Monday, April 23, 2018



The Naked Maja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja!

Sharing Nude Photos of Current or Ex-Partners Protected Under First Amendment 

by Lloyd Brumfeld

DALLAS NEWS


Is distributing intimate photos of current or previous sexual partners without their consent protected by the First Amendment? 

A state appeals court says yes.

Now it will be up to the state attorney general's office to defend the state's "revenge porn" law, which was passed in 2015 and punishes those who post intimate images from previous or current relationships online.

The Tyler-based 12th Court of Appeals said the law is unconstitutional because it's too broad and infringes on free speech, The Texas Tribune reported.

In his findings in the case, Chief Justice James Worthen said the First Amendment usually prohibits "content-based" restrictions.

The court also said that the law was vague and infringed on the rights of third parties who might unwittingly share intimate images, according to the Associated Press.

Ladies, this could be yours.

WELCOME 
to the 
GENITAL AGE!


PHEW!





95 comments:

  1. Is the top picture one that belongs to a popular progressive Blogger?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, dummy. It's a very famous painting by Francisco Goya (1746-1828). It hangs on the Museo Nacional del Prado in Mardrid.

      Delete
    2. The actual name of Goya's painting in English is The Naked Maja.

      [FYI: Maja is pronounced MA-ha. In Spanish it means "attractive," "good looking," etc.]

      Delete
  2. Of all the senses one could hijack to drag another being from the mountaintop into the gutter, the 'visual' is almost certainly the most effective. Of course, if you could hijack the sense of smell, just imagine the "disgust" you could also induce...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The OBVIOUS POINT of posting this article was to illustrate graphically how incrediby STUPID and INSENSITIVE the COURTS can be in legally CONDONING the despicable practice of posting "Revenge Porn" in PUBLIC venues under the guise of protectng First Amendment Rights.

      I doubt very much that the Founding Fathers ever had the concept of "protecting" flagrant violations of basic DECENCY when they ratified the Bill of Rights.

      If YOU choose to make a public spectacle of YOURSELF that, probably, ought to] be protected, but when a NON-CONSENTING party is involved, and the obvious purpose is to Embarrass, Shame, Disgrace, Humiliate –– and possibly RUIN –– that non-consenting party, there should be NO QUESTION that such conduct iMUST be defined as morally and LEGALLY indefensible.

      Delete
    2. What if said "party" makes stupid or racist comments? Should the same standard apply?

      Delete
    3. Please stop trying to compare apples with tennis balls.

      Delete
    4. That depends upon "whose" apples you're roasting and whose tennis balls you are squeezing.

      Delete
    5. I would have thought that imposing or attempting to impose your will upon another would be "immoral" regardless as to whether one uses words or pictures to accomplish the deed.

      Delete
    6. You thought wrrong, FJ. Besides, it isn't MY will, but my certain knowledge that a society where ANYTHING GOES will not endure for long or "go" very far –– "go" meaning "advance" in this context, of course.

      Whenever wayward behavior deliberately designed to do HARM to others is legally condoned, the process of societal crumbling begins in earnest. I've seen it happen in my lifetime within a very short period of time. It began before you were born.

      Unbridled LICENTIOUSNESS is anything BUT "freedom," it is DEGENERACY.

      Imagine, if you are able, that you run across video of your MOTHER performing fellatio on a roomful of black bucks half her age while your FATHER looks on applauding the scene with a wagging erection.

      Think how that would make you feel –– if you have any capacity left that is to feel anything PERSONAL that can't be dismissed by intellectual sophistry and guile –– and then tell me the COURTS should IMPOSE the "freedom" to perform vicious, cruel, immoral, –– even neo-barbaric –– standards on an entire population.

      Let me quickly add that I believe your MOTHER and your FATHER have every "right" to indulge in the behavior described, but I most emphatically do NOT believe that anyone should have the "right" to EXPOSE all that to PUBLIC view, because the ONLY possible motive for so doing would be to HARM your parents –– and YOU and any SIBLINGS you may have by extension.

      I'll go so far as to say that if you support the legal "right" to do great HARM to others in the name of Freedom of Speech, you, sir, are PERVERSE.

      Delete
    7. I'm so glad you're so "certain". But it does beg the question, "for what purpose is revenge porn being used?" Is it soley to harm another out of pure spite? Or is it done in retaliation for some other heretofore "legally hidden" but still immoral wrong? I have no problem with revenge porn exposing a virtue signalling d-bag.

