EPTOn April 12 2013 08:11 MrTortoise wrote:
Gonna go down well in whore houses around the country
Gonna go down well in whore houses around the country
Pun intended?
US to criminalize taping of animal cruelty - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
Pun intended? | ||
|
MrToasty
Australia24 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being. But your identity in certain contexts only matter so much. Everyone knows you are more than just a consumer, but a person can describe you as a consumer (Whether you like it or not) among other things. | ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
lol gimme a break. everything in this country is terrorism now. it's become such an absurd catch-all phrase. i'm just waiting to read the US history textbooks in 30 years to laugh at this "police state necessary to catch the boogeyman terrorists" garbage. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 12 2013 03:53 hfglgg wrote: lol this is by far the most stupid thing i have ever heard from a non muslim extremist country. Really? This isn't even in the top ten of "pants-on-head retarded bullshit that the U.S. government does, making us all lose faith in humanity." | ||
|
Cababel
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote: The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? | ||
|
Cababel
United States31 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:11 TheDraken wrote: "In 2002, the ALEC had already proposed a similar law, which labeled the unauthorized taping of farming infrastructures and methods as "terrorism"." lol gimme a break. everything in this country is terrorism now. it's become such an absurd catch-all phrase. i'm just waiting to read the US history textbooks in 30 years to laugh at this "police state necessary to catch the boogeyman terrorists" garbage. the qualifications they use for determining if you might be a terrorist are hilarious. One of them is that the US govt can consider you a terrorist if you have enough food stored in your house to last you over 7 days. It's just absurd how little the govt needs to be able to call you a terrorist so I'm surprised that the proposal did not pass. | ||
|
Cababel
United States31 Posts
In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote: In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote: so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Are they selling their nudity to the mass public? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:00 Roe wrote: Are they selling their nudity to the mass public? lol. do you really think that makes a difference? | ||
|
Zyufin
United States85 Posts
On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote: What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok? What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Well if you hit an animal, just don't video tape it. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote: so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Actually, you'd probably have the right to do that, as long as you didn't step onto their lawn or property. | ||
|
Cababel
United States31 Posts
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote: so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! You can say that but at some point in the past the supreme court most likely decided that your neighbors right to undress without being recorded, while on her own property, is greater than your right to record itallowing congress to make a law which prohibits it. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:01 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. do you really think that makes a difference? "lol" yup. We're trying to have a free market here. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:03 Cababel wrote: You can say that but at some point in the past the supreme court most likely decided that your neighbors right to undress without being recorded, while on her own property, is greater than your right to record it allowing congress to make a law which prohibits it. From what I know of similar cases concerning public videotaping, you probably have it inverted. Doing stuff in front of a window has no expectations of privacy unless you use curtains or some other way of demonstrating privacy. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:03 acker wrote: Actually, you'd probably have the right to do that, as long as you didn't step onto their lawn or property. true. let say it was trespass and i could not have done the filming without first breaking trespass laws. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:04 Roe wrote: "lol" yup. We're trying to have a free market here. im not sure you're using that term as it applies to rational people. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:06 dAPhREAk wrote: true. let say it was trespass and i could not have done the filming without first breaking trespass laws. Then you'd be trespassing... | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. | ||
| ||
