Freedom of speech

Does freedom of speech protect commercialised child porn?

No emotional reactions, just arguments.

Bretty gud b8 m8

No, the kikes do that

the one center left in grey shorts is woman now, last i checked

No, because in order to get child porn you need to actually use a real life child and that is illegal, and a child can't consent, so it would be illegal to distribute the porn. Also, promotion of a child rape or child abuse in such a form as porn is morally reprehensible and could have some deep societal issues, such as higher crime rates, lower birth rates due to homosexuality, higher suicide rates. There is simply no way to justify it.

>simply no way to justify it

how about Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech never included porn or public displays of lewdness. The idea that the US was ever libertarian with regard to porn is bullshit. There were two major cases with jew plaintiffs roth v US 1957 and miller v US 1973 that twisted the meaning of free speech into including porn. It was always meant not for porn, but to ensure you could say whatever the fuck you want about whoever the fuck you want. Now we have the twisted jew version where you can propagate all forms of filth, but your speech about important things like the JQ is under attack to be censored. I hate them with a perfect hatred.

>Freedom of speech
See this you piece of filth

lol u triggered Christcuck?

You are a retard.
You only get Constitutional rights as long as it doesn't infringe on others, the child.

>hurr durr I murdered somebody but the state killing me is unconstitutional

You infringed on someone else's right to life

I just said that using freedom of speech isn't a valid argument, you fucking retard. You still have to commit a crime in order to obtain it and distribute it, and that crime is touching a child. It also breaks defamation laws because the child wouldn't be old enough to give consent.

I am a libertarian, I understand how rights operate, I just don't like the moralising of it, the state is secular and it's rights are derivitive of that sentiment, I don't believe in degeneracy or lewdness, they are religious constructs of sexual morality, God is dead.

And I'm not necessarily operating under the governance of the constitution to establish free speech, a modern reformation of the transcript is due anyway.

Yes but the product of the film would be circulated around the internet or in stores and I was talking about that inparticular, the pedo should be killed, of course, but can the product be sustained in a free market, I think so.

Again, you can't because a child can't give consent, and you have to give consent to feature in a pornography. Children don't have the mental capacity, foresight or decision making skills to consent to being in a porno, and therefore distributing the porno that they feature in would be illegal and would go against that child's right to privacy aka the 4th amendment, there are also many laws already in place that back up people's right to privacy, almost all first world countries internationally have a right to privacy.

Guys..what are these things???

Also, it is very unlibertarian of you to ignore people's right to privacy. Degeneracy is very real, like evil, and righteous, these are the morals that our society is built upon and what separates us from animals. These things are core morals ad although they are abstract anyone with any intelligence knows that they are real.

kids cannot consent. so they are the property of their parents. so parents are free to do whatever they want with their property.

men. something you soyboy faggot german numale has never seen.

Child abuse is not an opinion and therefor not protected under free speech.

>MUH MORALS

stfu, morals don't exist, there is only property rights and the extent of freedom which your government bestows unto you.

You're ignoring all my other arguments. But what stops me from coming onto your property shooting you and declaring it my own? Why do property rights even exist?

To protect someone's property from aggressors like you, it protects my right to kill trespassers and thieves. Property is integral to the philosophy of capitalism.

Insecure "in your face kind of pushy" faggots. With the marble instead of brain.

The government gives me the A-ok, to be specific, you can kill whoever you want, but you will be punished if it doesn't abide by the law, certain force is required to maintain order.

Yeah, philosophy doesn't exist and your connection to inanimate objects doesn't exist. Also, I could just snipe you from half a mile away and take your property, and it's okay because morals don't exist.

Of course, but we are able to shape society by how we see fit through our individual force, and I support the indiscriminate force of the state to protect me because I like to own things.

>homo

>based

And I support indiscriminate use of force by the state because I don't want to be sexually abused as a child and mentally traumatized, as well as have all hope of getting a job destroyed because there are pornos of out on display that I had no choice in releasing. But if morals don't exist then no abstract concept exists.

They don't exist, you're right, the universe has no meaning, but my brain gives me meaning in domination and pleasure and so I pursue that above any illusions of morality.

Okay, the autismic edge is getting a bit high, but again, that argument can be used against your proposition of distributing child pornography.

