Supreme Court Defines Porn

Written by NickFun

After being faced with numerous cases involving pornography, the U.S. Supreme Court has set the legal definition of porn as "anything written or published that causes an average or reasonable penis to engorge with blood".

The case that brought the issue before the Supreme Count was Ralph Gaspacho, owner of f**kmehard.com VS the United States of America.

"We were recently faced with an internet porn distributor who was trying to pass his porn off as art", said Chief Justice John Roberts. "The only way to judge the merits of the case was to retire to our separate chambers and review the evidence overnight as it was presented to us. The vast majority of the Justices agreed that the material presented to us was purely for titillation, masturbation and sexual release. It had no artistic or cultural value. Therefore, we had to put the man in prison for 20 years".

A reporter pointed to a stain on the front of Justice Roberts robe. Roberts claimed he spilled some ice cream.

The defendant, Ralph Gaspacho who owns f**kmehard.com, claimed that many of the girls on his site were wearing high heels and displaying American-made footwear. His intention was to stimulate the sale of high-heeled shoes and promote fashion.

"Mine's a pay site. People pay money to just see them heels", Gaspacho claimed.

Not all justices agreed with the decision. "It didn't do anything for me", said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the bench. "I'd rather be getting laid or read a nice, hot romance novel".

David Souter was also a dissenting voice. "Fully clothed fat girls turn me on", he said. "If we are going to ban fuckmehard.com then we will have to ban all the fat girls walking down the street that cause MY penis to engorge with blood".

"His Penis is well below average and does not meet the definition of reasonable", said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in reference to Souter's penis. "My penis, on the other hand