or any media for that matter unless it is political or religious in nature.
This is why obscenity laws are legal and constitutional.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Uh, he didn't live or work in the jurisdiction that he was charged in. In fact, he is on the other side of the country.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by sacerd
 


Uh, he didn't live or work in the jurisdiction that he was charged in. In fact, he is on the other side of the country.


I don't know that it matters, if he was responsible for any distribution of his product there.
Not unlike running moonshine I would suppose.
For example: Say Moonshine was legal in Tennessee but not in Kentucky and I brought Moonshine into Kentucky but the shine was made in Tennessee and I lived in Tennessee I can still be charged.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by q_ball
 


Speaking as a Florida resident, I do live close enough to Tampa to have heard this mans name often. Max Hardcore is a sick man.. Even from my point of veiw. And IM like most guys out here.. I do like some porn now and then. However there is a point where porn becomes something all together different.
This man dealt with images that where to close to child porn. The reports that I have read about him are extreamly obscene! Even to me they are obscene! And Im a guy with a pretty open mind, and a advocate to free speach and all that stuff when it comes to porn, or free rights.
But this man takes to many steps to dress women up like little girls, and has sex with them, and exploits this to make money.

I dont think men like that should be allowed to petal their crap online to just turn a buck. Not only is it crap, but its borderline pedophiles that are getting kicks from 18 year old girls dressed up like young girls.
Now Im not going to say he is a pedo, or what not, but chances are with the kind of stuff he promotes, its highly likely he has some kind of underground thing going on. Wouldnt shock me if it turns out he is selling or promoting Child porn. Which is why this case should get more light.
Perverts like this need the spot light. And shine the light on him so brightly that it exposes this man for who he truely is.

I will let you the reader decide.. And I suggest you stay off his websight and steer clear of this kind of stuff. Its dangerous, and is harmful to us as a soceity. And thats comming from a guy who enjoys a dirty movie with his girlfriend, or whatever..
Theres a big red line, and when you get close to that line, its a slippery slope, And guys like Max hardcore Got way to close to that big red line..

And from the stuff I have heard in city meetings, and other members of my area. They all agree this mans work, is too much on the sick side.
And not only sick, but morally wrong, as it could promote things that are down right wrong. And aginst the law in most places in the world.
And agin, Im no PRUDE.. But come on.. MOst of us have kids, and family members who we protect dearly!!!
And if any of them where my sisters, or family members, I would be up in arms to get this creep off the web.
Not only that, but other guys with less class looking at these sites could be tempted to go out and do something very wrong, and agin, Im just protecting my own, and saying, prehaps you need to read into this further, before we think this guy has a right to spew this junk out..
No I think its very harmful to our culture to let Max Hard core keep producing mock child porn..



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


I think you have this a little backwards.

No one is whining about religion while they are watching Jesus TV, or reading Jesus monthly.

In fact, it is the religious nuts who are imposing their beliefs on others simply because they disagree with the content of something. Religious wackos are the ones who refuse to turn the channel/station.

Religious wackos are the ones who form "family groups" that protest every "vulgar" word or display of a body part.

Who said anything about prostitution?

I also believe your understanding of the Constitution is a little um backwards. Simply because something isn't prohibited in the Constitution, doesn't mean laws can be enacted against it.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


He wasn't shipping the videos, his distribution company was.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by slackerwire]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zysin5

This man dealt with images that where to close to child porn.


Sigh, here we go again.




I dont think men like that should be allowed to petal their crap online to just turn a buck. Not only is it crap, but its borderline pedophiles that are getting kicks from 18 year old girls dressed up like young girls.


What if he thinks you shouldn't be able to do certain things, should you be prohibited from doing them?

You too would do yourself a world of good by actually learning what pedophilia means. Hint: it means PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN, as in not an 18 or 19 yr old girl dressing up like a 16 yr old.




Now Im not going to say he is a pedo, or what not, but chances are with the kind of stuff he promotes, its highly likely he has some kind of underground thing going on.


Wow generalize much?

