|
You're smith'ing it up here because 46 months in prison for "ew I know they are adults but but but I don't like that!" is loving retarded, right? And that vague as gently caress statute against adults portraying minors is hilarious.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Miley Cyrus should deserve the death penalty for that awful video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I watched about two minutes of a Max Hardcore video once. Both of their clothes were still on but he was telling the girl that she was a dumb worthless whore or something like that. That's when I decided his stuff wasn't for me. The whole ignoring the safe-word thing was probably faked too but still I don't understand people who would enjoy something like that. I've read that Facial Abuse or whatever they're calling it these days is so disgusting that even people who like extreme porn want them run out of business. Booblord Zagats posted:No, but a few weeks later after my dick had healed up she let me raw dog her
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:You're smith'ing it up here because 46 months in prison for "ew I know they are adults but but but I don't like that!" is loving retarded, right? yeah getting the vapors over Max Hardcore is pretty hilarious like the dude is a scumbag and I personally really don't understand the draw of those films...but the fact that a fair portion of everyone here seems to be okay with the government restricting the free speech rights of consenting adults because they just don't like what the adults are doing is pretty disappointing. Bear in mind that by agreeing with both of those court cases Zeris posted, you are agreeing with the Bush-era DoJ about something, specifically the DoJ under the rule of Ashcroft and Gonzales. Think about that one for a second. You're supporting the use of federal law enforcement resources to go after consenting adults because you think what they're doing is icky, good thing there wasn't anything else going on in the early to mid 2000's for federal law enforcement to be concerned with! Obscenity laws are dumb, and they're even dumber when they're vague as gently caress because  they're going to be struck down almost immediately. That law that was in question in the first case would've made Romeo and Juliet illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure we had a bigger problem with him doing more with models than they consented to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
It's funny because James Deen got run out of the business in a loving heartbeat for consent issues, and this has to go to court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I'm pretty sure we had a bigger problem with him doing more with models than they consented to. EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:It's funny because James Deen got run out of the business in a loving heartbeat for consent issues, and this has to go to court. None of the court cases were about consent. First one was about a bullshit "if it looks like child porn it's child porn even if everyone is very explicitly 18" law. Second one was about a bullshit "we think doing this thing is icky so we're going to make it illegal" law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Not everything's gone to court. Deen has a list of rape and abuse allegations going back a decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
All the little internet people loved him when he said he was a feminist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Behold. The power of Stoyas pussy. It really is something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
ded posted:Behold. The power of Stoyas pussy. Hi, thread title please. On the porno stuff: yeah it should be illegal to make pretend pedo porn with legal actors. I don't care how this makes the war on terror harder to fight somehow, whatever, I'm sure in the idiot thread we can somehow figure it all out. I also think government provided therapy / treatment for anyone who believes themselves to be a pedo should be free and totally anonymous, in case anyone is wondering about my followup to "how then will we satiate the pedos and keep them off the streets?". And if Max Hardcore violated agreed-upon limits during scenes, safewords, etc. He should go to loving jail. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
but muh freedums!  Zeris posted:I don't care how this makes the war on terror harder to fight somehow,
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
/\ he's referring to my comment, which actually had very little to do with the war on terror....it was just making a general observation that federal law enforcement should spend their time investigating crimes, with real victims, as opposed to serving as the morality police...which is what they were doing in both of the cases in question. They weren't investigating because someone committed rape or violated a safe word or something that could conceivably be a crime with a victim, they were investigating because consenting adults were doing things that the christian right didn't agree with, which is why under the Bush Administration obscenity prosecutions skyrocketed /\ lol okay yeah sure let's wipe away the first amendment because consenting adults are doing something that you think is icky fortunately first amendment precedent is very solidly established, and it doesn't line up with your view of it e: Just so we're clear, the obscenity cases in question had absolutely nothing to do with anything at all associated with rape or any type of coercion/force/etc. The prosecution's argument was "these completely consenting adults did things we think are icky and that we think violated obscenity laws and we should throw one of them in federal jail for it." That's all, that was the entirety of their argument. I'm not saying rape or coercion hasn't happened in these films nor am I saying that this dude isn't a scumbag, I'm just saying that these prosecutions did not give two fucks about that, it was strictly about right wing christians getting the vapors and getting the Bush Administration to serve as the (literal) morality police. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Zeris posted:On the porno stuff: yeah it should be illegal to make pretend pedo porn with legal actors. I don't care how this makes the war on terror harder to fight somehow, whatever.  You realize it would be a lot easier to round up "terrorist sympathizers" without the 1st amendment, right? Zeris posted:in case anyone is wondering about my followup to "how then will we satiate the pedos and keep them off the streets?" Nah the followup is actually "how would you make this a law that can be enforced and why do you feel the existence of this law would justify the time and money that will be spent on (unsuccessfully) prosecuting people for it?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:
lol also that I mean the fact that a MFA student is advocating for arbitrarily restricting the first amendment has my irony meter just about pegged
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Just because you are protected under the first amendment doesn't mean there isn't going to be backlash. Running around screaming "friend of the family!" Down Martin Luther King BLVD will get my rear end beat at the very least and arrested for disturbing the peace or whatever if the cops ever showed up. Saying you're a minor in a video for pornographic purposes is fuckin weird man. Like, I get that you're about protecting rights, and correct me if I'm wrong, but defending a dudes ability to make porn like that isn't a good soapbox to stand on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
The First Amendment pretty much solely exists for the purpose of protecting unpopular speech from government action....by definition popular speech doesn't need protection from a democratic government. So yeah, protecting consenting adults from being prosecuted by the government because a majority of the population disagrees with their (again, consenting adults) speech is literally the bedrock of what the first amendment is supposed to be founded upon. I think I've said like 3 or 4 times now that I think Max Harcore is a scumbag....scumbags often (but far from always) are the ones who are driving the train It comes back to that whole unpopular thing. Protecting the right of Nazis to march in a predominantly Jewish town (where a sizable chunk of the population was Holocaust survivors) is the basis for one of the key pieces of First Amendment jurisprudence...so yeah, the government should protect your right to "run down Martin Luther King Blvd screaming 'friend of the family'" if that's what you so desire, as long as you do so in a fashion that doesn't constitute "fighting words" or constitute an incitement to imminent lawless action, both of which are very narrowly tailored limitations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The First Amendment pretty much solely exists for the purpose of protecting unpopular speech from government action....by definition popular speech doesn't need protection from a democratic government. Too bad he has a hard time with the "consenting" part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Too bad he has a hard time with the "consenting" part. Then prosecute him for that. That's not what the issue is here. Don't use "I don't like this guy and he's probably a rapist scumbag" as justification for supporting an assault on the First Amendment by evangelical Christians. Because that's what you all are doing here. I mean the argument we're talking about here basically comes down to the ends justify the means because he's a scumbag and he does gross poo poo so who cares if we rip up the First Amendment in the process
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Just because you are protected under the first amendment doesn't mean there isn't going to be backlash. Running around screaming "friend of the family!" Down Martin Luther King BLVD will get my rear end beat at the very least and arrested for disturbing the peace or whatever if the cops ever showed up. Shouting "friend of the family!" in the face of a bunch of black people isn't protected by the 1st amendment. See also: FIRE, BOMB, ASSASSINATE, etc.. quote:Saying you're a minor in a video for pornographic purposes is fuckin weird man. Like, I get that you're about protecting rights, and correct me if I'm wrong, but defending a dudes ability to make porn like that isn't a good soapbox to stand on. Nobody here is advocating for more stretch-marked 30 year olds in cheerleader skirts and pigtails choking on leathery dicks covered in white pubic hair but don't let that stop you champ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Shouting "friend of the family!" in the face of a bunch of black people isn't protected by the 1st amendment. See also: FIRE, BOMB, ASSASSINATE, etc.. Actually doing it in the face of a bunch of black people in a public place more than likely would be protected speech, as long as it was done in a fashion that could be found to be in relation to "a public issue."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Actually doing it in the face of a bunch of black people in a public place more than likely would be protected speech, as long as it was done in a fashion that could be found to be in relation to "a public issue." There are still things that could circumvent it though yeah? Disturbing the peace, causing civil unrest, etc? I am not pretending to know a lot or much about the subject, but it seems to me that if there is one thing our government is good at, it's creating loopholes. Victor Vermis posted:Shouting "friend of the family!" in the face of a bunch of black people isn't protected by the 1st amendment. See also: FIRE, BOMB, ASSASSINATE, etc.. Nah, I'm corrected. Plus I can only get off to privates getting yelled at in basic training now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
I was army gay but then..