      Delete
    8. That you wouldn't morally or legally condemn those who would commit other "public embarrassments" is telling.

      Delete
    9. Of the difference between a "good" for a "goose" being gravy for the gander.

      Delete
    10. The very title "revenge porn" implies a prior or pre-existing injustice.

      Delete
    11. Oh dear! I fear you have subjected yourself to too much "French Thought –– and other foreign, decidedky un-American causes of figurative Cancer of the Mind.

      Please don't forget you are talking here with a committed CHRISTIAN.

      Delete
    12. Then as a "Christian", I suggest that you "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" (the Law). :)

      Delete
    13. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend that you leak material seized in an FBI raid that embarrasses me. You wouldn't let me leak a picture of you 'flagrante' in retaliation? Why not?

      Delete
    14. Is the size of your 'equipment' a State secret?

      Delete
    15. Your argumentation on this issue is puerlile and unworthy of you. Please stop being so SILLY.

      Delete
    16. btw - What's your opinion on hypergamy? I suspect it's a pretty large contributor to the motivation of those who post revenge porn.

      Delete
    17. You mean marrying solelt or primarily for money or higher social status?

      I think it's despicable, but understandable given the hard-edged, cold-hearted, beetle-shelled cynicism charcteristic of our times. That said the libertarian in me thinks CAVEAT EMPTOR. No buyer could be hope to be protected from his own stupidity, cupidity, poor taste, lack of good judgment, etc. by an Outside Influence.

      But we MUST protect innocent parties from being preyed up
      on by those deranged souls who take the law into their own h,ands to mete out punishment.

      By the way you never responded to my question about your MOTHER and the black bucks, etc.

      Or suppose it were you SON filmed indulging in oral and anal intercourse with a roomful of MEN posted just to SPITE you and your wife for no good reason?

      Delete
    18. It would be what it would be.

      Delete
    19. True enough, but given your obdurately negative feelings about homosexuality I'd hate –– for your sake –– to see that put to the test.

      A scenario such as those I described in some detail are bound to be life shattering. I don't believe that ANYONE should have a "right" –– legal or otherwise –– to do grievous injury to another for ANY reason whatsoever, except in DEFENSE of one's life, property, and bodily integrity.

      Badgering, Bullying and Blackmail should all be declared UNACCEPTABLE and UNLAWFUL by ANY discernible standard.

      Once again the Scriptures give us the answer we should be seeking:

      "Vengeance belongs [only] to God."

      ~ Romans 12:19

      Delete
    20. But thatBadgering, Bullying and Blackmail should all be declared UNACCEPTABLE and UNLAWFUL by ANY discernible standard.

      I agree, but that's not what you said. You basically said that badgering was fine provided no naked pictures were involved.

      I asked you to explain why pictures trumped all other forms, but you started a "tangerines aren't tangelos" argument.

      Delete
    21. Possibly, but you above most ought to know by now that when I make a PRONUNCIAMENTO I do not welcome argument. I expect APPLAUSE.

      ]:^}>

      Delete
    22. Isn't that what sock puppets are for?

      Delete
    23. Pardon my incredible naiveté, Thersites, but I always thought –– and STILL believe –– that was what FRIENDS were for.

      Unfortunately, in this damnable Postmodern Age the supply of friends appears to be diminishing at an alarming rate.

      Apparently, it's fashionable now to have ADVERSARIES.

      FRIENDS? Bah HUMBUG!

      Who NEEDS 'em!

      };^)>

      Delete
    24. PS: I refuse to ACCEPT what I just said, because it is UNGODLY. We do our best to continue loving our friends, –– even when they don't always ACT like friends. We can only HOPE they will one day respond accordingly.

      Delete
    25. Oh my. Turns out the Toronto "van killer" was an "Incel" member. The femininsts are having a "misogeny - toxic male" feeding frenzy. Revenge porn wasn't even an option for THAT poor schmuck.

      Delete
  3. Thaddeus Cockhammer Stinkfinger Doppelganger VApril 23, 2018 at 10:09 AM

    If a women, or man for that matter, parades themselves in the nude publically (in film or otherwise) posting images from pictures you've taken is fair. However, if the pictures of the ex or current partner were taken in the home or a hotel, and the person is not one who exposes themselves in public, they have a right to expect pricicy. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Liberalism is evil! .. yet we sacrifice our precious children to liberals for indoctrination! Woe be to us. Jesus said it well: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't disagree entirely, Wise Man, but PLEASE let us STOP calling them LIBERALS.