What kind of strange hobbies do you have? Please list them in an orderly fashion so that we too may make ridiculous, unsubstantiated generalizations about you.




I will let you the reader decide.. And I suggest you stay off his websight and steer clear of this kind of stuff. Its dangerous, and is harmful to us as a soceity. And thats comming from a guy who enjoys a dirty movie with his girlfriend, or whatever..


You should spend less time making ridiculous assumptions and spend more time learning the fine art of spelling.



They all agree this mans work, is too much on the sick side.


Who cares what they think? If they dont like it, tell them not to watch it.



And not only sick, but morally wrong, as it could promote things that are down right wrong.


Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong? If it offends you, stay away from it.



And if any of them where my sisters, or family members, I would be up in arms to get this creep off the web.


Why wouldn't you be up in arms over the fact your precious little moral sister is doing it instead?



No I think its very harmful to our culture to let Max Hard core keep producing mock child porn..


I think its very harmful to let loonybins impose their morals on others. How do you propose we stop that activity first?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   

In fact, it is the religious nuts who are imposing their beliefs on others simply because they disagree with the content of something. Religious wackos are the ones who refuse to turn the channel/station.


How exactly is anyone being imposed on?


Religious wackos are the ones who form "family groups" that protest every "vulgar" word or display of a body part.


That is covered by the first amendment.


Who said anything about prostitution?


I did to demonstrate that different communities have different standards of what is acceptable within their community.


I also believe your understanding of the Constitution is a little um backwards. Simply because something isn't prohibited in the Constitution, doesn't mean laws can be enacted against it.


Actually Yes it does.
If something is not protected then it is simply not protected.
That does not mean that their WILL be laws enacted against it but it does mean that laws CAN be enacted.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd



How exactly is anyone being imposed on?


They are imposing on his right to make a living by selling a product. If they dont like said product, they dont have to order it.




That is covered by the first amendment.


as is his freedom of expression.






Actually Yes it does.
If something is not protected then it is simply not protected.
That does not mean that their WILL be laws enacted against it but it does mean that laws CAN be enacted.



hahaha could you provide a substantiating source on that for me?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


You keep repeating again and again that snuff films are a myth.
I would just like to say....they're not.

British Link To Snuff Films



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   

They are imposing on his right to make a living by selling a product. If they dont like said product, they dont have to order it.


Yes the courtruled that his distribution of porn was against the law. No different in the eyes of the court than distribution of anything else that is found to be illegal.


as is his freedom of expression.


There is no such animal, don't believe me look it up.
usgovinfo.about.com...


hahaha could you provide a substantiating source on that for me?


Sure.
www.tampabay.com...


[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I guess you dont have any kids.. Nor do you care about the fabric of our soceity. If you want to stick up for this guy then fine.. But dont think you can put me on the spot here..
ITs well known enough that what he is doing is wrong.

And you say if you dont like it, dont look at it?? WTF?

You are missing the point here..


And I dont have the time to try to explain how wrong this is on so many levels.

Enjoy what ever you are doing here. Playing devils advocate.. But its your screen name, and rep. at stake here not mine..
I stated my feelings, and I will protect kids, and family members..

You just go right ahead and protect this guy..
As flocks of feathers stick together..



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Sacerd,

It seems to me that your points about changing the channel are all reasons why obscenity laws are bad. Find something obscene, don't watch it. Obscenity laws are bad because they represent a tyranny of the majority. If your view points do not fall in line with what most people think, then its illegal to express them.

What next? Some stand up comic will get arrested for using profanity? Oh wait, that already happened to Lenny Bruce. Yeah, he was literally arrested several times because his jokes were deemed dirty. Now how would a dirty joke hurt anyone? Much like you said, couldn't people have just not watched him?

The point is that people will always push the envelope further. READ THIS THREAD!! People are actually advocating the end of all pornography, because it hurts people, and they don't know whats good for themselves. These same people will end movies, music, games, religions, and sexual pratices that they deem would be for peoples own good too. Then what happens when certain forms of political dissent is considered obscene, "you pro abortion people argue for the death of children, thats obscene!"

