Billboard Has Dems Crying

[Floyd61]

Dems are hating that free speech law again

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Dems are hating that free speech law again

Never had a bumper sticker in my life. That one could be the first.

 

[konradv]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Moonglow]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

 

[Moonglow]

Good thing about Trump is he sucked just as much as Biden....

 

[my2¢]

I wonder how many that find this funny accuse Democrats of suffering from TDS?

 

[MisterBeale]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

The problem with obscenity laws? Is they need to prove that they appeal to ‘prurient interest,’ or something of a sexual nature, making it, "filthy." I am not sure this rises to that definition.

Obscenity

www.law.cornell.edu

". . . Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.. . ."

 

[Moonglow]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

The problem with obscenity laws? Is they need to prove that they appeal to ‘prurient interest,’ or something of a sexual nature, making it, "filthy." I am not sure this rises to that definition.

Obscenity

www.law.cornell.edu

". . . Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.. . ."

yeah, until you tell the cop he's a piece of shit and he takes you away.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder how many that find this funny accuse Democrats of suffering from TDS?

I agree with the billboard ad but Trump and Pence would be there had Biden not stolen the election and given it to China..

 

[Lastamender]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

What is obscene about shit? Shit is shit, and I am sure you know that better than most.

 

[MisterBeale]

I wonder how many that find this funny accuse Democrats of suffering from TDS?

While I do agree with you. . . when the other side depicted the President of the United States of America as this?

. . . as a nation, and a civilization, the conversation was doomed to degrade.

Now, I realized, this balloon was funded and made in Britain, but when they allowed it to be brought over here? And American media companies broadcast it all over the place?
That was pretty low and disrespectful to the office of the President.



That was, near as I can tell, when the gloves came off.

 

[Moonglow]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

What is obscene about shit? Shit is shit, and I am sure you know that better than most.

Ask Kat she will tell you it is...To me it's no big deal but I am not everyone.

 

[struth]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

what is obscene about it?

 

[rightwinger]

Dems are hating that free speech law again

Is THAT really the best Republicans can come up with?

No wonder you keep losing elections

 

[Moonglow]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

what is obscene about it?

The word that is blotted out..Just like this program on USMB will deny you to spell out a certain word and it be seen.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd think the Dems would want to keep that sign up.

It demonstrates the juvenile "humor" of Trumpism so well.

 

[MisterBeale]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

The problem with obscenity laws? Is they need to prove that they appeal to ‘prurient interest,’ or something of a sexual nature, making it, "filthy." I am not sure this rises to that definition.

Obscenity

www.law.cornell.edu

". . . Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.. . ."

yeah, until you tell the cop he's a piece of shit and he takes you away.

 

[Moonglow]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

The problem with obscenity laws? Is they need to prove that they appeal to ‘prurient interest,’ or something of a sexual nature, making it, "filthy." I am not sure this rises to that definition.

Obscenity

www.law.cornell.edu

". . . Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.. . ."

yeah, until you tell the cop he's a piece of shit and he takes you away.

I am a true Napoleonic code of laws kinda guy.

 

[MisterBeale]

No one's taking responsibility! Who'd a thunk it?

I thought the US had obscenity laws in advertising..

The problem with obscenity laws? Is they need to prove that they appeal to ‘prurient interest,’ or something of a sexual nature, making it, "filthy." I am not sure this rises to that definition.

Obscenity

www.law.cornell.edu

". . . Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.. . ."

yeah, until you tell the cop he's a piece of shit and he takes you away.

I am a true Napoleonic code of laws kind guy.

I've noticed.

 

[konradv]

I wonder how many that find this funny accuse Democrats of suffering from TDS?

While I do agree with you. . . when the other side depicted the President of the United States of America as this?

. . . as a nation, and a civilization, the conversation was doomed to degrade.

Now, I realized, this balloon was funded and made in Britain, but when they allowed it to be brought over here? And American media companies broadcast it all over the place?
That was pretty low and disrespectful to the office of the President.



That was, near as I can tell, when the gloves came off.

Yeah, didn't need the Brits to do it!