https://pitchfork.com/news/nirvana-sued-by-baby-from-nevermind-album-artwork-for-child-pornography
Nirvana sued for libertarianphilia
- 52
- 42
Top Poster of the Day:
forearmfondler55
Current Registered Users: 25,639
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: 4a3902d
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Who said something like: "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it".
The guy suing sees the image as porn, is therefore sexually attracted to infants, and should be put on a watch list.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
exactly what i thought, if a picture of a naked child is sexual to you you probably are a libertarian
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Same energy as the "you depicted a stupid brute barbaric being, why are you racist towards black people?" crowd
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964! He was talking about how to determine what was considered hard-core porn. It was in the case Jacobellis v. Ohio and was about whether Ohio could ban a movie theater from showing an "obscene" film, called "The Lovers."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh, and what was the outcome.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the movie theater manager Jacobellis, saying that the film was not obscene and that it meant his showing of the film was protected by the Constitution. Interestingly enough, the opinions of the majority Justices were not all in alignment, as the reasons they overturned the conviction were essentially different, the most well-known ambiguity being the inability to nail down what obscenity truly meant!
The Supreme Court later narrowed down its definition of obscenity in 1973 in the case of Miller v. California. In that case, the Supreme Court changed its definition of obscenity from material that completely lacks "socially redeeming value" to material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thank you, that is interesting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're very welcome,
@Sir_Slapadicc. Laws re: obscenity are honestly fascinating.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context