The Worst President in History?

ticomaya the lowyer still can't interpret correctly what he reads:

tico wrote:
You have correctly identified that if one responds that child pornography is protected speech, the other can (and should) be morally outraged. But if one says it is not protected speech, rather than "push in the other direction," I would point out that the ACLU has taken the position that the First Amendment does protect child pornography. The point I expect to be illustrated by this exercise, is that the ACLU has a perverted view of what the Constitution stands for, and it is not sufficient to hold the view that the organization "protects the Constitution," just because that's what they claim they do. They protect their "view" of the Constitution, which for them includes protecting child pedophiles in disseminating child pornography.

I wrote:
What is it about restricting free speech don't you understand? Child pornography should be protected, but child molestation and injury is not. People like you will never see the difference, because people like you like to paint everything with a big brush without understanding the primary issue: free speech. I can understanf fully why a lowyer with your interpretation skills of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be disbarred.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, This was posted by somebody in a previous post. Please read it and memorize it, you moron.

Quote:
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

I already read it, cicerone. I knew that was the legal nail you are hanging your hat on. The nail isn't very good, its pretty weak, and the hat don't hang very well there. I'm sure Ticomaya can explain the legal angles to you as to why.

0 Replies

Going back to:

Quote:
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

0 Replies

okie wrote:
I'm sure Ticomaya can explain the legal angles to you as to why.

ROFLMAO

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, This was posted by somebody in a previous post. Please read it and memorize it, you moron.

Quote:
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Nobody is disputing that.
YOU SAID...

Quote:

What is it about restricting free speech don't you understand? Child pornography should be protected, but child molestation and injury is not. People like you will never see the difference, because people like you like to paint everything with a big brush without understanding the primary issue: free speech. I can understanf fully why a lowyer with your interpretation skills of the Constition and Bill of Rights would be disbarred.

So,you said that child pornography should be protected.
Nobody is misquoting you,or changing your words.
You DID say it.

0 Replies

mm,. You're an idiot first class:

Quote:
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

0 Replies

Is it illegal to beat a doll? Or undress a doll? No it is not. But it is wrong to undress a doll if a child is present in some kind of suggestive manner. (it would be a hard thing to prove) That is the difference. Personally I would have someone within ten inches of me who would be so perverse, but we are talking about legality and rights which is a different thing.

0 Replies

revel, This discussion has to do with the subject of "free speech."

Anybody can created images in their minds that is not acceptable in action or public display. Some people think a nude body is pornographic, but many countires allow nudity on its beaches.

How one interprets nudity doesn't matter; it's what they do with it that matters - when it harms others.

Flag burning is free speech imho. Many see it differently, but that's because their interpretation of that action differs from one person to the next.

0 Replies

It's not burning of a flag that destroys any country; it's how they react to issues guaranteed by our Constitution of Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm,. You're an idiot first class:

Quote:
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

I am not disputing what the ACLU opposes or not.

I am pointing out that today at Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:18 Post: 2159085 ,
YOU SAID...

Quote:

What is it about restricting free speech don't you understand? Child pornography should be protected, but child molestation and injury is not. People like you will never see the difference, because people like you like to paint everything with a big brush without understanding the primary issue: free speech. I can understanf fully why a lowyer with your interpretation skills of the Constition and Bill of Rights would be disbarred

.

Maybe you meant to add a word and didnt,I dont know.

But,those are your words.
You were not quoting the ACLU,you were not stating their positiion (at least I hope that isnt their position).

Those were your words,not the ACLU's.

I have no beef with the ACLU,I support much of what they do.

All I am doing is pointing out what YOU SAID.

0 Replies

What is it about restricting free speech don't you understand? Child pornography should be protected, but child molestation and injury is not. People like you will never see the difference, because people like you like to paint everything with a big brush without understanding the primary issue: free speech. I can understanf fully why a lowyer with your interpretation skills of the Constition and Bill of Rights would be disbarred.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions.

mm, Where's the contradiction, you moron?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What is it about restricting free speech don't you understand? Child pornography should be protected, but child molestation and injury is not. People like you will never see the difference, because people like you like to paint everything with a big brush without understanding the primary issue: free speech. I can understanf fully why a lowyer with your interpretation skills of the Constition and Bill of Rights would be disbarred.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions.

mm, Where's the contradiction, you moron?

Let me make this as simple as I can.

I am not talking about the ACLU,I am talking about you.

What do you believe?

0 Replies

You freek'n moron, why should I answer your stupid q? Give me one good reason.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You freek'n moron, why should I answer your stupid q? Give me one good reason.

That 's what these fora are all about: answering questions.

Is that too much of a challenge ?

0 Replies

I am talking about the ACLU which also supports what I've written on this topic. All you guys offer is phart gas - better known as stupid questions.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I am talking about the ACLU which also supports what I've written on this topic. All you guys offer is phart gas - better known as stupid questions.

So,asking you to clarify YOU OWN WORDS is stupid?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I am talking about the ACLU which also supports what I've written on this topic. All you guys offer is phart gas - better known as stupid questions.

So,asking you to clarify YOU OWN WORDS is stupid?

You said that child pornography should be protected.
The ACLU has NEVER said that.

0 Replies

The Supreme Court has held that the entire child-porn production cycle, all the way down to, say, the person downloading it, may be banned in an overall effort to protect children. This sounds overly broad to me, but it is effectively the law of the land.

0 Replies

Maybe child pornography should not be protected...(I happen to be one person who thinks child pornography should NOT be protected...and should be prosecuted diligently)...

...but the right to express the opinion that it should be protected...

...should be protected.

That is the right we are actually discussing.

0 Replies

Frank, BINGO!@ You get first prize.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know