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.
This is the last I will mention of it.
I'm glad to see you showed everyone reading just how crazy your view of the world would be.
Your reading of the constitution says Make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press means only political free speech because the comma, the how doesn't the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" mean that they really didn't mean the free exercise thereof, because the comma doesn't separate the two thoughts. So you can have any religion, your just not allowed to practice in public.
Show me where the constitution protects clothing (turbans) if not under the freedom of speech.
How about sexual preference?
Again, if my town thinks its obscene for women to show any skin, they're under arrest. These things have nothing to do with people, it has to do with clothing or expressive choices.
The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings
Covert film of young children naked or undressing was known as a 'SNIPE' video. The most appalling category was code-named 'Necros Pedo' in which children were raped and tortured until they died
Huh what do you know, apparently he took blame at one point for knowing where his product was being shipped.
MaxWorld sent the DVDs to Jaded Video via the private shipper UPS. Jaded Video then sent the DVDs to buyers around the country via the U.S. Postal Service, including shipments to Tampa.
"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's Web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."
And apparently the law that he was convicted with was written in 1986
Nice try. But no cigar. You are being deliberately misleading here. Here is the truth, found in your own article.
So it seems quite clear here that not only is Jaded Video the actual offender and not Max Hardcore, but also that you have now impeached your own credibility.
He gave permission to Jaded to sell his videos. He never had anything to do with shipping them to Tampa.
I knew you were leaving something out. The law you keep citing is about exploiting children over the internet. That is not what this case is about at all. You're grasping at straws now, and being deliberately misleading. Maybe you should go to work for the Feds in Tampa.
The law you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
Why not just post the specific definition of obscenity as defined by FL law?
Don't punch me, or spit on me. You claim that this doesn't mean don't do both, but it means don't do one in the context of the other. WOW. Your article says semi colons are more of separators than commas. I agree. Hence, nothing about POLITICS enters the phrase about freedom of speech or the press. Also, the comma can be used in over ten ways, but the way it is being used here is to separate independent clauses:
And I again, out of the thousands upon thousands of constitutional scholars there have been, can you show me one that agrees with you?
Then you say turbans would be protected because they are religious. Thats not true. Many people wear turbans for cultural or fashion reasons Its improper to assume something is religious just because some religious people use it . Rabbis have beards, therefore all beards are religous. It it was deemed obscene, then people wouldn't be allowed to wear it.
Look, in the end everything that I'm saying doesn't matter. You have admitted that you would find it perfectly acceptable for a town of 400 people to vote to arrest people for listening to Led Zeppelin. You understand that this quite literally means that if one town found CSI offensive, the makers of that show would be arrested. That literally means that one group of religious zealots would have the potential to arrest everyone involved in any sort of media that they found offensive, if it was broadcast publicly. Inevitably, the result of this would be only religious programing. But you don't see that as people forcing their beliefs on others? Clearly, you are either being facetious or you are 100% totally irrational, and either way I'm wasting my breath discussing this with you.
Don't insult me by choosing not take the entirety of the case into consideration.
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
en.wikipedia.org...
"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."
"According to evidence in the trial, federal investigators in January 2006 purchased an online membership to the MaxHardcore.com Web site and downloaded five promotional video clips."
Don't insult me. There is no misdirection. see the three things below that define obscene.
WHY would Tampa have a problem with little in particular, when they have a huge adult entertainment industry? C'mon use some critical thinking skills here.
And look there! Little transmitted over the internet!
Well beings how that is the law that Florida used in the case that must be how Florida defined the obscenity.
because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.
The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.
I am so done with this thread, apparently people have a difficult time understanding that fair does not equate to legal.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
We're talking about sick twisted porn. not basic freedoms
Geez of course I believe we have natural human rights but your personal freedoms do have to be weighed against the good of the many. ie Laws. No its not perfect. That's why we have juries. If it seems like a law is unreasonable or unfairly applied they can let him walk. Its called jury nullification.
NEWSFLASH: The Jury found him guilty.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sorry its not either. Some people obviously do not know whats good for them they get hooked on drugs and die from it. They drive drunk and kill and maime innocent people. So sorry what each individual finds acceptable is not good enough - DUH!!!!
Jeffery Dahmer found eating people acceptable.
Many people die from achohol and tabacco, yet we don't have laws making those things a crime. We make drinking and driving a crime, because it has a direct negative effect on others (death and injury of innocent people).
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
That "If you don't want it, don't buy it" argument is just a fallacy. You could say the same of child porn or snuff movies.
Not exactly, the reason child porn and snuff are illegal are for the direct harm they cause to the individuals involved. Children can't offer consent, therefore child porn harms them against their will. Dead folks can't consent either, and no one of a sane mind can offer consent, the law states that anyone willing to die, is not of sane mind in this case. There is no crime committed in the filming or ditribution of porn, therefore to block access of these based solely on the content of the video is a violation of the 1st and 5th ammendments. The law does not have the right to tell me I can't watch porn, unless MY community deems the content patently offensive, through the use of the miller test.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This case was decided by a jury not one mans opinion. Get over it.
And since an appeal is filed, another jury will have the options of coming to a different conclusion.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You think your right to watch twisted smut outweighs our voted on laws. Sorry You are just wrong. We have courts so stop being bigots and blaming me it's not just not my opinion. A jury decided.