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Soulex posted:There are still things that could circumvent it though yeah? Disturbing the peace, causing civil unrest, etc? I am not pretending to know a lot or much about the subject, but it seems to me that if there is one thing our government is good at, it's creating loopholes. Not if you're doing it in a fashion that would be considered protected speech, which is a pretty broad spectrum as the exceptions to that (fighting words in this instance, also potentially imminent lawless action) are pretty narrowly tailored. Like I said, simply shouting niggers at some black people would potentially be protected speech as long as it was done in a fashion to somehow be related to "a public issue." Now in reality if you do that, someone is probably going to start swinging, a fight is going to break out, the cops are going to get called, and everyone's going downtown...but that's dealing with the aftermath of a separate action that was unrelated to the speech. If the cops prohibited you from saying it at all on the basis that "a fight's going to break out" then that would likely be a constitutional violation of exercising prior restraint on protected speech. If they rolled in as soon as you said it before any other illegal action took place, they'd be illegally suppressing protected speech. e: Of course I'm being a little obtuse here because literally just yelling the word "niggers" at a bunch of black people is skirting the edge of fighting words, and honestly if you were arrested based on just that it's probably a coin flip whether it stands or is found to be protected speech depending on the jurisdiction (as well as the specific statute and how broad or narrowly tailored the language in the statute is) because there's still some gray area on just how narrowly tailored the fighting words exception is. However it would be very easy to find a way to make the speech protected..."All niggers must die," "Niggers need to leave," and "I hate niggers" would all most likely be solidly within the realm of protected speech. The first is making a statement that does not meet the imminent lawless action standard for incitement and would most likely not be found to meet the fighting words standard, and the second and third could be seen as to be addressing a public issue (and would therefore be outside the scope of fighting words.) Bear in mind that “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you” and “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death” were held by the Supreme Court to be protected speech (granted that was a case involving directing that language towards a police officer performing his duties, which muddies the water a little bit, but the point still stands that "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you" is considered protected speech in this country.) iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
"Go to MLK Jr BLVD and run around shouting 'friend of the family!" looks a lot different in my head than it does yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxoGIo9vQ5Q
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
It's Let's Talk About Idiots not Let's Ramble On Idiotically to Prove a Point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
This one time I said "send it" on the radio and some other platoon's idiot bitch platoon sergeant jumped into the convo and was all "81s. Platoon. FDC. BE ADVISED. "SEND IT" IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE RADIO...... HOW... COPY... OVER!. Meanwhile I got rounds in the air and guns waiting on adjustments. That guy was an idiot. (gently caress you lightpole.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
We got a HET guy dropped off at our COP and he spent the afternoon touring and lecturing us on our post procedures aka none of his loving business and way below his cool job description but whatever. That night our (idiot bitch) platoon sgt woke up my team to go check out someone "digging on the road". Except there wasn't anyone digging on the road. There was a 90 year old farmer digging in his own farm field. And he was closer to one of our posts than he was to the road. The post saw him out there, it wasn't unusual. We radio back. Nobody knows what the gently caress. HET guy suddenly is on the line. Wants us to bring the farmer back. Ok. We bring this ancient farmer stumbling back through the night and HET scolds and lectures him for being out after curfew. There is no curfew. There never was a curfew in this AO.. unless the brits were enforcing it like 2 years prior. Mind your business and go to bed HET. You stupid bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:This one time I said "send it" on the radio and some other platoon's idiot bitch platoon sergeant jumped into the convo and was all "81s. Platoon. FDC. BE ADVISED. "SEND IT" IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE RADIO...... HOW... COPY... OVER!. I don't get it, was he all lovely because you didn't use callsigns and poo poo, or is "send it" actually not ratel? I use it all the loving time, and so does everyone else I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
The Dog-Broccoli Gambit posted:I don't get it, was he all lovely because you didn't use callsigns and poo poo, or is "send it" actually not ratel? I use it all the loving time, and so does everyone else I know. Yeah "send it" isn't proper radio etiquette or whatever. It was just especially dumb because it was on our walkie talkie platoon channel which was used exclusively for gunline commands during live firing. I had already stopped using "send it"/"go for (me)" on comms where other people had a reason to actually be monitoring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
I'd just like to say that I'm cool with (A) obscenity laws and (B) child pornography laws and (C) prosecuting people who make porn about pissing on 12 year olds, Dude, under those laws. e: I mean, leaving aside the whole issue of whether some desperate, drugged, possibly trafficked teenage girl is really "consenting" to be degraded to that extreme. Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
a buncha dumb knuckle dragging milspergs pretending to be lawyers by pulling legal precedent outta they rear end lmfao i guess it fits the theme of the idiots thread, tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:We got a HET guy dropped off at our COP and he spent the afternoon touring and lecturing us on our post procedures aka none of his loving business and way below his cool job description but whatever. Maybe I'm missing the right acronym but why is a Fancy Truck Driver even fuckin' involved in that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
The barracks lawyers all grew up and moved into the thread for easy observation 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Phuzzy posted:Maybe I'm missing the right acronym but why is a Fancy Truck Driver even fuckin' involved in that? Humint Exploitation Team. or somesuch. (snitch wranglers)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:We got a HET guy dropped off at our COP and he spent the afternoon touring and lecturing us on our post procedures aka none of his loving business and way below his cool job description but whatever. Hearts and minds. Hearts and minds
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Humint Exploitation Team. or somesuch. Man I thought it was Heavy Equipment Transport and I was all  over some Oshkosh wrangler yelling at some farmer guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Phuzzy posted:Man I thought it was Heavy Equipment Transport and I was all This, but I figured it was probably some E8 who just had a fight with his wife over skype.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:21
|
|
