Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Sicklyboy]

That's not speech.

It absolutely is lol go click the link you goober

 

[gregory-samba]

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.

 

[Sicklyboy]

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.

I wasn't aware that the 1973 US Supreme Court were liberals.

 

[gregory-samba]

Speech is verbal, it comes from your mouth, it's something you say. Disgusting acts against children are not "speech".

 

[Sicklyboy]

It absolutely is lol go click the link you goober

Actually let me build off of this for a sec, because Miller v California doesn't explain it entirely. Like I said, that'd be considered expressive conduct, and while not codified into law, IS recognized as a form of speech by the US Supreme Court as it pertains to First Amendment protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Expressive_conduct
https://web.archive.org/web/2014090...ley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien.pdf

 

[UltraSUPRA]

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 when text technically isn't verbal.

 

[Sicklyboy]

Speech is verbal, it comes from your mouth, it's something you say. Disgusting acts against child are not "speech".

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.

 

[gregory-samba]

This is my actual thoughts, I just couldn't think of a way to put it.

It's the thought of any rational personal that knows how to speak.

 

[Sicklyboy]

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.

 

[jimbo13]

Then your thoughts are wrong. Sorry to break it to you.

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.

 

[gregory-samba]

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.

The first amendment makes room for expressive content, but it's called expressive content, not speech. If expressive content was speech we wouldn't be debating something so basic and simple. Speech is the verbal communication. Having sex isn't something you do by talking nor is sharing photographs of the sex. SPEECH IS VERBAL.

speech
noun

\ ˈspēch

Definition of speech
1a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words
b : exchange of spoken words : conversation
2a : something that is spoken : utterance
b : a usually public discourse : address
3a : language, dialect
b : an individual manner or style of speaking
4 : the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speech

 

[Sicklyboy]

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.

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.

 

[gregory-samba]

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.

Folding pre-teens girls breasts is also a crime, but it's the left we're talking about. They are sick and encourage perversion.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

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.

 

[gregory-samba]

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.

 

[Sicklyboy]

Images aren't words.

And you're not a constitutional lawyer. Do you want to tell me anything else I already know?

 

[jimbo13]

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.

You are arguing legal precedent, I am stating my principals. Sexually exploiting a child at any point is a crime.

If it is fictional expression sans a victim they are entitled to that expression.

 

[Sicklyboy]

Distribution and creation... Both having nothing to do with speech and both should be illegal if they already aren't.

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.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

If it is fictional expression sans a victim they are entitled to that expression.

Okay, hold up. Are you saying loli should be legal? Because I can't defend that.

 

[gregory-samba]

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.

I'm simply following the actual definition of the word speech. I can't help it if your side takes all sorts of words and simply disregards whatever it is they actually mean to create some fantasy based off of personal wants and desires. Speech is spoken, photographs are not speech. Expressive content is also not speech, even if the law provides protections for it.