sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
I hate everything he is saying/showing in his videos, BUT I will defend his right to do it. As long as everyone was consenting and knew full well what was going to happen.
Originally posted by: dbk
wiki While I don't agree with the verdict, he was playing with fire and got burned.
Originally posted by: sourceninja
I hate everything he is saying/showing in his videos, BUT I will defend his right to do it. As long as everyone was consenting and knew full well what was going to happen.
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: shocksyde
It's good to know that free speech no longer exists.
Being paid money to vomit after a forceful deep throat is NOT free speech.
If he had the proper consent forms then his ass is covered. I'm not refering to that aspect of, though.
why would that not be free speech? if both parties agree to it, where is the victim? what are we punishing for? because 3rd parties don't like it? MYOB IMOOriginally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: shocksyde
It's good to know that free speech no longer exists.
Being paid money to vomit after a forceful deep throat is NOT free speech.
If he had the proper consent forms then his ass is covered. I'm not refering to that aspect of, though.
If someone wanted to commit suicide & signed consent forms allowing someone to shoot them and videotape it, it certainly isn't "free speech." (going for the obvious extreme) WTF makes someone think that anything you film automatically falls under free speech?
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech? if both parties agree to it, where is the victim? what are we punishing for? because 3rd parties don't like it? MYOB IMOOriginally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: shocksyde
It's good to know that free speech no longer exists.
Being paid money to vomit after a forceful deep throat is NOT free speech.
If he had the proper consent forms then his ass is covered. I'm not refering to that aspect of, though.
If someone wanted to commit suicide & signed consent forms allowing someone to shoot them and videotape it, it certainly isn't "free speech." (going for the obvious extreme) WTF makes someone think that anything you film automatically falls under free speech?
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Explain to us how it has to do with any kind of speech?
Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.
Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.
Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
You really think film is not a valid medium for expression of ideas? Or does it depend on what is filmed? The latter is censorship, any way you look at it. All that matters is all the parties involved, from the producer to actors to the viewers explicitly gave consent and it is no one's business to tell them otherwise.Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Explain to us how it has to do with any kind of speech?
Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.
Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.
Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Explain to us how it has to do with any kind of speech?
Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.
Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.
Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
Originally posted by: Farang
Looks like he will be the one wearing pig tails and being skull.. well, you know
Originally posted by: dNor
Originally posted by: Farang
Looks like he will be the one wearing pig tails and being skull.. well, you know
Just got me hard as a rock
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Grotesque violence offends me more than pornography. Why are movies like the Saw series allowed but porn is often attacked for being obscene?
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Grotesque violence offends me more than pornography. Why are movies like the Saw series allowed but porn is often attacked for being obscene?
Originally posted by: jjones
I'm guessing this will eventually be overturned.