Porngraphy (aka obscenity) never was and never will be "Free speech".

[DxSpark]

It was illegal in the USA until the hollywood propaganda movie Larry Flint made by outsiders was released in order to influence the supreme court to consider it as "Free speech" when it was always consider as obscene and illegal.

[Boblin the Goblin]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DxSpark:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SlowMango:

You know what else was considered 'obscene'? Same-sex couples.

Well of course, it's an oxymoron.

Oh, that explains a lot.

[RRW359]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gugnihr:

All the things people do for money are not "free speech" and should never be considered "free speech". Pornography in paticular even more so.

What should the penalty be for a job lying about their requirements when hiring, or a commercial slightly misstating the truth, or an interviewee lying about their qualifications to a job, or someone supporting a particular ideology because they think they will get less taxes/more subsidies? All of those are done for money in one way or another and I'm pretty sure they all count as free speech.

[Boblin the Goblin]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gugnihr:

All the things people do for money are not "free speech" and should never be considered "free speech". Pornography in paticular even more so.

You do understand that this would include every single book, song, movie, comic, etc. right?

[captainwiseass]

Tell me you don't know very much about the history of censorship and obscenity in the US without telling me, OP.

In any case, I find two adults having consensual, albeit ridiculously choreographed, sex to be far less obscene than many things ordinary citizens will say out loud, completely unprompted.

[76561198356019466]

Wait a minute, did he refer to Oliver Stone as an "outsider"?

😆

Personally I'm not much of a fan of his, but he is entrenched as cinema royalty. I don't consider that an outsider.

Also, it was a Paramount Pictures release. The same studio that handles the Marvel, Terminator, and James Bond movies. That's like calling Walmart a mom & pop store.

[trousers]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย tiny E:

Wait a minute, did he refer to Oliver Stone as an "outsider"?

😆

Personally I'm not much of a fan of his, but he is entrenched as cinema royalty. I don't consider that an outsider.

Also, it was a Paramount Pictures release. The same studio that handles the Marvel, Terminator, and James Bond movies. That's like calling Walmart a mom & pop store.

I agree, it really doesn't meet the threshold of outsider cinema. OP needs to go back to their media studies class.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

What to expect in a place that was founded by puritans.

[trousers]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Rumpelcrutchskin:

What to expect in a place that was founded by puritans.

BDSM porn with lots of whipping and flogging?

[funewchie]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Rumpelcrutchskin:

What to expect in a place that was founded by puritans.

Huh? Leif Erikson wasn't a puritan (...by any stretch of the imagination).

(Plus, neither were most of the colonies. The puritans only had one area of Massachusetts)

[RRW359]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย funewchie:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Rumpelcrutchskin:

What to expect in a place that was founded by puritans.

Huh? Leif Erikson wasn't a puritan (...by any stretch of the imagination). :lunar2020gigglemonkey:

(Plus, neither were most of the colonies. The puritans only had one area of Massachusetts)

Founded, not found. And I think all his time was spent in what would be Canada anyways.

[funewchie]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RRW359:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย funewchie:

Huh? Leif Erikson wasn't a puritan (...by any stretch of the imagination).

(Plus, neither were most of the colonies. The puritans only had one area of Massachusetts)

Founded, not found. And I think all his time was spent in what would be Canada anyways.

Really? I thought he founded Minnesota?
(Honestly would've explained a few things, including the Minnesota Vikings)

[gugnihr]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SlowMango:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gugnihr:

All the things people do for money are not "free speech" and should never be considered "free speech". Pornography in paticular even more so.

You do understand that this would include every single book, song, movie, comic, etc. right?

Yes of course, you cannot call that free speech. If it is made to earn money from the final product then it is not free speech.

[Captain Morgan]

It might not be "free speech", but it is "art", which is a noble cause. Ever since the dawn of the fine arts, nudity and sexual glorification, presentation, idealization, defined culture itself. Depiction of sexual acts became the muse of many artists and still, nowadays that is also a thing. Pornography = worshipping life and life giving aspects of human nature.

You puritans and you, hypocritic Democratorcs with Double Standards, GTFO! Hands down from art, artists, artistic liberties. Your anti/cancel-culture, humans and arts hating agendas, have to be stopped.

If you are being upset by something, just don't watch it and change channel. For every 1 of you, there are 10 that like the stuff and even among you, 1 out of 3 secretly craves.

Don't be a partycrusher. Don't be a loser. Be cool. Be really Democratic. Whatever happened to "Rule of the Majority", huh?

[DxSpark]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Captain Morgan:

It might not be "free speech", but it is "art",

lmao. if porn is art, then everything is art and thus nothing is art.

[Captain Morgan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DxSpark:

lmao. if porn is art, then everything is art and thus nothing is art.

Define "everything". "Nothing is art" = nihilism of the worst kind.