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 Machiavelli: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [qb] Once again, we're not the majority anymore.[/qb][/QUOTE]We'll considering that 60.7% of Utah's population is Mormon I would have to beg to differ as of 2007. The LDS Church even acknowledges this. [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]We'll since the MAJORITY religion in Massachusetts is Catholic I think he knew it would be counterproductive to fight the powers that be in that state if we go by your ideas on MAJORITY RULES.... :D [QUOTE][qb]If they don't practice the faith, Mach, it doesn't stand to reason that their opinions mirror the tennants of the religion.[/qb][/QUOTE]There is no rule saying you have to go to Church/Temple/Mosque etc. to practice your faith. There is plenty of religious fanatics that practice their faith in the quiet of their home. :D [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]That is just one city, not the STATE. 60.7% are still Mormons. MAJORITY RULES remember? :D I do find it funny & ironic that SLC was named one of the top 51 [b]"gay-friendly places"[/b] to live in the U.S. lol I'm also surprised that 63% of the city population voted against banning same-sex marriages. Payback's a b*tch I suppose lol :u: [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]"The Devil Made Me Do It" is just a excuse for people not taking responsibility for their actions and people like you are the ones giving them the excuse by banning literature you find offensive & say makes people do things. This was tried in 2 civil cases in the past where suicides were blamed on Heavy Metal music: 1. Judas Priest (could not find a better article but the outcome was acquittal for JP): [URL=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE0D71E30F934A25754C0A966958260]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE0D71E30F934A25754 C0A966958260[/URL] 2. Ozzy Osbourne: [URL=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DB123EF93BA3575BC0A960948260]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DB123EF93BA3575BC0A96094826 0[/URL] Obviously going by your MAJORITY RULES idea then it is safe to say the same result would of happened in the RR case had it gone to trial to the end. [QUOTE][qb]Child rape and torture is NOT art. I don't care how you spin it.[/qb][/QUOTE]We both have not read her stories to judge them. Stories of rape, torture and murder have been in literature since the beginning of time most notably imo the Marquis De Sade's books. Tell me why aren't his books ruled "Obscene" and banned? Why aren't other books such as Stephen Kings banned and ruled "obscene" as well as other authors? [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, I know the death penalty in Utah consists of firing squad beginning with Gary Gilmore in the late 70's i believe. I already know there is backwards thinking in UT for long time. A friend of mine when we were teenagers was forced by her father to move to UT with her sister and forced to live a Mormon lifestyle. She told me about your "faith" and what it was like to live in UT back then. [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]What you fail to acknowledge is that the Majority of the population is not in that courtroom. It is the Judge and/or Jury that decides the case and even though Majority rules in a jury decision/vote, they are not suppose to rule based on their personal feelings/morals but on the facts of the case. That is what happened in the Mormon Porno case and the outcome reflects that. No doubt in my mind the same would of happened in the RR case if she was able to leave her house regardless of what you say. [QUOTE][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]Odd, you and me both have not read her stories to determine for ourselves that she advocates such acts. As being acceptable. You are assuming she did regardless of what the government charges. I would think that a "open minded" person such as yourself would at least read the stories she wrote to come to such a conclusion for yourself and not just take the Gov'ts accusation at face value. I would hate to have you on my jury if i were on trial for something whether a obscenity case or some other case. You would already have decided on a verdict before even hearing the case. Anyways does not matter if the newspaper account condemns it. A sicko has no concious and going by your logic that they take inspiration in words then logic says they would get inspiration from a news story just as much as from a fictional account. In fact serial killers sometimes tend to save newspaper articles of their crimes as well as other killers crimes for inspiration and/or nostalgia. Now Now, don't play favorites. [QUOTE][qb][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][/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, I did mean "text" so you'll have to forgive me if I forgot to type a word. But the point is that a "text" obscenity case hasn't been brought to trial in decades for a reason. Because it is tough to prove and most likely the outcome will be acquittal based on the 1st Amendment. That is why cases against books written by the Marquis De Sade as well as famous cases against Catcher in the Rye are never brought to trial or ultimately lose. That they pick the Red Rose author of all authors who write similar stories is peculiar. Why her and not bigger sites of such literature? Is there something about her that they knew about and figured it would not be tough to beat? These are questions you should be asking yourself about this case. [QUOTE][qb]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. [quote][qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]Like I said ask yourself why her and not a bigger target that would garner more media coverage? Let's face it prosecutors like media headlines when they win against a big target versus small potatoes like her.They didn't go after her for "kicks". They went after her because it was a easy case considering her "condition" assuming they knew about it. Which I think they did. [QUOTE][qb]It fits the Miller criteria; so, yes.[/qb][/QUOTE]The defense used in the Utah Porno case most likely would of been used in this case so you are not being realistic. They would of shown that the "community" whereever jurisdiction of this case was in was suscribing to her site at $10 a pop therefor it would of shown that it was "acceptable" by that community and considered literary by that community. She is not shouting FIRE!! in a crowded movie theater or threatening to kill the President of the U.S. therefor it is protected speech. [QUOTE][qb]Hope this qualifies. :cool: [/qb][/QUOTE]Not even close. :p [/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