Topic: Trump promises to ban all porn if elected.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #54,310
STILL think he is great?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #707,042
The same guy who implied he'd like to fuck his own daughter if they weren't related? I find that hard to believe, he seems pretty sexually liberal.
Falco !a7Q.SWNEJw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #707,043
> hahah what a silly shitpost
> looks it up
> basically true
wtf man
> looks it up
> basically true
wtf man
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #707,050
@previous (Falco !a7Q.SWNEJw)
Gotta get that evangelical vote. A government so small it can fit inside your computer.
Gotta get that evangelical vote. A government so small it can fit inside your computer.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 36 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #707,063
This is totally going to happen and there is absolutely no way for people to get around it at all.(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #707,069
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
And its Donna rice, of all people, who got Dolan to sign this pledge. Cause you know it was porn that made her bang Gary heart. Damn porn!
And its Donna rice, of all people, who got Dolan to sign this pledge. Cause you know it was porn that made her bang Gary heart. Damn porn!
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #707,089
@707,042 (B)> The same guy who implied he'd like to fuck his own daughter if they weren't related? I find that hard to believe, he seems pretty sexually liberal.
Soon enough you will see Trump charged with pedophilia. His special relationship with his daughter.
So OP I had doubts about how authentic your topic is
http://www.complex.com/life/2016/08/donald-trump-promises-ban-porn-if-elected-president
http://theweek.com/speedreads/640282/donald-trump-promises-crack-down-pornography-elected-president
A weee bit of recent history and the Republicans about banning Porn
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/gop-candidates-wont-promise-to-end-porn
So looking4 the bottom line
the Republican nominee signed a pledge from the anti-porn group Enough is Enough vowing to better enforce laws against pornography if he wins the White House this fall.
Trump, by signing the pledge, also promised to "seriously consider appointing a special commission to explore effects of pornography on Americans, aggressively enforce the Children's Internet Protection Act, work with corporations on anti-porn initiatives, and advance other public policies to protect children from pornography
Trump, by signing the pledge, also promised to "seriously consider appointing a special commission to explore effects of pornography on Americans, aggressively enforce the Children's Internet Protection Act, work with corporations on anti-porn initiatives, and advance other public policies to protect children from pornography
The pledge itself makes it sound as though all porn (not just child pornography) is dangerous to the well-being of children.
Trump of course is married to a Bimbo who has posed nude - Nude on the cover of a magazine - She is made of a lot of plastic. Labia reduction as well as Boob job nose job cheek implants you name it she is full of plastic or silicon.
You can view Trumps daughter fully nude and more with a simple Google search. Do you think Trump is about to have his daughter arrested?
So now we all no USA Super Court has decided over n over n over again that Porn is a Go. Is more than OK with a few exceptions - Child Porn and some other shit but its really hard to define what is over the line unless its about kiddlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
Conclusion
5–4 decision for Marvin Miller
majority opinion by Warren E. Burger
Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.
5–4 decision for Marvin Miller
majority opinion by Warren E. Burger
Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.
Then later
in 1982's New York v. Ferber, the Court declared child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York's ban on that material. In the 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex-related_court_cases_in_the_United_States
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/overview.html
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,092
Aw shit now I have to find some way to justify this and pretend I was anti-porn all along :(
Thanks, Drumpf
Thanks, Drumpf
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,093
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,115
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,123
Dr. Whom !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,245
> Not combining your porn and gun hobbiesRWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,247
My condolences that this guy could be the USA's President.
I hope it doesn't happen.
I hope it doesn't happen.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #707,263
myabe if they put a gun in every porn you could buy that would make it OK