GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Developing: FBI Raids HotMovies

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Developing: FBI Raids HotMovies (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=994667)

Developing: FBI Raids HotMovies

In a move characterized by local police as ?all FBI,? a reported 100 law enforcement agents swept into the Philadelphia offices of National A-1 Advertising Wednesday with federal warrants of an as-yet-undisclosed nature. The 9 a.m. ET raid resulted in the detention and release of about 120 National A-1 employees, but no arrests had been made nor indictments issued as of post time.

MOre here

thanks for the breaking news

Holy shit, where did you hear that from? CNN?

Old news, hope it all goes ok for them.

need more threads before i'll believe it

wondered why my whitelabel was down.

Time to switch by the look of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAC (Post 17645918)

Holy shit, where did you hear that from? CNN?

from SDN

you're only hours behind AVN, XBIZ and pretty much every GFY news troll. did you just wake up?

lol.

What the fuck? One of my better programs.

hmm both http://www.hotmovies.com/ and moviedollars.com are not working for me here

http://3mp1r3.cam500.com/img/boards/mckPimpGFY.gif

413 U.S. 15
Miller v. California

Quote:

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

I

Today we leave open the way for California [n1] to send a man to prison for distributing brochures that advertise books and a movie under freshly written standards defining obscenity which until today is decision were never the part of any law.

The Court has worked hard to define obscenity and concededly has failed. In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, it ruled that "[o]bscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id. at 487. Obscenity, it was said, was rejected by the First Amendment because it is "utterly without redeeming [p38] social importance." Id. at 484. The presence of a "prurient interest" was to be determined by "contemporary community standards." Id. at 489. That test, it has been said, could not be determined by one standard here and another standard there, 354 U.S. 476, it ruled that "[o]bscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id. at 487. Obscenity, it was said, was rejected by the First Amendment because it is "utterly without redeeming [p38] social importance." Id. at 484. The presence of a "prurient interest" was to be determined by "contemporary community standards." Id. at 489. That test, it has been said, could not be determined by one standard here and another standard there, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 194, but "on the basis of a national standard." Id. at 195. My Brother STEWART, in Jacobellis, commented that the difficulty of the Court in giving content to obscenity was that it was "faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable." Id. at 197.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horny Guy (Post 17646537)

hmm both http://www.hotmovies.com/ and moviedollars.com are not working for me here

they are back on! Congrats guys! :thumbsup:thumbsup

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alprazolam (Post 17646280)

you're only hours behind AVN, XBIZ and pretty much every GFY news troll. did you just wake up?

lol.

Yes i was also behind your mom.