      They are anything but that. They are CULTURAL MARXISTS who would impose the TYRANNY of unbridled LICENTIOUSNESS on the land with the primary purose in mind of undermining and destroying faith in Jesus Christ.

      Delete
    2. And as you could have seen from the comments I had to delete below, the "GAME" these devils play is to LEGALIZE the expression of the worst aspects of human nature, so they can THEN turn around and ACCUSE you, SUE you, or otherwise try to PUNISH you for "violating" once-established norms and concepts of decency THEY have in fact rendered VULNERABLE, even DEFENSEESS against attack, by court order.

      Since –– thanks largely to the machinations of Cultural Marxists –– the courts have been packed with LEFTIST JUDGES for many years the constitutionally-mandated SEPARATION of POWERS no longer exists.

      Hence, The Rule of LAW has effectively been supplanted by The Rule of JUDGES.

      Leftists love to have it both ways. This –– they like to think –– ensures their ultimate victory no matter what.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Rusty, I love ya, but PLEASE don't FEED the TROLLS.

      Delete
    3. Sorry FT, I just can't tolerate those fools.

      Delete
    4. I can't either, Rusty. Of course I have the power to DELETE here, but when I'm at other blogs, I do my best either to freeze them out by IGNORING them - OR - as has been the case at WYD, I take a certain pleasure in getting down and dirty making them take double doses of the crap they dish out, –– but only AFTER they've screwed up a WYD thread so badly decent conversation is totally impossible,

      I love Lisa, and wish her only the best, her unwillingness to edit and censor her blog has made it the Feces Festival it tends to be

      I do NOT want that to happen here, which is why I'm so sharp-tongued, and damnably strict.

      I'll quote Shakespeare, and say, "I do not suffer fools gladly."

      Needless to say, Rusty, that does not apply to you.


      };^)>

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I LOVE THAT PUSSY PIC! WHO'S PUSSY IS IT? DO YOU KNOW?

    ReplyDelete
  11. A PRIVATE EMAIL EXCHANGE PERTAINING TO THIS POST:

    Hey, FT! I could have been fired today if someone had seen me pop up your blog.  You should post a NSFW Warning.

    I'm sure others who view your blog from work would appreciate it as well.

    I know you mean no harm, I'm just letting you know the reality of today's workplace.


    ___________________

    CRIPES, man! If things really are THAT bad, I’d QUIT and find work pumping gas, waiting on tables or clerking in a store –– or better yet become a companion-helper to aged people stuck at home. That pays surprisingly well these days,

    And what the hell is an NSFW warning?

    I’ve posted plenty of highly controversial stuff before INCLUDING that very picture of Hillary in the Nude late in 1916 just prior to the election. The painting at the top is Goya’s very famous Naked Maja which hangs, as I said above, in a place of honor at The Prado in Madrid.

    I wouldn’t want to be responsible for your getting fired, but neither will I change my policies to suit the dictates of Political Correctness for ANYONE

    So, if you now regard me as a danger to your career, it might be better if you stopped visiting my blog during office hours.
     

    When the jack-booted thugs with the AK47’s come to drag me out of my house to a re-education center, I’ll go quietly, but till then I shall continue to RESIST and DEFY strictures I regard as unjust, absurd and extremely harmful to the well-being of any ostensibly “free” society. 

    FYI: Despite being a reasonably intelligent, educated person with talent in many areas, I’ve deliberately lived on the fringes all my life so I could remain free, and not have to subject myself to the pressures of being an Organization Man of any kind.  I saw early on what that did to my father, and I vowed it would never happen to me.

    Sorry, but that’s the way it is here in River City. };^)>

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's PRIVATE, why the hell did you POST it?

      You probably won't be receiving any more private correspondence from that pen pal.

      Delete
    2. The communication has REMAINED private, because I did not identify the parties involved by name –– nor would it ever occur to me to do so.

      I published it, because the contents revealed important information about the ever-widening gulf between Common Decency, Common Sense and the utter Absurdity of the Law as written –– or rather DECLARED from the Bench –– since the nineteen SICK-sties.

      Delete
    3. Blunt Force DramaApril 25, 2018 at 5:46 PM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  12. Lucille Prankhurst said

    Your obscene, compulsive hatred for Mrs. Clinton disqualifies you from having any legitimate claim to decency, yourself, MISTER FreeThinke.

    Just who the hell do you think you are anyhow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have every much right to MY opinion as you do to YOUR erroneus, ill-conceived assertion, Lucy.

