Ridiculous pornography trial violates Constitution
We read:
"The Obama Administration’s prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty. As Reason magazine’s Richard Abowitz wrote, ‘The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.’”
Source
19 comments:
No, a Bible-believing Christian would point out the sin to the sinner, convey the Gospel message to the sinner, and then let the sinner choose his eternal path. God will punish the sin if the sinner remains unrepentant.
I thought Jesus himself disapproved of self-rightous people pointing out the sins of other people, rather than look to their own condition.
Only if you rip it out of context.
This is not simply a case of this government attempting to punish someone for engaging in a legal activity, one that has apparently been deemed "unacceptable". It is yet another attempt by this government to make political correctness the unwriten law of the land. And in a nation populated mostly by weak, mindless sheep, it will happen, and to a great extent, has already happened.
This is another case where the Marxist-in-Chief, those who he controls, and those who control him, are deciding just how much freedom and liberty the people will have. They are now "deeply and actively" involved (via laws, rules, and regulations) in every single aspect of our lives, from what we can eat, drink, smoke, and drive, to what types of lightbulbs we can use in our own homes.
How can they do this? Because they rule a nation of sheeple, who quietly sit by and allow it, then bitch, moan, and whine when they see that it effects them directly. If you believe your freedom and liberty are not "in very serious danger," and they're not worth fighting for, then clearly, you deserve neither.
" I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ”
— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers."
This is why obscenity laws make no sense. "I know it when I see it" cannot be the way you define something.
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605750.html
The judge dropped all charges without before the defense even started to put on its case. He called the government’s case "woefully insufficient"
Don't think they won't keep trying.
Luke is typical of so many christians when presented with a bible quotation - if it doesn't look favorable they say it's out of context, but if it does look favorable then they say it's plainly stated - go figure!
Some quotations accurately reflect the full context where they appear and nicely summarize that context. Some quotes—especially those that are non-summarizing statements or are one part of a larger argument—do not accurately reflect the full context on their own. A rational person can identify the difference.
In fact, I make it a practice to try to examine the full context of quotes as much as possible to identify the difference, especially when someone quotes the Bible, but often other sources as much as possible. (For instance, that Dawkins quote you tried to claim was ripped out of context.)
Here are some questions that examine the context of your claim:
Who, specifically, did Jesus call "hypocrites" and "blind guides"? Why?
And from within that passage, why did Jesus say to remove the log?
"And from within that passage, why did Jesus say to remove the log?"
Otherwise you would get constipated.
You're dodging. What's the matter? Afraid that honestly answering the question would destroy your ability to misuse that passage?
Lighten up, a little humour never hurt anybody.
Luke you are clearly incapable of being objective in your "examinations". If you are capable of honesty you must know you are predisposed to favor a certain view (your Christian one). You might say everyone is biased in some way, but some are brave and honest enough to ignore emotional and cultural biases.
Yet you're avoiding answering my questions about the context. Notice that I did not avoid your challenge about the context of Dawkins' quote.
I routinely try to direct you to the evidence which compels my bias. You refuse to examine that evidence or show evidence of your own, preferring ad hominem attacks instead; a logical fallacy which means you are not using logic to support your conclusions.
Which one of us is being unreasonably biased?
Anon 3:55,
I recognized the humor. But a humorous dodge is still a dodge.
My comment was about context and how you just try to justify quotes you like and dismiss ones you don't like, accordingly. Your reasons are always unconvincing because it's based on your religious bias.
Unconvincing to you because you have an obvious and active bias against religion.
Want to prove otherwise? Answer the questions about the context.
"I recognized the humor. But a humorous dodge is still a dodge."
Yeah, so? Sometimes a joke is just a joke.
Luke you presume too much - I don't have a *bias* against religion, it just fails to be convincing and is clearly just sublimation (in psychological terms).
Post a Comment