Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is great news for all of the sick freaks out there who masturbate to the destruction of life and beauty.
Yeah, our SCOTUS stands up for liberty and justice FOR ALL no matter what, truly! Two years from now:*in a 5-4 decision, the US SCOTUS decided that Proposition 8 was constitutional...*
This is great news for all of the sick freaks out there who masturbate to the destruction of life and beauty.
You can think about whatever you want when you masturbate. There's nothing illegal about that - thank goodness.
Quote:
Yeah, our SCOTUS stands up for liberty and justice FOR ALL no matter what, truly! Two years from now:*in a 5-4 decision, the US SCOTUS decided that Proposition 8 was constitutional...*
i actually do see the logic in this ruling, i just don't care for the ramifications.
that's free speech for ya i suppose.
The problem requires a simple solution, go back and rewrite the damned law to target the specific act that is offensive, instead of an omnibus bill that swept up everything in its path.
i guess i would say yes. i think we need boundaries when it comes to cruelty or we are no better than those who lop the heads off of people and broadcast it, and we rightfully condemn that. there really is no real need to show graphic acts of cruelty, is there?
our society needs to draw boundaries where cruelty is involved or we can sit back and watch our society degrade further.
as the one dissenting justice said, "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it almost certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct," he wrote.
if there are laws against specific behaviors, then people shouldn't be allowed to film or show it and get away with it.
You can think about whatever you want when you masturbate. There's nothing illegal about that - thank goodness.
That's right. My point is, this has done nothing positive. There is no good done to anybody by this ruling except for a bunch of sickos who get off on being cruel to animals. Do you have a pet?
Quote:
Huh? I don't see the connection.
I was being sarcastic and dissing the SCOTUS. They ruled in favor of people who abuse animals for fun, but would likely rule against gay marriage.
i guess i would say yes. i think we need boundaries when it comes to cruelty or we are no better than those who lop the heads off of people and broadcast it, and we rightfully condemn that. there really is no real need to show graphic acts of cruelty, is there?
So, who do you inform people of a need to outlaw dog fighting without showing how despicable dog fighting is? Is that not the role of the press? As for the argument about people who cut off the heads of captives and then broadcast them, did we not draw a distinction between those who did the cutting and those who did the broadcasting? Is it the governments role to determine what is appropriate to be shown or is that the role of a free press?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see the connection.