      Delete
    2. Hes a Free Thinke like I am.
      Who the Hell do YOU think that YOU are?

      Delete
    3. Lucy,Lucy,Lucy, you just don't understand. Hillary has made herself a target for anything she gets. She's a hateful, nasty, unlikable, bitter old hag...shes like herpes, just won't go away.

      Delete

  13. President Trump is so good - he's getting muslim Men to go to Strip Clubs so that they can see Women with their heads covered!

    ReplyDelete
  14. FROM the ARTICLE:

    "Is distributing intimate photos of current or previous sexual partners without their consent protected by the First Amendment?

    A state appeals court says yes."


    If THAT doesn't ALARM you, your head must be filled with SAWDUST and CEMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Donald Trump could cure Cancer, AIDs, wipe out the Common Cold and Flu, destroy every Nuclear, bio and Chemical weapon on earth, establish an abundant food supply for twice the population on earth, so that we used potatoes to supply the whole world with electricity, stopped using fossil fuels and the bed wetters would still hate him if George Soros' puppets told them too.And still would not get the Nobel Prize.

    That's how stupid the left is, and the left awards Nobel Prize's to terrorists like Arafat and bullshit frauds like Al Gore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't argue against that, Steve.

      It IS the way it IS.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Emmett Eldridge Bunberry III said

    Husband of Former Senate Leader Pleads
    Not Guilty to Sexually Assaulting M en and
    Sharing Nude Photos Without Consent


    Daily Mail [UK] & Associated Press,

    by Hannah Parry

    The estranged husband of former Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. Bryon Hefner, 30, was released on personal recognizance Tuesday after appearing in Suffolk Superior Court to face charges of sexual assault, distributing nude photos without consent and criminal lewdness. He was also ordered to stay away from the alleged victims and the Massachusetts State House. His trial was scheduled for March 2019. Several men claim Hefner sexually assaulted or harassed them, including three men who said Hefner grabbed their genitals in Boston. Investigators say they have uncovered a ´disturbing pattern of conduct´ by / / /



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Giudetta Pasturpizzaio said

      Ah yes, more upstanding members of the Democrat party. s/o This caused me to have horrible flashbacks of the odious pervert Barney Frank. The things now occurring with regularity in our society are terribly disturbing and appalling. Of course you will not see this on CNN or MessNBC. Do we need to play the game imagine if this was a Republican?

      Delete
    2. Clementine Hershey said

      Ah yes, just more democrat-ICK sexual perversion...nothing to see here, just move along and pick on Trump some more. Wankers!

      Delete
    3. Russ T. Nayles said

      I guess the senate leader is the wife. Dear Lord. How did we get here? Rhetorical, as I unfortunately know the answer.

      How much lower can we go?

      Delete
    4. Russ,

      I can assure you at the rate things are going that the Left will not rest until we elect a drug-addicted, one legged, 400-pound, black, transgendered Former Female now a Male Lesbian Porn Star who has retained her penis to the Oval Offce.

      You can bank on it.

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Leftwingnutz are such predictable little things. Just last week they thought they had Mike Pompeo as a hide to hang on their wall but alas they ended up folding their tent on that one. Now this week they have set their sights on derailing the nomination of Adm.Ronny Jackson as head of the VA. Never mind that Jackson has glowing recommendations from both Obama,Trump and many others. No matter they will again look like a bunch of potato heads, for the leftwingnut its..damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right about that, Rusty. ALSO, leftists ALWAYS seem to want to believe that their political views are FAR more important than any PERSONAL relationship they may have.

      I just lost a friend of FIFTY NINE YEARS –– a girl I used to date back in. college –– , because my politics, which I don't even try to discuss with her ––, are so aborrent to her I-think-demented point of view that she cannot forgive me for supporting Donald Trump.

      All I did was admit I voted for Mr. Trump when she questioned me about the election, and ever since then she's baited me with increasing FEROCITY trying to pick a fight, so she can feel justified in calling me a dirty son-of-a-bitch and telling me to go to hell.

      I made the mistake of telephoning her to see if I could find some way to salvage what-had-once-been a pleasant friendship, and all I got for my trouble was a roaring, bellowing, sneering tirade telling me what a SHIT I was and always have been! According to her she'd only maintained a relationship wih me, because she'd always feel SORRY for me.

      I have tp admit i SNAPPED, and told her off good and proper in no uncertain terms .