Yes Max Hardcore is disgusting. But the only reason people like us seem to be defending him is because he was arrested for obscenity. Ironically, the very people that hate this man the most are making him a sort of martyr.

On to this:

Originally posted by sacerd

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You will notice that there is nothing to be found in the constitution that protects music, film or any media for that matter unless it is political or religious in nature.
This is why obscenity laws are legal and constitutional.


Where do you see that? It breaks it into three sections, that are seperated by semicolons. First, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Ok, it says freedom of religion.

Now we have a semicolon and we're on to point two, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Notice that it is a separate thought, using the word or. If it meant about religion only instead of saying or abridging freedom of speech, it would have said including. This is obviously a completely separate idea.

Then we have another semicolon and then, "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". In other words, freedom of political dissent.

Freedom of speech, since it is separate, doesn't only apply to religion or politics. In fact, I've never heard one constitutional scholar even make that claim. EVERYONE agrees we have freedom of speech.

Now I know what your going to say, "well it still doesn't mention games or music or movies". Well, no kidding. Most of those thing weren't around at the time. Only music, but clearly that is just rhythmical speaking, so there was no need to include it. As for why movies should fall under freedom of speech. Well, notice that i mentions press. This is printed media. This was basically the movies of its time, as it was the entertainment source. If the founding fathers intended to allow someone to print whatever they wanted in a book, then why wouldn't that apply to movies?

As far as the whole he was found guilty so it proves the law is there and good, laws are removed all of the time. In fact, the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional law that congress allowed to be enacted. That doesn't mean that we the people have to just say, "well, who cares if its constitutional or not. Congress passed it so we have to shut our mouths" Regardless of what the jury voted, obscenity laws are wrong, and I think ATS is the perfect place to discuss it





[/quote

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Grambler]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


What exactly about this is hurting the fabric of society? Is it because it simulates child sex? While I agree that this is appalling, I also think that two adults can do whatever they want together, as long as it is consenting. I think the problem seems to be that they are acting out something so vile that they deserve to be arrested for it. But once we start arresting people because of the characters they are acting out, we start down a slippery slope.

That means that every Hollywood movie depicting raper, murder, or underage sex would have people arrested and the movies ban. I feel bad for poor Kevin Bacon, who played a child molester in "The Woodsman". Looks like hes off to jail. An again, this would be used to classify more and more things as obscene. READ THIS THREAD! People are advocating all sorts of crazy things, including the government making things they want illegal, because people don't know what is good for them.

Also, read Slackers link that uses science to prove that more countries with more pornography tend to have less violence against women. This country would end up like Iran if we use obscenity laws. Over thier, its obscene for women to show their elbows.

Just curious, do you feel that homosexuality is hurting the fabric of society?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I believe that as a "free" society we have an obligation, to an extent, to watch out for the best interests of those with low IQs, mental illnesses, etc. in EXTREME SITUATIONS.

Peeing in the mouth of a person and slapping them until they puke and then doing it some more, IMO is an extreme situation.

The fact that money changes hands doesn't immediately nullify any dangers to the person (sickness, future mental problems, etc.).

What if one of the "agreeing" women who got paid was a relative...with a mental illness or problems from having been abused physically and/or sexually (which is of course physical as well), or was in the throes of a drug addiction...and this guy fast-talked them into "performing" for quick cash?

It's not hard to imagine a young woman killing herself directly or indirectly via self-abuse later in life after taking part in this activity. Imagine the guilt or shame or depression or fear of being outted (if she manages to better herself and put the activity behind her). I'd feel the same way if Little (I find that pretty funny and so would Freud) was doing this to guys.

Even men and women who do all variations of "regular" porn often wish to move beyond it and choose a different life. Imagine you found out your wife or husband was in a porn movie. Most likely you'd wind up being "accepting" of it and file it under bad life choice. But what if you knew that they were drinking urine and puking and getting slapped? Maybe you'd file that under something different. Like bad life choice AND exploited character or mental weakness.

