1349: Six Years Down

[poingjam]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

You're lucas, poingjam? cool.

agree on the fact that starscream was annoying and had a horrid voice but i guess it was done on purpose.

Yep. And yep.

I've read this whole damn thread and have very little to say. Freedom of speech is great, except when it's not, then it sucks, but then it goes back to being great because I can say that it sucks when it does. I give up.

I'm basically apathetic when it comes to government, not because I don't have opinions, but because I've seen how little my opinions affect anything. And who the hell am I? Just because I think things should be a certain way doesn't mean they actually should be. I'd like to see a personal income cap at around $100K per year for absolutely everyone. I'd like a fast-tracked death penalty system for a good number of crimes and no more insanity plea in death penalty cases. I think everyone who has kids should undergo home evaluation and attend mandatory classes, and if you're fucking up your kids (that includes teaching them to be racist or to forgo life-saving medication and pray instead), your kids get taken away and you get sterilized. I think noise violations should come with prison time. I think voting should be limited to local government only, preferably by neighborhood, and that anything on a larger scale should be decided by a small group of intelligent people appointed by passing a series of tests and interviews. I think driver's licenses shouldn't be available to the general public and everyone should have to take public transportation, ride bikes, walk, or something else cute like that. And I think it should be legal to beat the shit out of people who talk down to you.

Imagine that world. Kinda sucks, doesn't it? Opinions are like assholes; they get itchy in the summer.

[PsychoLoco]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

You did not just compare circumcision and ear piercing to raping a kid.

I guess, inadvertently, I did. Wasn't my intention, I just wanted to address the "it is bad if there is harm" argument.

[myq]

Originally Posted by starscream

Oh. Then no on agreements (yes on disagreements?). I feel like if the pedophiles are made to feel as if their impulses aren't so isolated to their own minds, that lots of people have them, they will become more likely to act on them rather than just being ashamed of themselves. I guess this assumes that the whole idea is wrong to them to begin with though. Which shouldn't be assumed, I suppose, but seems to be the case.

I don't know if I agree with your logic, but I think we can agree that raping children is wrong. (Unless it's statutory raping, and the child is 17 and you are 18. Then it's less black and white. Unless one is black and the other is white, and then it's wrong again! #fauxracismissotrendy?, whee!)

Originally Posted by stulagu

The difference, though, is he is talking about child porn like it is a porn movie. Child porn can be as simple as pictures of little kids in their underwear.

Is it illegal to have a picture of a child in their underwear? (Serious question. Say it's a boy, and genitals are not pictured. Or say the kid is wearing shorts. I understand how a pedophile having such a picture is icky, and that their impure thoughts are objectionable, but legally? Can someone actually get in trouble for having a picture of a child in a bathing suit? If so, then a lot of parents are in a lot of trouble.)

PS That last part is not a joke. I have a friend (a comedian named James Patterson who is not the author of the same name) who has a joke about tricking the police into thinking he was a pedophile, but at the last minute it turns out the naked kid pictures he has are of himself.
HOWEVER, the actual case is that even naked pictures of YOURSELF as a kid in your possession can be grounds for prosecution. (Which is why teens sexting is problematic potentially for them, legally.)

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by myq

Is it illegal to have a picture of a child in their underwear? (Serious question. Say it's a boy, and genitals are not pictured. Or say the kid is wearing shorts. I understand how a pedophile having such a picture is icky, and that their impure thoughts are objectionable, but legally? Can someone actually get in trouble for having a picture of a child in a bathing suit? If so, then a lot of parents are in a lot of trouble.)

If Walmart is printing pictures for you and there are some of your kid naked in the bathtub, they WILL call child services, it has happened before.

If you are a pedofile and you have pictures of kids in their underwear, then yes, you are in trouble.

People aren't even getting away with the whole "I was just doing research on child porn, THAT is why the pictures are on my computer!" excuse anymore.

[Junkenstein]

yeah, the fact that people cannot have pics of their kids naked is true. thats a side effect of the pedophile hysteria. its scary but i guess its part of the package and its not even a conseuqnce of a too strict government, simply peeople are scared and when they see something, they say something.

also, probably i am missing something cause i aint a parent, but why does one HAVE to take pics of his kids naked? just dont do it. they're cute even if they're dressed.

[Keith]

It's nice to know that one day you can look back and see the maturity of your son's penis throughout the years.

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by Keith

It's nice to know that one day you can look back and see the maturity of your son's penis throughout the years.

Ha! Pretty fucking sick, man...and funny.

[rodimusprime]

"Economy Movie Un Unh" sounds like something I'd watch. Congrats on the 6 year mark guys!

[starscream]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

"Economy Movie Un Unh" sounds like something I'd watch.

It's true. I can't wait for the next Friedberg/Seltzer production Economy Movie. So many heavy things are going to fall on those guys who sort of look like famous bankers.

[amyuilani]

Originally Posted by myq

And Keith, are you saying you don't think racists should have a right to express their racism? Or something different?
I think Chemda and I tried to address this issue on the show, but to clarify, you know that you use a lot of freedom of speech in your life/livelihood, yes? And that it could be viewed as hypocritical to champion your right to discuss who you hate but not afford that right to others?

The Bill of Rights are written in a specific order. They were intended to provide people protection from the government in order of the issues the framers felt were the most important, then second most, and so on. Protection from the government in freedom of expression is the most important thing the framers knew the people needed in order to feel as though they would not be living in the same oppressed society from which they came. People needed to be free to speak against the government and free to speak ideas and thoughts that would be unpopular. That's the whole point of the First Amendment - the ability to express that which is unpopular. As time went on, the Supreme Court would set limitations to the First Amendment, such as fighting words, inciting crime, obscenity, etc. In the modern world, such speech that is not completely outlawed is heavily restricted. Child porn is completely outlawed; explicit porn is restricted to areas children should not normally be able to view or find.

Racists have the same rights to express their opinions as others. It's when words cross the line, as in inciting riots, that free speech becomes an exception to free speech. Free speech cannot be allowed at the expense of the safety of society. That's why it's usually a case-by-case basis.

I have a feeling Keith's opinions on free expression will change over time. This is the first time in years he has spent extended periods of time out of the house, and even then, it's a matter of a couple of blocks between home and studio.