Gr666mer Updates

[Leadeye]

MILITARY Responds After NJ Mom Speaks Against School Sexualization

The U.S. military and police responded after a concerned New Jersey mother and school board member spoke out against bizarre posters targeting elementary children with hypersexual propaganda promoting homosexuality, transgenderism, and even the wonders of being “agender,” “pansexual” and...

www.freedomproject.com

Woke NJ Military Goes after Local Mom

Inappropriate poster projects continued

chaosandcontrol.substack.com

High-ranking military official called to resign after targeting mom upset over pansexuality posters at school

A New Jersey mother reveals a high-ranking military officer targeted her on Facebook for voicing concern over her child's elementary school teaching pansexuality.

www.foxnews.com

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

www.law.cornell.edu

Crazy, but it's Jersey.

For sure if the "security forces" have time to be involved in this, their departments are in need of some serious budget cuts. Then again it's Jersey, where budgets fall off the back of trucks.

 

[Creedmoor]

Is yelling fire at a theater a 1st Amendment right? When there is no fire.

We all know its not, the 1st has its carve outs.
Obcenity is a bit different, than yelling fire for no reason.
No one will ever agree with whats obscene.
Community Standards have yet been changed again with the internet. The standard is pretty much the same around the world for those that have free choice on the WWW.

A wholly satisfactory definition of obscenity is elusive, however, largely because what is considered obscene is often, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

 

[DadSmith]

We all know its not, the 1st has its carve outs.
Obcenity is a bit different, than yelling fire for no reason.
No one will ever agree with whats obscene.
Community Standards have yet been changed again with the internet. The standard is pretty much the same around the world for those that have free choice on the WWW.

A wholly satisfactory definition of obscenity is elusive, however, largely because what is considered obscene is often, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Why is yelling fire in a crowded place not protected by the 1st Amendment?

 

[KLB]

Oh. It’s just a word you’re refuting so hard? Okay. That’s fine. Technically you’re right as far as I know. How about we just call it passively pursuing a strategy that makes it easy for kids to indulge in their industry.

Did you know you can virtually **** in several video games? I haven’t searched for evidence that the porn industry is actively encouraging game makers to do it. But it was evident that cigarettes were prominent in Hollywood movies long before it became evident that the industry paid them to do it. It was only after investigation that we found out that cigarette companies we’re targeting children. People had plenty of evidence that made it a reasonably conclusion. It takes an accusation based on circumstances reasonably justified.

Does anyone think there is something to investigate? Or are we secure in our lack of evidence that the porn industry is targeting children, that we don’t need to look further? Or do we just not think that if it is a problem, it needs to be solved?

Come on. There is a world of difference between actively targeting something and passively doing anything. It's disingenuous to brush it off like it is the same.

Yes I know there are a number of porn games. That again is a world of difference away from porn IN video games kids play. Why would the porn industry encourage these games? They would seem to be competition.

I'd like to see some kind of evidence. So far it is
"Porn is bad"
"Porn is free on the Internet"
"The porn industry in targeting kids"

Show me billboards with cartoon porn. Show me commercials for porn during kids shows or on their online content. Show me something tangible that it is more than just a moral dislike and a fear.

 

[KLB]

Is yelling fire at a theater a 1st Amendment right? When there is no fire.

How is that even relevant?

How about yelling fire in your own home?

 

[KLB]

Why is yelling fire in a crowded place not protected by the 1st Amendment?

Showing porn wouldn't be either.

 

[DadSmith]

How is that even relevant?

How about yelling fire in your own home?

Answer my question and I'll make my point

 

[KLB]

Answer my question and I'll make my point

It was answered by Creed. You could have just made your point.

I'll humor you though, it obviously has already been ruled that it is not.

 

[DadSmith]

It was answered by Creed. You could have just made your point.

I'll humor you though, it obviously has already been ruled that it is not.

No it wasn't.
Again why is yelling fire in a crowded theater not protected by the 1st Amendment. Why did the court not see this as a right? What were the consequences of allowing this behavior?

 

[KLB]

No it wasn't.
Again why is yelling fire in a crowded theater not protected by the 1st Amendment. Why did the court not see this as a right? What were the consequences of allowing this behavior?

Possible harm to others in the theater.

Can you just get to your point?

 

[DadSmith]

Possible harm to others in the theater.

Can you just get to your point?

Exactly it is a health hazard for the people.
Porn is also a health hazard for children and adults alike. As such it should not be protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Creedmoor]

Exactly it is a health hazard for the people.
Porn is also a health hazard for children and adults alike. As such it should not be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Ahhhh please. Dont like it dont surf for it, dont want your kids to watch it?
Be a parent and dont let them watch it, control your kids environment.
Porn just doesent pop-up on ones monitor or screen.

 

[KLB]

Exactly it is a health hazard for the people.
Porn is also a health hazard for children and adults alike. As such it should not be protected by the 1st Amendment.

It is not afforded unfettered freedom. In fact, it is restricted in many places, just as in your example. In your example, you are free to say that word. It is the time, place, and circumstances that determine if it is wrong.

Trying to say that it should be banned because someone might do something as a result doesn't fly though. In fact, you're using the same logic anti-gunners use against guns, all the way down to "think of the children".

 

[DadSmith]

Ahhhh please. Dont like it dont surf for it, dont want your kids to watch it?
Be a parent and dont let them watch it, control your kids environment.
Porn just doesent pop-up on ones monitor or screen.

I imagine that's exactly what those addicted to porn and are suffering mental health problems from it say too.
I'm sure the porn industry wants people to continue their positive view of porn so they can continue to push it to all ages like a drug dealer pushes his dope on children for future clients.

It's well documented it causes mental health problems.

 

[DadSmith]

It is not afforded unfettered freedom. In fact, it is restricted in many places, just as in your example. In your example, you are free to say that word. It is the time, place, and circumstances that determine if it is wrong.

Trying to say that it should be banned because someone might do something as a result doesn't fly though. In fact, you're using the same logic anti-gunners use against guns, all the way down to "think of the children".

Exactly and I hope it catches on because it is definitely for the children the future of our country.

When porn addicted pedophiles attack a family member maybe that will wake some up. It's said that it has to come to such a crime before people wake up.


Porn is a gateway to pedophilia and it fuels pedophilia. Some here defend porn so it can continue to do so. They love porn so much they are blinded.

 

[KLB]

I thought it was the homosexuals that were the problem driving pedophilia.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I thought it was the homosexuals that were the problem driving pedophilia.

I don’t think we should discount what they’re teaching kids in college who seek to become teachers.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I thought it was the homosexuals that were the problem driving pedophilia.

no, that was pot being a gateway to hard drugs. Duh.

 

[KLB]

I don’t think we should discount what they’re teaching kids in college who seek to become teachers.

They are definitely teaching them a lot of woke nonsense. I don't think they are teaching them to be pedophiles though. It's more likely that the job attracts more of them.

 

[jamil]

Is yelling fire at a theater a 1st Amendment right? When there is no fire.

Yes. Depending on the jurisdiction, the context, and the outcome.