Lawmaker wants photoshopping images to be illegal

[ivwshane]

What a tool.

 

[SparkyJJO]

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.

That's really disturbing.

 

[blankslate]

Hopefully, someone talks to his aides and they give him some transformer toys to distract him from making anymore public statements... hopefully.

 

[sportage]

Nice try Rep. blaming photoshop, but you weRE wearing that dress, smartly accessorized I must add, and the cutest open toe red and black pumps.
But those ear rings..? hmmmm
Might want to rethink that...
Im mean, you wouldn't want to look like a whore.
Or would you???

 

[1prophet]

That's really disturbing.

Do you find Romeo and Juliet disturbing too?

 

[WHAMPOM]

This is too funny:



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.

I find this to be blantantly derogatory and think the porn stars should complain about having an ass's head paste onto their bodies.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Democrat.

Interesting.

Non-Reservacant. Amazzzzzing, you mean? Yes Virgina, there are douche bags everywhere.

edit:more Amazzzzing is FOX got the D&R right.

 

[Slew Foot]

Was it a buff guy with a huge dong? He should be flattered.

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree 100%!

That's the reverse. If anything you defamed the cat.

 

[ManyBeers]

Regarding the Hustler/Flynt case do any of you on here consider the Falwell parody obscene? I know it was a parody and not to be taken seriously but was in not obscene, and if not would you please post an example of what is. Thanks

 

[Thebobo]

I agree 100%!

is that you on the right?

 

[lopri]

That's really disturbing.

It is disturbing indeed. Compare the following two scenarios;

1. A nerd jerking off of images of an ugly 20-something dressed up as a school girl and performing lewd acts

2. A nerd grabs imaginative weapons and mutiliating and blowing away thousands of fake human beings on screen.

What's worse? I honestly don't know. Both are dumb and stupid but neither does any harm to me.

 

[Greenman]

Am I the only one here that thinks the guy has a point? When a picture is altered to embarrass, or portray a lewd act, that's not free speech. I could see something like this doing very real damage to a persons reputation.

 

[PingSpike]

Am I the only one here that thinks the guy has a point? When a picture is altered to embarrass, or portray a lewd act, that's not free speech. I could see something like this doing very real damage to a persons reputation.

That's what libel and defamation laws are for. I doubt any reasonable person thought these pictures were real. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water when there is already a system in place to account for this. He's just trying to swing his dick around passing a law because he's butthurt over being made fun of, any points he purports to have are simply fabrications after the fact.