here's an example why I support censorship and limitations on free speech:

NOT SUITABLE FOR WORK

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=421728

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : -edited by theDuke866]

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/21/2006 3:51:40 PM

I don't think the person should be limited from drawing that kind of shit.

But I surely think he should be treated like shit by anyone who knows him.

Even if your completely non-religious, that's just fucked up. He surely has a right to be disrespectful of Christianity, but we surely are also justified by being pissed off.

7/21/2006 3:56:37 PM

Yeah, your hatred of a painting is more important than free speech.

7/21/2006 3:57:15 PM

DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD DOUBLE STANDARD

7/21/2006 3:58:17 PM

the painting is sick, not only is it insanely blasphemous from a religious perspective.. but pedophilia too

7/21/2006 3:59:14 PM

can we get a nsfw in this topic title?

7/21/2006 4:00:16 PM

i'd go as far to say that the thread should be locked also. i mean this is total bullsh!t.

7/21/2006 4:00:58 PM

1st amendment allows it

deal with it, B

7/21/2006 4:01:23 PM

You may want to put a NSFW in the first post, the topic itself is suitable.

7/21/2006 4:07:24 PM

whats the picture about?

im not going to look at it.

7/21/2006 4:09:33 PM

i have the constitutional right to not tell you what its about because i dont want to

7/21/2006 4:12:11 PM

It is Jesus fucking a newborn baby, whom is still attached to its nude mother. She is distrought, Christ is happy...

7/21/2006 4:12:16 PM

what's it about? hmmmmmmmmmm. it's a depiction of jesus christ with his penis in the anus of a newborn baby.


I PROPOSE THAT THE THREAD BE DELETED.

7/21/2006 4:13:10 PM

all the other crap on here that i've seen locked... and that thread is still left... i posted in it to let ppl know how i felt about it and said i wasnt going to view it again, and im not goin to.

7/21/2006 4:34:13 PM

Chit Chat is a free for all, the fucking thread title told you what it was, quit your god damned bitching.

7/21/2006 4:42:43 PM

^^^ you're a sick individual, Amsterdam718.

i always suspected you were just another fuckup, only jumping on the neo-con bandwagon to get your misanthropic aggressions out.

7/21/2006 5:43:10 PM

how am I sick. if by stating the thread should be deleted then I guess I am. OUR MORAL COMPASS is OFF. when people defend someones right to speech in this instance. we are truly in the last days.


YOU'RE THE SICKO.

7/21/2006 5:45:50 PM

i'm not the sick fuck who gets a kick out of bringing it to everyone's attention by reposting it here.

i dont go to Chit Chat. keep your nasty shit over there where it belongs.

freak.


[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2006 5:50:09 PM

Actually, there is an argument that the work is obscene (because of the anal sex). If it is judged to be obscene, it is not protected by the first amendment.

7/21/2006 6:59:27 PM

Obscenity revolves around it having no artistic or social value - which it clearly has, at least to me. The artist is conveying a message, albeit fucked up. Really fucked up.

But I guess local standards are pretty tightwad, overall


[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM. Reason : a]

7/21/2006 7:05:32 PM

Regardless of its legal status, the thread and the picture were both created for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. I'd say delete the thread since it's pretty offensive to most users. This has nothing to do with the constitution or the first amendment and everything to do with using good judgment in doing what most users on this site would like to see done.

7/21/2006 7:07:13 PM

ditto, G. ditto. gg moonman.


annuit coeptis, G.

7/21/2006 7:15:08 PM

No, free speech should still apply to that picture. Its message might be somewhat hurt by having it, because most people would find it offensive, but that isn't a reason to censor it.

7/21/2006 7:35:27 PM

Oh I forgot the Soap Box was Congress.

7/21/2006 7:37:18 PM

I thought it was pretty funny.

I mean I think a man fucking a newborn is a funny subject matter to begin with, but then add in the mother is there and the baby is still attached and the guy happens to be jesus and it adds a whole new dimension.

7/21/2006 7:39:42 PM

you people, in your rush to climb all over each other about the pros and cons of First Amendment protections, miss the most important thing:

TWW is a private forum and not internally subject to 1st Amendment or any constitutional law. its like if you took a bunch of political propaganda to your local mcdonalds and started preaching about somehting inside the restaurant. the manager could tell you to get the fuck out.

so the owners/maintainers of this forum can delete whatever they want. or if they dont give a damn, then they dont give a damn.


at any rate, all you constitutional scholars need to take it up with them.

