Skip to comments.
Once Again, U.S. Supreme Court Thinks It Knows Better Than Congress (Child Online Protection Act)
obscenitycrimes.org ^
| July 14, 2004
| Robert Peters
Posted on 07/15/2004 12:26:35 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
Tailgunner Joe, going for ass whooping #3 in 3 days.
2
posted on
07/15/2004 12:27:51 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: Long Cut; Bella_Bru
TJ, I believe that you get sexually aroused by posting this stuff and engaging in your spreading of hate afterward.
Seems you have a fetish. Go search for some sites to meet your need.
3
posted on
07/15/2004 12:32:30 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: Phantom Lord
I just want to give the porno-patriots the chance tell everyone how our nation's Founders sacrificed their lives and fortunes to protect your God-given inalienable rights to surf internet porn sites.
Stand up for your principles! I want everyone to know where you stand.
4
posted on
07/15/2004 12:34:21 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(You CAN legislate morality.)
To: Phantom Lord
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
5
posted on
07/15/2004 12:35:07 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(You CAN legislate morality.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Stand up for your principles! I want everyone to know where you stand.I have, repeatedly. But if it'll help you to get off again, we can have another 800+ post thread.
I guess you agree with Clinton and her, "It Takes a Village" theory.
6
posted on
07/15/2004 12:39:00 PM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
(It's for the children = It takes a village)
To: Bella_Bru
800+ post threads are his wacking material.
7
posted on
07/15/2004 12:41:39 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: Phantom Lord; Modernman; Melas; malakhi; Poohbah; CSM; NCPAC; dorben; All
Here we go again.
Joe's back for his daily flailing. You guys can handle this for a while, can't you? I've got some errands to run this PM, and the galley opens for dinner pretty soon.
Plus, there's some other stuff I want to kick around on FR tonight. Like I like to say, this porn crusade is a JOKE when we're in a real war.
8
posted on
07/15/2004 12:41:48 PM PDT
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: Long Cut
Oh no! What will we do without your insightful analysis?
9
posted on
07/15/2004 12:42:36 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(You CAN legislate morality.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
What will we do without your insightful analysis?Watch you work yourself into an excited lather over the thought of jailing and/or killing off parts of the population you don't agree with.
10
posted on
07/15/2004 12:47:12 PM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
(It's for the children = It takes a village)
To: Long Cut
11
posted on
07/15/2004 12:50:58 PM PDT
by
Ben Bolt
( " The Spenders " ..)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Oh no! What will we do without your insightful analysis?
Oh no ! What would your day be like without your residual bitch slapping ?
12
posted on
07/15/2004 12:52:35 PM PDT
by
Ben Bolt
( " The Spenders " ..)
To: dorben
Man you guys are smart. You've demolished my case already just with a few ingenious replies!
13
posted on
07/15/2004 12:55:56 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
("Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.")
To: Tailgunner Joe
....a law intended to restrict children's access to commercial websites that distribute sex materials that are harmful to minors (i.e., obscene for minors). The excerpt above is from the first paragraph.
"Harmful to minors" and "obscene" are two different legal standards. To suggest that they are equal - as the first paragraph does - throws credibility into question (to say the least).
Credibility is further strained by stating ""sex materials" are at issue when the statute does not specifically single out or even mention "sex materials" -- it merely says "harmful to minors".
14
posted on
07/15/2004 12:57:20 PM PDT
by
gdani
(Not ready for human cloning? Get ready.)
To: gdani
The Law is of no concern to TJ. For 3 days now he has contended that porn is illegal and those who produce it should be killed and those who purchase it jailed. He is unwavering in his position that it is illegal not matter the evidence to the contrary.
When asked, multiple times, by multiple posters, how, if porn is illegal can companies like Vivid Entertainment (Vivid Video) be traded on the NYSE if they are engaged in an illegal business he has yet to respond. Nor has he been able to provide a single law making porn illegal. It is best that he and his threads be ignored.
15
posted on
07/15/2004 1:02:17 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: Tailgunner Joe; All
Actually, Joe, we demolished you with about twelve hundred of them, over your past two threads. You've failed to support a single one of your contentions, and you've posted ever-more nonsensical articles filled with innacuracies and lies.
Repetition doesn't win debates. In fact, it often loses them.
You lost this debate, solidly. Perhaps you should think about moving on, and cease this near-spamming on the same subject every day. You aren't up to it.
16
posted on
07/15/2004 1:04:36 PM PDT
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Man you guys are smart. You've demolished my case already just with a few ingenious replies!
While on the 1 hand I can appreciate your diligence actually , but that is about all that I can muster for a statist type . You've read it all before Joe & my time is much to valuable to put your head in a vice to relieve your pain .
17
posted on
07/15/2004 1:04:59 PM PDT
by
Ben Bolt
( " The Spenders " ..)
To: Long Cut
And thanks for the ping LC . Ping me anytime !
18
posted on
07/15/2004 1:06:41 PM PDT
by
Ben Bolt
( " The Spenders " ..)
To: gdani
"Harmful to minors" and "obscene" are two different legal standards. To suggest that they are equal - as the first paragraph does - throws credibility into question (to say the least). No one suggested they are equal. Obscene material is offered as an example of harmful material.
Credibility is further strained by stating ""sex materials" are at issue when the statute does not specifically single out or even mention "sex materials" -- it merely says "harmful to minors".
"Harmful to minors" is much vaguer than "sex materials"
"Sex materials" may be "harmful to minors."
19
posted on
07/15/2004 1:07:18 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
("Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.")
To: nickcarraway
20
posted on
07/15/2004 1:07:18 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly gutless.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson