Recently, the US challenged a ruling by Pittsburgh judge
about the nature of obscenity.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05048/458735.stm
In short, the judge dismissed an indictment of a company
who sold obscene materials and did so on the basis of
First Amendment permissions.
Gonzales is challenging the ruling, saying that obscene
material is not covered by Free Speech.
Specifically, the obscene material included (and I quote
from the article cited above):
depictions of women being gang-raped, defecated on and
having their throats slit.
Does Free Speech really include this? Am I getting
conservative in my old age?
No1Marauder, I hope you will jump in here.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioSo this is what you choose to debate with old SVW?
Recently, the US challenged a ruling by Pittsburgh judge
about the nature of obscenity.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05048/458735.stm
In short, the judge dismissed an indictment of a company
who sold obscene materials and did so o ...[text shortened]... old age?
No1Marauder, I hope you will jump in here.
Nemesio
Which side do I take? Like I care? you are toast dude. You know that don't you?
Originally posted by Nemesio
Recently, the US challenged a ruling by Pittsburgh judge
about the nature of obscenity.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05048/458735.stm
In short, the judge dismissed an indictment of a company
who sold obscene materials and did so on the basis of
First Amendment permissions.
Gonzales is challenging the ruling, saying that obscene
material is n ...[text shortened]... I getting
conservative in my old age?
No1Marauder, I hope you will jump in here.
Nemesio
Free speech ? What were the ladies in question talking about ?
Originally posted by NemesioI don't understand; were guns pointed at people's heads and they were forced to watch/read such things? If not, then I fail to see what the problem is, adults should be able to watch depictions of whatever they choose. On the History Channel, I like to watch this show with computer generated depictions of ancient battles; these were, of course, mass murders usually for the sake of conquest but I don't think Big Daddy should say I can't watch it because murder is bad. So what's the issue?
Recently, the US challenged a ruling by Pittsburgh judge
about the nature of obscenity.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05048/458735.stm
In short, the judge dismissed an indictment of a company
who sold obscene materials and did so on the basis of
First Amendment permissions.
Gonzales is challenging the ruling, saying that obscene
material is n ...[text shortened]... I getting
conservative in my old age?
No1Marauder, I hope you will jump in here.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHell. I hear you rule in the debates.
I don't understand; were guns pointed at people's heads and they were forced to watch/read such things? If not, then I fail to see what the problem is, adults should be able to watch depictions of whatever they choose. On the ...[text shortened]... ay I can't watch it because murder is bad. So what's the issue?
How about you name a subject and tell me which side i'm on?
You do rule? Right?
If not, I'm goin' to have to put up a protest on mikes' site.
What is the subject sir? If you dare. Just tell me which side I am on. Thanks.
Originally posted by NemesioI thought this was an obscenity thread; what does a personal privacy issue have to do with a commercial film or book that is asserted to be too obscene for adults to watch?
Would you object to the publication and distribution of the
addresses and work times of abortion doctors?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957There are depictions of people having their throats slit in many mainstream movies. It involves acting and special effects. I'm assuming that it was theatrical and that nobody actually had their throats slit in this particular movie.
He said their throats were slashed so I doubt they were saying anything.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat if it were a real snuff film? Should people be able to watch these?
There are depictions of people having their throats slit in many mainstream movies. It involves acting and special effects. I'm assuming that it was theatrical and that nobody actually had their throats slit in this particular movie.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought "scatology" was legally obsene anyway . Supreme Court ruling cant remember which one, though..
I thought this was an obscenity thread; what does a personal privacy issue have to do with a commercial film or book that is asserted to be too obscene for adults to watch?