Should obscenity be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Should obscenity be protected by freedom of speech laws?

rule34-data-008.paheal.net/_images/51dd9aaea93eedcc05a046c19c6d247b/2020773 - Hillary_Clinton Loliticians Shadman politics.jpg

Other urls found in this thread:

rule34hentai.net/image/195546/195546 - Angelica_Pickles Animated Cynthia Fuchur ManiacPaint Rugrats Sound Stu_Pickles.webm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It depends. The reason pornography isn't protected under freedom of speech is because that would mean it could legally be displayed publicly
on billboards and the like, so it isn't given protected status.

I'll fight for it.Shaddy is love.Shaddy is life.

yes you statist.

yes you fucking statist, drawings should never be illegal under any circumstances, no matter how disgusting they are, to ban a drawing is a slippery slope

Nah shadman should be publicly executed. Im sure that the founding fathers would be on my side.

It's called freedom, motherfucker.

>Should obscenity be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Literally the translation when you remove the fluff:

>Should my hypocritically-offended personal sensibilities be protected from Freedom of Speech laws?

I have yet to see anyone successfully provide a reasonable can't-be-abused universal objective standard for certain speech to not be protected: it's always the opposite.

>Inb4 "NAZZZIIIIEEEE" speech.

Yeah, that's totally never abused.

LETS GET RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT INTO MY DAUGHTER

makes about as much sense as outlawing deadly seizure gifs

Obscenity is a Doctrine that is basically dead even though the Supreme Court will not outright say it yet.

The crafter of the Miller Test would later on dissent to applying his own opinion that he wrote just a few years later admitting that the entire thing wasn't real constitutional scholarly analysis but just him being butthurt and trying to rationalize wanting to ban things he didn't like.

The Supreme Court secretly new for decades that the obscenity doctrine is basically dead which is why the court cases that talk about cp describe the content as "even if not obscene". They didn't want that shit to get legalized the moment the obscenity doctrine officially falls.

There is a lesser level of the obscenity test for what can be banned in public visibility, like Billboards. But for private possession and distribution, with no capive audience, arguments for prohibition fall flat.

That does not mean porn isn't protected. It is just less protected. Subject to a realm of regulatiom but not prohibition.

The only thinga outright not protected is verbal threats of imminent violence, harassment (criminal level, not tumblr level), intending (and being successful) at inciting a riot or panic in bad faith, and disclosure of top level state secrets (if official press, then an extra step where the state needs a court injunction to prevent publication), and of course cp

Everything else is merrly regulated such as limiting time, place, and manner or requiring permits where the State demonstrates a sufficient reason and method for doing so.

Shadman is shit now.

His quality is the same it's always been.
There is no justification for CP being illegal and the courts know it.

Real-life CP there is: a child had to be abused to make the material. You can't have real-life CP without child abuse being done.

Fictional CP is debatable and interesting to listen to from both arguments.

>a child had to be abused to make the material.
Not all sex is abuse. Most of the time the girl likes it or is just indifferent to it. You've never seen any CP if you'd say that
And even if it was why does that mean seeing a recording of it is bad? It's not illegal to have recordings of other bad things.

The child can't consent and can't fully comprehend the situations. Not getting into it, there are also many long-term psychological detriments done to victims that give arise to problems later into their adult lives. Do you want a surplus of shameless pornstars and pedophiles (a twisted positive feedback loop)? Because a major contributing factor to those two kinds of people is abuse in an early age.

>It's not illegal to have recordings of other bad things.

Because many other bad things are not done for the sake of getting it on footage. A thief doesn't steal so he can have himself on recording doing it. A fight doesn't breakout so the participants have footage of themselves duking it out. A killer doesn't kill so he can have footage of his killings.

A child is purposely abused with the intention to make non-fictional CP. The intention to make non-fictional CP results in a child being abused. Therefore, non-fictional CP is illegal.

Until shad makes porn of wordgirl I'll be on his side

>The child can't consent and can't fully comprehend the situations
Bullshit. Girl can very well understand It feels good when daddy tickles her kitty and whether or not she wants it happening.
>Not getting into it, there are also many long-term psychological detriments
One, psychology isn't real; two, that's only if it's actual rape, a loving sexual relationship between a man and his daughter won't cause problems.
>Because many other bad things are not done for the sake of getting it on footage
So, the content doesn't matter but the intent of the creator? So cartel murder videos should be illegal?

Ah, you're trolling. Got me good, 6/10 for stringing me along.

>oh no, I can't argue against him
>i know, I'll just pretend he's joking
You antis are predictable.

nice fallback, faggot

Ys, because if not, they'll just ban more and more. If you cannot convey whatever message, how much do you think they'll let you actually do in life? It's just an idea.

