Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk
»
Freedom of Speech in this country... Not anymore....
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [QB] [b]Obviously the Majority didn't rule in the Mormon Porno/Obscenity case because the judge and/or jury in that case disagreed with the prosecutors and people like you. [/b] Once again, we're not the majority anymore. [b]I can see why people were so concerned about Romney running for Prez. He probably would not of separated Church from State. [/b] Wow, that resolution didn't last long, eh? Yet another completely baseless comment from a predjudice point of view. He did just fine seperating the two as governor. No reason to pre-suppose he would have done different as pres. [b]Who cares if they are church going or not they are still Mormons. My parents do not go to Church at all but consider themselves Catholics.[/b] If they don't practice the faith, Mach, it doesn't stand to reason that their opinions mirror the tennants of the religion. [b]But anyways perhaps the Mormons aren't the Majority in Utah anymore but they certainly are the Power in Utah.[/b] And the ignorant comments keep coming. SLC is almost completly run by Democrats and liberal Repubs. Most of what comes out of there is only marginally in line with the LDS faith and it's getting farther from it every year. We may still be A power...but we haven't been THE power for many years. [b]What you seem to not get is that if someone has the intention of hurting a child a story/movie/music etc. is not the source. That is inside a person. They may give the person a method of harming a child but not the original idea. If a sicko comes up with his own method or copies a method the end result is still the same. Censoring such works will not prevent a sicko from doing what he wants.[/b] A 'sicko in development' may never reach the point of hurting someone if they are convinced that the thoughts are wrong and need correction\therapy. If, however, the thoughts are allowed to foster and even encouraged as 'ok' then they progress and fester until action is the only possible outcome. By encouraging this garbage as 'just fantasy' you are lending credence to it's validity with the previously listed consequences. [b]Censorship only prevents artistic works from being expressed.[/b] Child rape and torture is NOT art. I don't care how you spin it. [b]Who knows Big Brother might say in the future the works of Mormons fall into this and be censored.[/b] Did you know that we are the only religious group in american history that it's been LEGAL to shoot it's members. Read up on a Governor Boggs. [b]Where does it end? Nowhere because there will always be someone offended by every written word.[/b] Someone, yes. The majority, not yet. Someone will ALWAYS be unhappy with EVERY decision. But once again (sigh), until the majority of people consider this garbage as acceptable, it's obscene. [b]1. The Red Rose depicts fictional child rape and/or murder. What about newspapers that report the news in graphic detail? Wouldn't it be considered "obscene" by your definition and give a sicko the idea to do such things same as RR? And if so why preferential treatment for one (media) and not the other (fictional) if both describe more or less the same things. [/b] Apples and oranges. The first depicts the act as an acceptable fantasy\action. The second treats it as a tragedy that needs to be condemned. [b]Now remember no obscenity case has been tried much less convicted in decades.[/b] This is getting tiresome, Mach. Please check your info or don't make 'authoritative' statements. Obscenity cases are prosecuted regularly. Here's a website with a full library of them. http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/ I believe what you were getting at is that... [i]...there hasn't been a case that has applied obscenity laws to [b]text[/b] since the U.S. Supreme Court refined the test for obscenity in its 1973 case Miller v. California.[/i] The Miller case stated that the basic guidelines for whether something was obscene include: [i]Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. [/i] [URL=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography]http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography [/URL] Her work fits all three. [b]Also the Feds probably chose this case knowing about her "condition" and that the probable ending would be that she would plead guilty. [/b] Way to parrot the defense attorney in the article, Mach. I'm pretty sure the heartless prosecutors chose to attack a poor, defenseless, [i]innocent[/i] woman just for kicks. The statutes exist, if a crime by the legal definition occurs, they are duty bound to follow it up. [b]But forget that, let's assume she didn't have that condition and went to trial. Do you really think this case would of ended in conviction?[/b] It fits the Miller criteria; so, yes. [b]But anyways post something that I disagree with so i can flame you then lol jk [/b] Hope this qualifies. :cool: [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2