Yeah I know, but I suppose we would have to define the guideleines of freedom of speech to sensibly answer the question at hand.

I think that you should be able to demonstrate any form of artistic expression and distribute it in the marketplace. And pornography is not defined as art to many people, but I would drop the distinction and say that child porn could be seen as art, in the sense of creative/epressive media, not in any caliber of quality.

I'm operating solely within this hypothesis, there's no eternal governance of my claim. (no 4th ammendment or whatever)

Currently the law would prosecute me if I had taken nigger pops (somehow autocorrect changed that from nude photos but I'm not fixing it) as a child and saved them to be released on my 18th birthday. How on Earth is that logical?

Inability to consent retroactively takes higher precedence current rights?

Who gives a fuck to be honest? Pedophiles and the sort of people that want to consume child pornography are degenerate scumbags. I've already said that in a libertarian society people's privacy is important and the government should intervene to protect people's privacy, a break away from that would be draconian. And again, Just like you have a right to pleasure and dominion that child has a right to pleasure and dominion and distributing the porn is a breach of that. That is all I'm going to say because I'm repeating myself and I don't think you are taking what I'm saying on board.

I simply don't agree to your philosophy and that's fine.

Also, cartoon pornography is another thing and then it might be protected by freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but real pornography in which it is featuring a real, living person requires that person's consent and is not protected by freedom of speech and shouldn't be because in that case it would be in violation of someone else's rights. But this was a bait thread, so I'm a bit of a sucker for sticking around so long.

>anything I don't like or something which is nuanced is bait

fuck off you cliche.

>Does freedom of speech protect commercialised child porn?

The very act of making child porn with real kids involves criminal activity, can't say for drawn loli porn tho.

Proof please.

>Does freedom of speech protect commercialised child porn?

Only if they can prove that they didn't do anything illegal in the production.

It is equivalent of selling stolen goods, trade is OK, just not when the product was obtained through theft.

I've yet to ever see someone logically explain why a child cannot photograph themselves and simply hold on to the pictures until they are old enough to consent for public release.

dont wanna make a thread for this, its vaguely free speech related

i got banned recently from a discord for saying that asians are different to tell apart for many western people. people said thats racist bullshit. from what i know its a straight up fact and makes no claim about asians whatsoever
am i dumb or something

difficult*

That literally never happens and it might add plausible deniability to the industry of child abuse. But naked photos of children aren't illegal to have, it's children doing sexual acts that is illegal.

his name was matt kroc
now it is jenae marie kroc and he's even had facial plastic surgery

I always loved the guy in the blue shirt

you failed to preadress a breaktrough

with the rise of cgi, will cgichild porn be ilegal? because no los is getting harmed and thats one of the issues they offten come out with

No, kids are not property. They are the potential of a person. You can starve them, sell them, but not violate the NAP.

Does kissing count as a sexual act?

There's some cgi "cp" on pornhub already so I think it's okay, also loli porn exists.

They can't keep getting away with it!

Depends where, a mothers kiss on the face or head isn't sexual.

Too much anabolic steroids

But innocent kids ARE prosecuted as having victimized themselves. We know this, it actually happens. You're saying we should continue criminalizing kids using laws that clearly weren't thought through well enough because maybe just maybe some pedophiles might be able to try using it as an excuse.

Meanwhile in reality actual pedophiles have been getting away with it for decades easily without your nebulous maybe scenario.

>Depends WHERE

so intent has no part to play in sexuality, sex is purely mechanical and always involves genitals?

You are seriously cucked by cultural norms, sexuality should be liberated not categorised and stigmatised.

we need to handle this (J) Question.
I have my own ideas. I'm starting soon

shit thread but thicc bois

Absolutely not.

Because porn isn't speech,it is an action. Not to mention that raping children is harmful to the tribe. They either turn gay or become socially retarded.

So no,pedophillia is wrong because it hurts our civilization.

God i wish that was me fellas.

You’re disgusting.

>I'm disgusting because I'm asking a reasonable question

shut up you fucking loser

end this

All porn should be illegal. Fuck your constitution, I care about my people.

fair enough.

I like the sequel moar myself.
"Little boy Blue come blow our Horns 6"

What's the story behind this pic, user? Looks like a family gathering out by the pool