Okey doke. A rare thing from me: Business thread. R.e. 2257

[jimthefiend]

Just a couple of points I'd like to make that I WANTED to on Ynot the other day, but couldnt for longer than 4 minutes because apparently the listeners were more interested in how big a douche I think Ramos is.



Anyway...



Last years drama relating to the modifications to the 2257 statute has always been a mystery to me.

Why?

Well shut the fuck up for a second and I'll tell you.

I simply do not understand why you all got your proverbial panties in a bunch when that law became more restrictive, when the ORIGINAL law itself is unconstitutional.

The Bill Of Rights, for you commie third worlders, consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.




Amendment ONE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Read that, read it again, print it out, read it one more time, then explain to me why you arent all protesting in front of the Supreme Court right now.


Just a little thought...

[jimthefiend]

PS: The original 1990 statute was passed under the Clinton administration, and by a Democratically controlled Congress.

[riddler]

got a mp3 link of you on ynot radio?

[jimthefiend]

PSS: Tipper Gore sucks negro cock in the back of limos up in the NE quarter of D.C., but that isn't relevant to this discussion.

[riddler]

nm found it.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

PSS: Tipper Gore sucks negro cock in the back of limos up in the NE quarter of D.C., but that isn't relevant to this discussion.

Ever watch Ted Nugent and her on c-span?

[marketsmart]

well apparently you dont get television, newspapers, or any type of news media in your neck of the woods. the govt has been violating your constitutional rights for quite some time now and no one is doing shit about it....

[jimthefiend]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Ever watch Ted Nugent and her on c-span?

LOL no. I would kiss Boy Alley to see that though.

[marketsmart]

btw... i think people are more afraid of being the govts first test case on the constitutionality of the new 2257 than of the actual law itself....

[jimthefiend]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

btw... i think people are more afraid of being the govts first test case on the constitutionality of the new 2257 than of the actual law itself....

The government would lose, even with the Supreme Court we have now. Even Clintoon said that he would not encourage it to be enforced by people in his administration.

THAT statement is pretty important, when you think about the fact that his adminstration included the attorney general.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

Amendment ONE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK.. Just out of curiosity - is there any condition/law/ruling where the above does not apply in relation to the adult biz?

[jimthefiend]

Originally Posted by Webby

OK.. Just out of curiosity - is there any condition/law/ruling where the above does not apply in relation to the adult biz?

It doesnt matter if there is.

Any law passed or statute enacted would still have to pass through a litmus test of constitutionality now wouldn't it?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

btw... i think people are more afraid of being the govts first test case on the constitutionality of the new 2257 than of the actual law itself....

May be marketsmart, but despite that - it's a very badly drafted law in the first place (least the ammendment is).

Forgetting being in the adult biz and dumping any biase re this - overall, got to say it is like serveral other laws, or proposed laws lately, which have nothing to do with the proclaimed intent, but are simply manipluative and clearly based on a political agenda.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

The government would lose, even with the Supreme Court we have now. Even Clintoon said that he would not encourage it to be enforced by people in his administration.

THAT statement is pretty important, when you think about the fact that his adminstration included the attorney general.

for once, i agree with you... but can you think of anyone that would volunteer to fight the battle.... you are talking about a major financial commitment to go to that level.. also, dont you think the govt would attack you from other directions like the irs, etc... even if you were super clean, they would still fuck with you every chance they got...

[Webby]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

It doesnt matter if there is.

Any law passed or statute enacted would still have to pass through a litmus test of constitutionality now wouldn't it?

Sure Jim... was just asking if anyone knew of instances where this has already happened under Ammendment One.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by Webby

May be marketsmart, but despite that - it's a very badly drafted law in the first place (least the ammendment is).

Forgetting being in the adult biz and dumping any biase re this - overall, got to say it is like serveral other laws, or proposed laws lately, which have nothing to do with the proclaimed intent, but are simply manipluative and clearly based on a political agenda.

agreed 100%... we all know that the new 2257 does little or nothing to curb child exploitation and that was the govt's case for the revised law...

of course its another political ploy to give the impression that the govt actually cares about the people it represents...

[Violetta]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

Why?

Well shut the fuck up for a second and I'll tell you.

[germ]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

PS: The original 1990 statute was passed under the Clinton administration, and by a Democratically controlled Congress.

that is SO relevant. </sarcasm>


i thought this was a business thread, not a political one.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Webby

OK.. Just out of curiosity - is there any condition/law/ruling where the above does not apply in relation to the adult biz?

OK. Dammit

I'll answer my own post - we should all know this one before much else

Obscenity is an instance where Ammendment One does not apply.

Meanwhile.. back to the thread topic...

[gimo33]

where is the real jimthefiend?....

[scottybuzz]

up his own ass

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

Read that, read it again, print it out, read it one more time, then explain to me why you arent all protesting in front of the Supreme Court right now.

Then what are you doing here posting all day, instead of protesting in front of the Supreme Court?

[jimthefiend]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

Then what are you doing here posting all day, instead of protesting in front of the Supreme Court?

Theres no money in it.