We have a federal organization called OSHA that suposedly (that's another issue) serves to protect workers in the workerplace. Money is also exchanged between the company and the worker. That doesn't mean that the company can do what they want EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE "AGREES" TO IT. My point is that in business, standards are set regarding safety.

We have laws regarding age of consent also. Now, if everyone was "free" at the most literal level, we would not have these laws. But we do and the population in different areas have set different ages. These infringe on everyone since, even if we find the behavior horrible and wouldn't do it anyway, we can't theoretically go out and do it (have sex with a young minor). Consent laws aren't set due to science or theorems. Just as "obscene" is not a science or theorem.

Playboy (geez it seems so quaint) and Hustler (which I have also seen but will admit to a little less "readily") can't go take their photos in a public place EVEN THOUGH IT IS FREE SPEECH. But they could on a nude beach. You won't see a strip club across the street from a school either. Again, populations agreeing on a spectrum of "acceptable" practices.

I understand that if you take "free" to it's complete literal interpretation, then you'll find these practices as infringements too. Of course they are if you look at it very narrowly. They are infringements on me, should I decide that I would like to open a strip club across from an elementary school. And I get that tomorrow it "could be me" that a law is somehow passed against.

But there are safeguards (that even work sometimes) to guard against unnecessary infringements on speech. But there is something to be said for a spectrum of "socially acceptable" methods for earning money. If you take something out of your own bedroom and start distributing it for money into areas of different populations...well, you have to "play by the rules". Monopoly has rules. And by choosing to start a business in the US, there are certain "rules" as well.

A spectrum must have a low end and a high end. Mr. Little probably won't run right out and work at a restaurant (blehhhh). He can go find the low definition of the spectrum and then move to the right of it. For instance: he could pee a little less, slap a little less, etc. and still make money and be almost as sick as he'd like to be.

I know of several cases offhand where materials were "found" to be obscene and I absolutely disagreed. Our system isn't perfect but I do think it ideally tries to be. The process somehow works itself out. Not in all cases of course. And sometimes it doesn't work itself out until the person persecuted has died or faced financial ruin. But that's the dirty game that is our system. I reluctantly but wholeheartedly embrace a low end of the free speech spectrum.

I didn't campaign to get this guy "shut down". But, he full well knew that he was messing around at the clunky low end of the free speech jalopy. I knew he was out there and even though I don't like it, I wasn't going to go out of my way to "stop" him.

Time may vindicate Little, in which case some might consider his behavior beneficial. But...his actual physical behavior and business enterprise is what the jury found to be "out of the spectrum" for their area.

Whatever viewpoint, think of this: innocent people are convicted of crime every day. Some go to prison for tens of years before they are vindicated...if at all. That's a hard reality of a part of our imperfect system. Our legal system and our 1st Amendment rights exist in an organic environment.

2 Live Crew dealt with words and even though they have the same freedoms outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights now as they did then...the organic interpretation of those rights has changed and now trying to find their old album obscene would be completely ridiculous. Funny too, Al Gore had bands in his Greenfest who could thank his wife for their albums warning labels.

There is a difference between words/music and what Little does. Little doesn't do this to himself; he doesn't pee on himself and slap himself. He does it to another person. And as a society we collectively STRIVE to find the balance that is our interpretation of freedom of speech and describe it to the best of our ability.

He knew the stakes regarding his behavior and I FIND IT HILARIOUS that he cried when he got to keep his house. I'd dig watching that slimeball try to act "normal" in court with his videos playing. That's just my own feeling. Getting pinched like he did is an occupational hazard of what he was doing.

He can now go "fight for freedom of speech" from the streets of Amsterdam or somewhere. 2 Live Crew sold way more albums due to their fiasco and readily agreed that it was great publicity. Maybe Little will sell more junk and the times will catch up to his "craft".

[edit on 13-6-2008 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by zysin5

And I dont have the time to try to explain how wrong this is on so many levels.

Enjoy what ever you are doing here. Playing devils advocate.. But its your screen name, and rep. at stake here not mine..
I stated my feelings, and I will protect kids, and family members..


Ok, so you don't have time to explain this to us, but do you have time to explain it to your kids?


