• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lawmaker wants photoshopping images to be illegal

Subyman

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
This is too funny:

Rep. Earnest Smith pointed, as proof of the problem, to a picture of his head that was recently edited onto a pornstar’s body. That image was created by a blogger who used the image to mock Smith.

“Everyone has a right to privacy,” he told FoxNews.com. “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right.”

After being pressed to provide details, he said, “At this juncture, I am not at liberty to share anything with you. I don’t have to. If and when this bill passes we can revisit the issue and if I choose to give you details at that time I will, but until then I don’t have to tell you anything.”

...after a picture of his head photoshopped on the body of a naked man stretched out on some rocks started circling the Internet, Smith renewed his efforts.

“I did exactly what Rep. Smith wants to make illegal,” Walker, who has referred to Smith’s bill as “asinine,” wrote on his blog. “I pasted a picture of Smith’s head onto the body of a male porn star.”
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ke-photoshopping-picture-crime/#ixzz2KoHDL1Rs

Lawmaker is butt hurt because someone photoshopped his head onto a naked porn star to make fun of his ridiculous attack on the first amendment. I don't think this bill will go too far at all. The internet would be a sad place without photoshop parodies.
 
Actually making fun of someone is a right.... The supreme court ruled in Larry Flynts favor in regards to parodies... which photoshopped images probably cover.
 
At first glance I figured the topic title meant for, essentially, photoshop to be made illegal.

Now that I have the details, I have to pause and wonder if other people's heads on naked bodies should be a crime, or a civil suit. Defamation. The laws may need a tweak to reflect that.
 
Maybe we should also outlaw air brushed photos???

This is just expression of Art!

Isnt this what comic artists do when they over emphasize features in their charactures. Look at the big noses for Nixon or maybe O'Bammah with giant ears and a basketball.
 
Last edited:
so instead of trying to pass bills to fix a broken system, these congressmen spend their days writing up dumbass bills.
 
blurred nsfw images.

Rep. Smith needs to grow some thick skin if he's going to be an elected official. Trust me when I say the altered photograph shown above was not the worst I could have done.

And by the way, I cannot believe Representative Earnest Smith thinks I'm insulting him by putting his head on the body of a well-built porn star.
Click to expand...
:biggrin:

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/
 
rudder said:
Actually making fun of someone is a right.... The supreme court ruled in Larry Flynts favor in regards to parodies... which photoshopped images probably cover.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%!

555917_10151478943155631_1452904258_n.jpg
 
How the hell are we ever going to make women feel insecure enough of their bodies to spend large portions of disposable income on cosmetics and stimulate the economy if we don't bombard them with air brushed pictures of impossible perfection exactly? Selling a cure and making money doesn't work if we don't make a problem to go along with it people.
 
BoberFett said:
What broad brush? I merely listed this particular person's political affiliation. I assumed at first it was a Republican based on the level of stupidity and ignorance of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I assumed it was a Republican based on his whining about his head on a naked man.
 
It is not going to fly under current unconstitutional doctrines for certain but I wish the conservatives on SCOTUS were less hypocritical. For example, I don't see the difference between this and simulated/fake child pornography of which they upheld the ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top