Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
5. They don't think it is. They'd like to see broad obscenity prosecutions for anything "hardcore"
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:43 PM
Sep 2012

for instance, hardcore meaning an actual visual depiction of screwing.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

OBAMA!!! ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #1
Feel free to repost in GD, if you're up for it. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #2
Oh god, no.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #3
Not to pick at nits 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #4
They don't think it is. They'd like to see broad obscenity prosecutions for anything "hardcore" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #5
Perhaps but the quote said existing laws 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #7
The argument is that existing laws, "properly" enforced, would allow censoring of pictures of nudity Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #8
I don't think existing laws allow for that 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #9
It ties into the definition of "obscenity" and "community standards" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #10
The article says it was shut down 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #11
Right, it depends on the interpretation of the current law. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #12
Here, I fixed the image: Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #6
They are always wanting to talk about GOD. William769 Sep 2012 #13
I think in the interest of fiscal responsibility Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #14
Agreed. William769 Sep 2012 #15
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»This November, will you b...»Reply #5