BE A PARENT TO YOUR CHILDREN!! Not to the rest of us adults.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
Mark Twain



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 2nd Hand Thoughts
 


Good post, I think you have a couple of really good points. I understand the feeling that this guy takes things way to far. I can't justify what he does, and I find it absolutely disgusting. But I still don't think that it should be illegal, especially because of obscenity reasons.

Although you find slapping people during sex offensive, many people really enjoy it. I personally think its strange, but I'm not going to argue with peoples bedroom habits. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then the government has no business telling them its wrong. The same can be said of the urination. Clearly not only do a lot of people do this, but apparently they want to watch it, hence the reason this man is making money. Why shouldn't people be allowed to sell it for profit? Only because it seems so gross? It seems gross, but if thats peoples thing, they have every right to do it. To many people, homosexuality is gross, so it would possibly be found obscene to

You mention workplace safety and OSHA, but if a contract is signed saying these things will happen up front, I don't think anything can be done. Besides, if OSHA could step in here because people were being slapped, then they could step into professional wrestling, which also has actors being payed to get slapped. Actors and actresses don't unnecessarily fall under OSHA guidelines because they sign specific contracts. Now if something was done that was over what the contract stated, then action could be taken. As far as the drinking urine goes, I think that if OSHA can't do anything about whats eaten on fear factor, then they can't do anything here.

You then mention how these actresses may be mentally ill, druggies, desperate for money, etc., and they may kill themselves later in life because of this. But couldn't the same be said of anyone in porn, or strippers for that matter?

I think thats its pretty bold to assume that just because people engage in an activity (that is harmless to everyone else) that you find disgusting, that there must be some problem with them. What if these women truly like what they do, and love the large amount of money they're being paid? Don't assume that all women are weak and helpless and need help, and don't assume people that do things you find gross have mental disabilities.

There should be routine checks into this organization to make sure everyones consenting. If the allegations you are claiming are true, then arrest him. But I don't think that the entire operation should be shut down on the possibility of abuse.

As far as the checks on the system to stop further regulation go: I don't trust these checks or our government one bit. They are already trying to censor video games and music, and groups like homosexuals are already having their rights tramped all over. Our forefathers aired on the side of keeping the government out of personal affairs, and I think we should follow their lead. And there would be support for further censorship, just read this thread.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

It seems to me that your points about changing the channel are all reasons why obscenity laws are bad. Find something obscene, don't watch it. Obscenity laws are bad because they represent a tyranny of the majority. If your view points do not fall in line with what most people think, then its illegal to express them.


I think you misunderstand my point. The community at large does have some say in the social fabric of their place of residence. This is why we live in a republic so that the majority is conceded to while still protecting the minority. Lets not forget a tyranny of the minority.


What next? Some stand up comic will get arrested for using profanity? Oh wait, that already happened to Lenny Bruce. Yeah, he was literally arrested several times because his jokes were deemed dirty. Now how would a dirty joke hurt anyone? Much like you said, couldn't people have just not watched him?


See above:


The point is that people will always push the envelope further. READ THIS THREAD!! People are actually advocating the end of all pornography, because it hurts people, and they don't know whats good for themselves. These same people will end movies, music, games, religions, and sexual pratices that they deem would be for peoples own good too. Then what happens when certain forms of political dissent is considered obscene, "you pro abortion people argue for the death of children, thats obscene!"


If that is the will of the majority of the community, and it falls within legal bound of the constitution then let them.
Who are we to decide what is good for any given community. Let the people of Tampa speak, as opposed to the interest of the porn industry.


Yes Max Hardcore is disgusting. But the only reason people like us seem to be defending him is because he was arrested for obscenity. Ironically, the very people that hate this man the most are making him a sort of martyr.


Please don't Martyr the man, on the flames of the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to allow laws to be changed via a very real political process. I think it is a shame when people, try to use shady interpretations of the Constitution to overturn Constitutional laws, when it would be just as easy to simply use the process that the constitution allows for to get laws changed.