      Thus ended a FIFTY-NINE YEAR relationship, because SHE couldn't tolerate my havng had the unmitigated GALL to vote for Donald Trump.

      Guess where she lives?

      YUP! She lives in ASSACHEWSHITS. It would have to be either there or Crazypornia.

      What a pity!

      Delete
  21. L
    Melania Trump masters the moment at last nights State Dinner.
    By Betsy Klein and Kate Bennett, CNN

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nothing angers me more that a blind. stupid progressive who chooses to ignores the evidence before their very eyes and goes on to defend a loathsome, bottom feeding, crooked liar like Hillary Clinton and her ilk!

    ReplyDelete
  23. This post has been reported to Blogger for hate speech, threats, and child pornography.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus Christ said

      "Blessed are ye when men do revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you –– falsely–– for my sake."

      ~ Matthew 5 - Holy Bible, KJV

      Delete
    2. Report Away, who cares.. Hopefully the one you reported it to is NOT a Disgusting Democratic Asshole who doesn’t believe in Free Speech!

      Delete
    3. Please, TOM, I think Jesus's response was more than adequate.

      We don't really NEED to tell this ignoramus that Goya's painting is more than TWO-HUNDRED YEAS OLD and enjoys the sacrosanct status of a treasured work of art in a NATIONAL museum.

      Neither do we need to tell anyone that Hillary Clinton is over SEVENTY years of age.

      The anonymous image of a vagina obviously belongs to a physically mature member of the female sex. Ergo, the charge of "child porn" is ridiculous on the face of it.

      As for "Hate Speech, I think it's still perfectly legal to hold public figures up to ridicule –– especially when they've made perfect asses of themselves by their activities and in public ccommentary.

      Once Lady Chatterly's Lover, Fanny Hill, My Secret Life, Henry Miller's "Tropic" books and Screw Magazine saw pubication, then I Am Curious Yellow, Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones could be seen in neghborhod movie houses, and Piss Christ, the Poo-Poo Madonna, and The VAGINA MONOLOGUES were declared "unchallengeable "works of art" by the Supreme Court, –– ALL BETS WERE OFF.

      We have nothing and no one to thank for this rapid advance of indecency and degeneracy, but LEFTIST ACTIVISTS aka Cultural Marxists.

      I'd be a fool if I did NOT "hate" those fucking bastards with all my heart, all my soul, all my might, and all my mind, and so would you.

      But please let's not descend to THEIR abysmal level and do little but hurl increasingly ugly, obscene insults at one another. That only aids THEIR cause
      .

      Delete
    4. Blogger does not allow the following:

      * Adult material used for commercial gain or containing ads and links to commercial porn websites.
      * Illegal sexual content, including image, video or textual content that depicts or encourages rape, incest, bestiality, or necrophilia, is also prohibited.
      * Private nude or sexually explicit images or videos posted without the subject’s consent.


      FreeThinke the child pornographer has broken all three rules with this post.

      Especially the picture of the dead child's vagina and using Hillary Clinton's nude photo without permission.

      The FBI is going to have a field day at FreeThinke the child pornographer's house.

      Delete
    5. Thaddeus Cockhammer Stinkfinger Doppelganger VApril 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM

      You're troll (or trollette) is undoubtedly LHAO FreeThinke. Your response to TOM is a great way to put the little one in their place. And, it says I don't give a flying f*ck in a nice way.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. It is usually our intention, Thaddeus, to employ irony, safrcasm, satire, ridicule, burlesque and ribald humor, as well as earnest entreaty, –– minus the classic four-letter words –– to put our antagonists in their place.

      UNLIKE leftists we do NOT want to GO OUT of OUR WAY to shame, humiliate, excoriate, vilify or damage ANYONE in partcular, but we WILL stand up and STATE our VIEWS uneqivocally about the great issues of our time.

      Naturally "our" views are almost always diametrically opposed to those cherished by leftists. Havung no tenable argument against OUR views, the left has nothing left to fall back upon but PERSONAL ATTACKS.

      The nore sense WE make, the more VICIOUS nd UNPRINCIPLED THEY BECOME.

      Unfortunately I have seen more and more lately what-I-once-believed-were reliable-members of the Right resort to using these same scurrilous tactics against thier FRIENDS.

      Apparently Leftist-style DEFENSIVENESS combined with DECEPTIONISM and DEFEATIST rhetoric has become a commuicable disease that knows no group or party loyalty.

      We live, move, breathe and have our being in SHARK-INFESTED WATERS these days.

