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] True, sort of. The original article lists at least two other cases of text based obscenity prosecution. [i]Pittsburgh is the same venue where the Extreme Associates obscenity case is being pursued, although no action has been taken in the case since August of last year. [/i][/qb][/QUOTE]You really should do a little more research before citing a case. The Extreme Associates case is not a "text" case. It's a regular pornography Obscenity case involving films: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Extreme_Associates By all accounts it doesn't look like the Gov't will win it neither since EA seems to have validity in their argument. [QUOTE][qb]and [i]There is one such case pending in Athens, Georgia (U.S. v. McCoy), so all eyes will now turn to that case to see if any precedent is made; one way or the other," Walters told XBIZ. "Notably, the government initiated that prosecution long before the plea agreement was stuck in the Fletcher case, so the DOJ seems intent on pursuing these cases even where no images are involved." [/i][/qb][/QUOTE]Yah, the only other case other then RR to be tried in decades and for good reason. They are difficult to win unless you get a defendant without deep pockets or other problems who will plead out. I hope McCoy goes all the way and they put the Gov't in their place and set precedent. The Gov't fearing loss might back down though because it would set precedent. [QUOTE][qb]This case may not set precedent as it was pled out, but it makes a good starting point for these and future cases.[/qb][/QUOTE]Starting point or disaster if the McCoy case goes against the Gov't which is what I am hoping for. [QUOTE][qb]You [i]think[/i] they did? Based on what? The Defense's 'we're saving face even though we lost' bologna? Yeah, that's objective.[/qb][/QUOTE]Again you refuse to answer why her and her site RR? Why such a small fish and not a Big fish? Why not mainstream stories that depict child rape, torture and murder? Did they know of her "condition" beforehand or during the case? [QUOTE][qb]And perhaps that true, since she didn't fight it out we'll never know. Moreover, neither of us will get\have to read her work because she took it down and it's no longer available.[/qb][/QUOTE]No, we'll never know unless their is bootleg versions of her stories floating around the internet to read. But I would prefer to read it myself then take the Gov'ts version of things and make my own judgement. [QUOTE][qb]That being said, all we have to base our opinions on is what is listed in the article. Using one line from her own mouth though... [i]I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room." [/i] Since she uses that scenario as what she considers society's ok version, I think it's safe to assume that her work encompased many of the opposites: not man w. woman (ie adult with child), non-consentual (ie rape), and non-missionary position in the dark (many other styles; not a real point on which she would have been indicted I'm sure). But admittedly that is only an assumption.[/qb][/QUOTE]I think if you read the article it says or hints that child rape/torture/murder parts are only one aspect of her stories. All those aspects are available in mainstream books/movies etc. Again why not prosecute them? [QUOTE][qb]We may never know... Thankfully.[/qb][/QUOTE]Glad to know you pretty much made up your mind without even reading the evidence. God (pun intended)help anyone who is on trial for anything and finds you on the jury box.You would already pass judgement beforehand. Now that is scary. [QUOTE][qb]The point of contention in the whole thread has been is ALL written speach protected by the first amendment? With all that we've said and posted I have to say I still don't think it is. The Miller case and other precedents show that the Freedom of Speach is NOT absolute. Sorry. [/qb][/QUOTE]The Gov't hasn't proven it case. The defendant merely gave up because of her "condition". So for now imo it is protected speech. The McCoy case is the real test if it goes all the way to a verdict. And if McCoy wins and sets precedent I wonder if you will admit that you are wrong. :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