That's not speech.
It absolutely is lol go click the link you goober
That's not speech.
That's not speech.
You're probably just not keeping up with words that the Liberals have redefined. Those nut jobs think that can pass policy by first redefining words to suite their wants and desires. Liberals are a bunch of sickos.
It absolutely is lol go click the link you goober
This is my actual thoughts, I just couldn't think of a way to put it when text technically isn't verbal.Speech is verbal, it comes from your mouth, it's something you say. Disgusting acts against child are not "speech".
Speech is verbal, it comes from your mouth, it's something you say. Disgusting acts against child are not "speech".
This is my actual thoughts, I just couldn't think of a way to put it.
This is my actual thoughts, I just couldn't think of a way to put it when text technically isn't verbal.
Then your thoughts are wrong. Sorry to break it to you.
There's rulings by the Supreme Court about it. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is your own problem, but it's absolutely been determined that it is a form of speech not protected by the First Amendment.
Speech doesn't involve a victim being sexually assaulted. If they want to write a story or a draw a picture that should be legal regardless of how distasteful and fictional accounts are grouped in as child porn.
Sexually exposing a actual child even after the initial act is still sexually exposing a child which is a crime.
Speech doesn't involve a victim being sexually assaulted. If they want to write a story or a draw a picture that should be legal regardless of how distasteful and fictional accounts are grouped in as child porn.
Sexually exposing a actual child even after the initial act is still sexually exposing a child which is a crime.
Images aren't words.I don't know how many times I need to bring up that my point was specifically with DISTRIBUTION, not CREATION. And that the Supreme Court has already ruled on it with regards to DISTRIBUTION in this specific line of discussion.
I don't know how many times I need to bring up that my point was specifically with DISTRIBUTION, not CREATION. And that the Supreme Court has already ruled on it with regards to DISTRIBUTION in this specific line of discussion.
Images aren't words.
I don't know how many times I need to bring up that my point was specifically with DISTRIBUTION, not CREATION. And that the Supreme Court has already ruled on it with regards to DISTRIBUTION in this specific line of discussion.
Distribution and creation... Both having nothing to do with speech and both should be illegal if they already aren't.
Okay, hold up. Are you saying loli should be legal? Because I can't defend that.If it is fictional expression sans a victim they are entitled to that expression.
Champ, I'm not making any groundbreaking rulings here. I'm just citing rulings by the US Supreme Court with specific regards to freedom of speech and what is and is not granted First Amendment protections, and making the best effort I can to link them when I remember. The best part is that I'm not a constitutional lawyer either, I'm just using this thing called the internet to find a few very easily accessible links that reinforce my point as has been ruled by the highest court of the land.
You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the US Supreme Court.