      Delete
    8. ______________________ NOTICE ______________________

      IF YOU FIND THIS POST "OFFENSIVE," JUST THINK HOW YOU'D FEEL IF IT WERE YOUR DAUGHTER WHOSE NAKED BODY WAS PUT ON DISPLAY by a BOYFRIEND SHE'D REJECTED or a HUSBAND SHE'D DIVORCED.

      THEN TELL ME ALL ABOUT WHY HIS BOORISH ACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED "PROTECTED SPEECH" UNDER the FIRST AMENDMENT.
      .

      Delete
  24. Once More with Feelung:

    FROM the ARTICLE:

    "Is distributing intimate photos of current or previous sexual partners without their consent protected by the First Amendment?

    A state appeals court says "yes."


    If THAT doesn't ALARM you, your head must be filled with SAWDUST and CEMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sylvester P. SmytheApril 25, 2018 at 8:41 PM

    Are you a blogger or a janitor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd need to elucidate further if you ever hope to receive an answer to yu rather cruptic question?

      That's a polite way of asking "What the hell do you mean?"

      };^D>

      Delete
  26. FT, be careful of this "Tom" he's over at Lisa's having a little girl slap fight with another Tom who is either himself or Dervish and they are both quite silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Rusty, but I bever worry about "Who's Who or Who's NOT Who in this purgatorial playground.

      I'll put it very simply:

      "An Ass is an Ass is an Ass –– no matter WHAT name he or she assumes".

      If someone pretended to be you, and started braying like a jackass, I'd KNOW for SURE that it was NOT you.

      You may take the as a compliment.

      Onward and Upward!

      CHEERS!

      FT

      PS: Don't let the bastards get you down. Keep fighting and above all KEEP SMILING. Our being cheerful and strong in the face of adversity drives LEFTISTS and sanctimonious HYPOCRITES of ALL STRIPES absolutely BATSHIT CRAZY.

      Delete
  27. TO RETURN NCE MORE to the CONTENT of the POST and WHAT IT IMPLIES:

    The OBVIOUS POINT of posting this article was to illustrate graphically how incrediby STUPID and INSENSITIVE the COURTS can be in legally CONDONING the despicable practice of posting "Revenge Porn" in PUBLIC venues under the guise of protectng First Amendment Rights.

    I doubt very much that the Founding Fathers ever had the concept of "protecting" flagrant violations of basic DECENCY when they ratified the Bill of Rights.

    If YOU choose to make a public spectacle of YOURSELF that, probably, ought to be protected, but when a NON-CONSENTING party is involved, and the obvious purpose is to Embarrass, Shame, Disgrace, Humiliate –– and possibly RUIN –– that non-consenting party, there should be NO QUESTION that such conduct MUST be defined and declared as morally and LEGALLY indefensible.

    P_______E_________R_______I_______O_______D_______!

    ReplyDelete
  28. ______________________ NOTICE ______________________

    IF YOU FIND THIS POST "OFFENSIVE," JUST THINK HOW YOU'D FEEL IF IT WERE YOUR DAUGHTER WHOSE NAKED BODY WAS PUT ON DISPLAY by a BOYFRIEND SHE'D REJECTED or a HUSBAND SHE'D DIVORCED.

    THEN TELL ME ALL ABOUT WHY HIS BOORISH ACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED "PROTECTED SPEECH" UNDER the FIRST AMENDMENT.
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without slut shaming, all women would be sluts. :)

      Delete
    2. OOOOOOOOOOOOH YOU!

      };^)>


      Please stop trying to defeat my purpose in posting this provocative material.

      I admit it does have its humoous aspects, but as we know all too well LEFTISTS have NO SENSE of HUMOR, and wish always to take a dim, derogatory view of everythng "WE" do, while THEY vigorously pursue the legalization, promotion and ultimate acceptance of Depravity, Degeneracy, Dissension, Derangement, Destabilization, Dysfunction, Disrespectability, Disreputableness, Dyspepsia and Everything Depressing and Disgusting at every turn all the while telling us how ENLIGHTENED they are for doing so.

      Delete
    3. Thaddeus Cockhammer Stinkfinger Doppelganger VApril 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM

      It is possible to find humor even in circumstances you in general might wish were different. Guess it depends on the setting and specifics. My dear grandmother Mildred often found humor in things she generally didn't talk about. She was a democrat but I never thought of her as a liberal. Funny that!

      Delete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.