StlSluggers wrote: Madison wrote: StlSluggers wrote:
... you need to look a little closer.
Shoot me a PM if you need to because I honestly don't know which story it is you want me to read. There are a bunch of different ones.
I didn't want to c&p it, because then I'd have to put it in the pic thread. I guess it was a little too subtle, though.
Why yes... I did mean that.
And what's up with "safari"? I thought Firefox was what all the cool kids are doing nowadays?
Got me. Wasn't my link.
Ok, the point of the link is still flying right over my head.
You used someone else's link? Not sure why, but that cracked me up.
Sicko, yes, but it's still a terrible precedent to disregard law just because purple aren't happy
Disregard an irrelevant law (free speech) and enforce the law that's broken (decency laws). Again, this entire thing has nothing to do with free speech, and even if you want to twist it that far, there are still rules and boundaries on free speech. Like it or not, free speech does not give anyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Simple fact. You'd have better luck defending this guy by saying the decency laws he broke are subjective and not fair, rather than trying to defend him with free speech laws.
isn't this entrapment? (of madison)
Actually I'm having fun with this one.
Under Florida law, it is a third-degree felony to sell or distribute "written or printed story or article, writing or printed matter based on materials that depict a minor engaged in any act or conduct that is harmful to minors."
By golly, the guy broke a law and it had zero to do with free speech. Dang! Now who was it that was saying just that?
the obscenity case will come down to "community standards" and whether a Polk County jury finds the book not only offensive, but of no redeeming social value.
If a prosecutor can't get a jury to convict, then not only should he lose his job, but Florida should be blown off the face of America and turned into an island for prisoners. Needless to say, the "guilty" verdict is already in. There's no way he doesn't get convicted.
You brought up an argument than nobody was making (people being in favor of child rape), then proceeded to debase the point as if you were refuting someone. That's the very definition of a straw man argument. I can refute what you say while pointing out strawmen. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Actually, you guys are arguing "free speech" this and "free speech" that when free speech is irrelevant to the discussion. The idiot broke decency laws. That is the situation before us and you cannot refute the fact that he broke those laws, so it is of no surprise to see you lob the strawman out there to try to distract from the fact you are wrong.
Anyone reading this, yourself included, realizes that I don't actually think you should be arrested, but am instead pointing our the irony in you saying someone should be killed for advocating breaking the law while you yourself are advocating breaking the law. I think you should be able to say people should be chopped into pieces just as I think someone should be able to describe raping a child. If either of you actually performs the action rather than simply describe it, I'll take exception.
You wanted to be silly saying it to begin with, so I ran with it. Two can play that game, no?
And frankly, if you don't see the difference in me saying a pedophile should be chopped up into pieces and someone writing a book on how to rape children and get away with it, you seriously don't understand the free speech law to begin with (or you do understand it, but refuse to acknowledge the facts about it - like the "F" word being illegal in public). Not that free speech has anything to do with this of course, it's decency laws he broke.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....