7/21/2006 7:44:49 PM

If we will not honor the spirit of the First Amendment in private, how can we expect it to survive in public?

7/21/2006 7:48:19 PM

I said it more succinctly.

7/21/2006 7:48:40 PM

this thread only exists because AMSTERDAM gets a kick out of shoving obscenity in peoples faces. this way he could do it without having to take responsibility for it.

he's just another neo-conservative pervert.

7/21/2006 7:53:58 PM

Quote :

"YOU'RE THE SICKO."

Joe.

7/21/2006 8:08:25 PM

I did not realize that this related to stuff on brentroad.

7/21/2006 8:34:24 PM

It would be funnier if Jesus was fucking a pig

and the pig's name was Muhammad

7/21/2006 10:33:16 PM

fortunately, the first amendment doesn't limit poor taste.

7/21/2006 10:38:16 PM

the part that is really bad is Jesus's rosey-pink balls

7/22/2006 9:07:04 PM

i was always pissed in middle school how you couldnt cuss in class when freedom of speech is the first amendment

7/22/2006 10:00:05 PM

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says you have the right to not be offended. Is that pic offensive? Most definitely. Does it cause anyone bodily harm or damage or destroy public or private property? Not that I'm aware of.

Obviously the limitations placed on "free" speech are designed to prevent people from getting hurt. In the most classic of examples, you wouldn't yell "FIRE!" in a theater because you'll cause panic, and people can potentially be trampled upon and injured, if not killed. You're also disrupting the movie that people paid to see, so you're basically robbing them also (stealing the entertainment that they paid for). Perhaps that's a bit of a stretch, but the fact remains that you've created a distruption that resulted in others having to pay the price for it.

What it boils down to is this; you only have rights in so much as they do not interfere with the rights of others. You have the right to your own life and the fruits of your own labor (ie property), but not to another person's life and property. Killing someone, for instance, deprives them of life. You are stealing their life from them, and that is a right which you do not possess. To assume ownership over someone's life or property without their informed and expressed consent is not a right that any person possesses. We, as a society, therefore place limitations on our actions such that we can preserve our own personal rights without trampling upon anyone else's.

But before I get too sidetracked, let me get back to the point. This painting, while offensive, does no perceived physical harm to any person or any property. Now if this was painted on somebody's wall without prior approval, then you could make the case that a right has been violated, and therefore censorship or limitation must be invoked.

I'm sure there will be people who will rip everything I just typed to shreds, but whatever. Welcome to t-dub.

[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : blah]

7/22/2006 10:43:30 PM

^ that's about it.

7/22/2006 11:17:27 PM

^^^Yeah, the first amendment doesn't exist in schools.

7/23/2006 12:06:19 AM

Yeah, it's not like they're publically funded institu--oh, wait.

7/23/2006 12:15:08 AM

Quote :

"You have the right to your own life and ... property"

oh shit, here we go.

6 pages.




[Edited on July 23, 2006 at 3:27 AM. Reason : ]

7/23/2006 3:27:34 AM

^ oh man, the commies are gonna be soooooo pissed

7/23/2006 3:57:22 AM

Quote :

"the part that is really bad is Jesus's rosey-pink balls"

Agreed. I just don't think Jesus would shave his pubes. Hey you know, if we got Mary in there and smeared some shit on her, the piece could go in an art museum!

(Seriously, I'm with the free speech crowd on this one)

7/23/2006 3:37:43 PM

haven't viewed the picture yet but regardless of how "offensive" it is i support free speech 100%

7/23/2006 3:57:03 PM

Quote :

"If it is judged to be obscene, it is not protected by the first amendment."

Maybe, but that's stupid.

7/23/2006 4:34:15 PM

viewed the picture now that i'm off of work

hilarious

7/23/2006 7:36:04 PM

It is without a doubt tasteless, however that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I'm not saying show it to 4th graders, but there's no reason we shouldn't be able to look at it.
Ahmet

7/24/2006 12:47:20 AM

there's pleny wrong with. this is about common morality here.

7/24/2006 11:31:55 AM

I agree that it shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. However, I think if someone swapped Jesus for Mohammad on this one...shit hits fan.

7/24/2006 12:46:34 PM

That artist was just Keeping It Jungle, B.

7/24/2006 8:24:08 PM

given the debate, it appears that your version of "common moralit" is not so common after all.

7/25/2006 1:24:45 PM