On to this:

Originally posted by sacerd

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You will notice that there is nothing to be found in the constitution that protects music, film or any media for that matter unless it is political or religious in nature.
This is why obscenity laws are legal and constitutional.



Where do you see that? It breaks it into three sections, that are seperated by semicolons. First, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Ok, it says freedom of religion.

Now we have a semicolon and we're on to point two, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Notice that it is a separate thought, using the word or. If it meant about religion only instead of saying or abridging freedom of speech, it would have said including. This is obviously a completely separate idea.

Then we have another semicolon and then, "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". In other words, freedom of political dissent.

Freedom of speech, since it is separate, doesn't only apply to religion or politics. In fact, I've never heard one constitutional scholar even make that claim. EVERYONE agrees we have freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech or of the press, does not mean you can say or do whatever you want.
If this was the case then selling secrets to a enemy nation would not be treason. Verbal threats to the President would not get you thrown in jail.
Freedom of speech or of the press means that people are allowed to voice their opinions on things political. That is the press (Think CNN here)part of the same sentence. Remember, a coma is not a semi colon.
Now I know you will say, but hey sedition bills did not pass till 1798 but the very fact that the supreme court has not gotten rid of them I think is telling. It is also worth noting that John Adams passed them into law as president, and I don't think I need to remind anyone of this role in the writing the constitution.


Now I know what your going to say, "well it still doesn't mention games or music or movies". Well, no kidding. Most of those thing weren't around at the time. Only music, but clearly that is just rhythmical speaking, so there was no need to include it. As for why movies should fall under freedom of speech. Well, notice that i mentions press. This is printed media. This was basically the movies of its time, as it was the entertainment source. If the founding fathers intended to allow someone to print whatever they wanted in a book, then why wouldn't that apply to movies?


I simply disagree on this point, see my above statements.



As far as the whole he was found guilty so it proves the law is there and good, laws are removed all of the time. In fact, the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional law that congress allowed to be enacted. That doesn't mean that we the people have to just say, "well, who cares if its constitutional or not. Congress passed it so we have to shut our mouths" Regardless of what the jury voted, obscenity laws are wrong, and I think ATS is the perfect place to discuss it


I would agree with you here, the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional, but restrictions on free speech have not only existed for a long time but the very first restriction was placed on it by one of the authors of the constitution itself. I am fairly certain that Adams knew what he meant by freedom of speech when he helped write the thing.
That being said Thomas Jefferson (who also helped write the constitution) disagreed with Adams in his interpretation of the constitution on this matter. Jefferson latter pardoned people who told the French our military strategies that cost American lives.
Funny that Arnold was thought a traitor huh?


[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Thanks for responding! I'm kind of rushed, so I'll just say this, It says freedom of speech, or press. To take the leap that this means only political speech takes quite a leap. It says or, meaning both. Don't hurt freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Thats what it says. Political is not even mentioned.

It also seems to me that you are saying Lenny Bruce deserved to be arrested. Well that proves how restrictive your interpretation would be. Profanity would be deemed a criminal offense. There would be no diversity of ideas, no dissent, and life would suck.

You then say about tyranny of the minority, but no one is forcing anything on you. Under your interpretation, if a majority of people wanted women to cover all skin in public, they would have to. Remember, having this kind of porn is forcing NOTHING on you. You don't have to watch it. Slackers study proves that societies with more pron actually have less violence against women. It really seems you are close to saying anything the majority wants it should get. So we would still have, slavery, no women voting, no equal pay for women, no affirmative action, no social welfare programs (for some groups, Japanese Americans imprisoned (from WW2). These are all things that at one point the majority of Americans wanted.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by geek101
 



Refuting evidence:

Snopes

urban legend

Wiki

Reward for providing an actual snuff film

Need more?

Naturally murders have been caught on tape, but perhaps your definition of "snuff film" is a bit off. A snuff film is a murder caught on tape that was done for the sole purpose of distributing said film for commercial purposes. to date, not a single one has ever been found.

If you are so sure they exist, by all means turn it in and collect a 7 figure reward.




top topics



 
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join