If in private, yes.

Outside of such? No.

your damn right

>Girl can very well understand It feels good when daddy tickles her kitty and whether or not she wants it happening
>One, psychology isn't real;

C'mon bro, how is this not trolling?

>So, the content doesn't matter but the intent of the creator? So cartel murder videos should be illegal?

Didn't say that. Content and Intent both matter. Take for example murder: you don't go to trial for murder; you go to trial for either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd murder.

Cartel murder videos aren't illegal because the Cartels don't kill to make footage. The Cartels kill to solidify control through fear, to protect territory, to profit, to blackmail, and to send a message. The last reason doesn't even have to be done through footage: they can easily just cut off a finger, send a head, and prop up a body.

Cartels only do enough crimes to make a profit and not for shits and giggles because that brings generates unwanted heat. Again, the intent to just to make footage isn't what leads to Cartels killing. Cartels wanting to make a profit does; video footage is just a cherry on top. Hence, making Cartel murder footage illegal won't do anything to reduce it.

Unlike non-fictional child porn, which needs a child abused to make the footage.

>Cartel murder videos aren't illegal because the Cartels don't kill to make footage
Oh, so when they're doing an execution to film it as a threat they aren't doing it for filming?
>Content and Intent both matter.
So, if the girl isn't being hurt and enjoys it then it's okay?
>needs a child abused to make the footage.
Again, not all sex is abusive.

jesus shad's R6S stuff is amazing

Yeah, but id like to see him do more animated

rule34hentai.net/image/195546/195546 - Angelica_Pickles Animated Cynthia Fuchur ManiacPaint Rugrats Sound Stu_Pickles.webm

could the hiloli stuff be classified as defamation, or something similar?

checked
i like shad in general but his stuff is hit and miss for me. guess it depends on the content ultimately. he's like a more Westernized Spidu

Nah, it's like a political cartoon.

You just said it yourself. They're doing the execution to send a threat and not for the sake of making footage. They don't even need to make footage, they can just cut off the head and send it in a gift box OG-style.

When CP footage is made, abusing a child is done for the intent to make that footage. The intent to make CP footage promotes child abuse. (The intent to make a profit promotes Cartel murders.)

>So, if the girl isn't being hurt and enjoys it then it's okay

Mental health is different from physical health, despite influencing each other. The child can not fully understand what's going on and it'll have objectively proven detrimental effects on the child's future. I mean dude, think about all the things you taught you understood or wanted until you got older (most common example is bad haircuts). Also, the child could be "OK" with it out of fear for repercussions (think "Hijab is my choice!" but female Muslims are hesitant to admit what could happen if they don't wear a hijab).

Alright bro, I'm seriously procrastinating study time here. Thanks for the conversation, it was pleasant. Have the last word Bulgaria bro. Peace.

>abusing a child is done for the intent to make that footage
No, it's done because he's already doing her so figures "why not film it?"
>The child can not fully understand what's going on
What is there to understand that she can't?
>the child could be "OK" with it out of fear for repercussions
Yeah, there's no way a girl could really enjoy sex. If she thinks she does she's just been scared into thinking that.

Yes absolutely. Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should be illegal. Usually direct threats or calls to violence should not be protected under freedom of speech.

Rape and force CP should be illegal, so the same thing should be illegal with an adult women.

Why is it no surprise that sub human slavs with nations that lack population growth thinks a child can consent?

How can a girl not consent? She could say "no,daddy, dont tickle my kitty, I dont like it"(as if any girl would say that)

A child's brain is not completely developed yet and has poor decisions making and understanding of the world around her. Why do you think alcohol is illegal for non adults, because it damages the still developing brain.

What does that have to with whether she can enjoy and willingly participate in sexual activity?

It will lead to poor life style choices for the child. The more younger we are, the more stupider shit we do, a child could say they want to marry but regret it later on because of lack of knowledge, or they're manipulated by their older husband to the point no matter what you do to her she won't divorce or fight back.

Also the fact that children are highly obedient and easy to manipulate, that's why parents don't want pedo's near their children, children mimic actions in their early years. Nearly every single person that was molested as a child becomes a sexual deviant and start doing degenerate shit that can harm others or themselves.

>implying girls should choose who they marry
Arranged marriage is the only way to go. Really neither member of the couple should have much say in it.
>she won't divorce
Divorce shouldn't be allowed.

>Arranged Marriage
Sorry, I can poo in the loo.

>Divorce shouldn't be allowed
I guess suicide is the only optional way out of a poor choice you made or a abusive relationship.