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:
J
Current Registered Users: 25,641
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS SITE GUIDE DIRECTORY Emojis & Art | Info Megathreads HOLES PING GROUPSCURRENT EVENTS:
Find Rightoid Drama
500 mbux per post, no limit/h/kappa Monthly Tournament
fighting vidya - Soku 12.3 | 10k+ prize pool | April 27thDrama: any incident, scene, gaffe, rumor, opinion, or disagreement that is blown entirely out of proportion.
Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
Rules:
- Asking to see who saved comments/posts=1 day ban
- You must be 18 or older to view this site.
- NO RIGHTWING AGENDAPOSTING.
- Discord users will be banned on sight.
- Don't post anything illegal.
- No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
- No doxxing.
- Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
- Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
- Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
- Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
- Absolutely NO misgendering.
- Absolutely NO antisemitism.
- Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
- You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
- You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
- You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
- Participation implies enthusiastic consent to being mod abused by unstable alcoholic bullies.
Related subreddits:
πππ«π© π°π¨π³ ππ«π
Live commit: 7840058
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.
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
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
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
More options
Context