Scanner : constitution

College Students in Maryland Barred From Ever Seeing Porn

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:15:00 GMT

Right-wing politicians, who only seem to care about freedom when it involves grandstanding patriotism or a shot at an NRA endorsement, will do whatever it takes to stop pornography from being shown to anyone, including adults.

So, we're not the least bit surprised that Republican State Senator Andrew Harris in Baltimore County threatened to basically destroy the University of Maryland if he did not get his way on a screening of "Pirates 2: Stagnetti's Revenge." Harris put forward an amendment that said any state school showing porn would lose its funding. Basically, this would've ended the university's $424 million deal if they were to carry on with this weekend's screening, which was almost sold out. Of course, Harris didn't say how he was prove in a court of law that something was "pornography"-- perhaps the "I know it when I see it" argument?

By the way, the school wasn't even hosting the event-- the student union was... and they were paying for it through ticket sales... so none of the state funding was even involved.

According to the Washington Post, there was an amusing twist in the debate:

While another senator was pressing Harris about why his amendment did not apply to double-X or single-X films, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) noticed that a group of third-graders had arrived to watch the action from the Senate gallery.

"Can we move to another amendment?" Miller said. And then: "We welcome the students from Plum Point Elementary School."

As debate on the other issue wrapped up, he told the children: "We're waiting for you to leave the room. We've got to talk about bad stuff."

Later, another senator was citing research that pornography makes men more angry at women who flirt but refuse to have sex. A group from Hollywood Elementary School in St. Mary's County then arrived. [Washington Post]

Representatives from the University, at that point, announced they were canceling the screening. We want to be mad at them, but pornography is not exactly high on our list of "free speech vehicles to defend to the death..."

P.S. Check out a censored Keira Knightley-Pirates-inspired porn comic here.

The Gay Marriage Debate Rages on in California

Emily Farris — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:14:00 GMT

Yesterday the California Supreme Court met to deliberate on the issue of gay marriage in the state yet again, after the court's May ruling to allow same-sex couples to marry was reversed when voters approved Proposition 8 in November.

The hearing lasted more than three hours and though the seven justices all seemed to agree that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally before Prop. 8 passed would remain legally wed, it appears the court may be leaning in favor of Prop. 8

"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right, to amend the Constitution," Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage in May, said.

What else was heard at the hearing? And what did Kenneth Starr have to say?

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all."

-Therese Stewart, San Francisco chief deputy city attorney, arguing that Prop. 8 violates equal-rights principles in the state Constitution

"The people established the Constitution. As judges, our power is very limited."

-Justice Joyce Kennard

"Is it for this court to limit the people's power to amend the Constitution?"

-Chief Justice Ronald George

"Proposition 8 does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided" to same-sex couples.

-Kenneth Starr, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the sponsor of Prop. 8

"If you're in the marriage business, do it equally. If you're not going to do it equally, then get out of the marriage business."

-Michael Maroko, a lawyer for same-sex couples, replying to a question about whether the court should reserve the name "marriage" for religious ceremonies and convert existing civil marriages to civil unions

"It would exceed the power of this court."

-Starr, answering the same question

[SF Gate: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8]

Related:

"The Real World: Facebook" or Scanner Emily vs. The Mormons

Sloppy Seconds: Which Power Ranger Is Guilty of Murder?

This Week in Gayness: Ellen vs. the Bigots

This Week In Gayness: Guy Attacked At Proposition 8 Protest

The Human Herp: Ken Starr Returns To Defend Marriage Against People Who Want It

Brian Fairbanks — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:27:00 GMT

Ken Starr serves as a shining example for all those who believe lawyers deserve their own special circle of hell: he's arrogant, blows through cash like a 93-year-old lottery winner, has no sense of justice or fairness, and is utterly oblivious to his own hypocrisy.

Take for example his latest endeavor: he currently finds himself at the center of the gay marriage battle in California, a closeted homosexual (you heard it here first!) "defending" marriage from people who actually want to have it. This guy's hypocrisy never ceases to amaze us...

From the Los Angeles Times:

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.
Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

There out to be some equivalent of the "asshole tax" for guys like Ken Starr: only it should be for not knowing their history. In other words, people like Starr, who are constantly on the wrong side of history, humanity, and the Bill of Rights should be fined every time they stick their noses in everything. (Of course, that would be unconstitutional, but Starr doesn't even know what that means, so fuck him.)

Let's just make sure this is Kenny's Last Hurrah, and send him, Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh, to whichever circle of imaginary hell they are most afraid of ending up in...

Read more at the LA Times.

Related:

Dumbest Person Ever? Pregnant Woman Gives Birth on Rollercoaster

Blonde-Redhead Muslim Woman Sues Bar Over (Conservative) Red Dress

Is The GOP Over Yet? A New Poll Seems To Think So...

This Week in Gayness: Ellen vs. the Bigots

Brian Fairbanks — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:21:00 GMT

Nutjob of the Century anti-gay activist Janet Porter actually believes Barack Obama will name Bill Ayers to the Department of Homeland Security and that his wife Michelle will read about the Weather Underground to schoolchildren. Do you think these people actually believe these complete exaggerations and lies or are they just trying to win at any cost?

In troubled times, the homeless suffer the most. In George Bush's America, the gay homeless suffer the most.

The internets wish there was more to this story of Gwyneth Paltrow agreeing to "help" Madonna get over Guy Ritchie...

A decade ago this headline would have been a lot hotter: Gwyneth Paltrow says she's "helping" Madonna get over Guy Ritchie. [Fark]

The New York Times thinks the Connecticut gay marriage fight will come down a fight at the constitutional level.

And you just knew Ellen Degeneres and Portia De Rossi would make a video to fight Proposition 8.

Related:

Video of the Day: Vote No on Prop 8

Sex Shop Etiquette... From A $9-An-Hour Sex Shop Employee

Gay Marriage: God Is Gonna Getcha... Claim Scary Freaks

What Does this 93-Year-Old-Man Love So Much About Old-People Sex?

This Week In Gayness: Fauxmosexuals Ruining It For Everyone Else

Gonzo Porn Director Slapped With 4 Years In Prison By Un-American Tampa Court

Brian Fairbanks — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:46:00 GMT

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- from The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906

The US District Court in Tampa, Florida appears to have forgotten the lessons of the above quote, Lenny Bruce, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: on Friday, they sentenced the disgusting, misogynistic, violent, and downright horrible pornographer Max Hardcore (real name Paul Little) to a three years and ten months in prison, a case of gross injustice if there ever was one. The stock market crashes, we may actually elect McCain-Palin, and the national debt is soaring, but the real problem here is our inability to see how all this is leading to a degradation in our collective sanity...

Let's look at the facts: Paul Little made sickening, perverted, and borderline child-porn films featuring women being pissed and puked on, for starters. (No, let's stop there, it doesn't improve from there.) The point isn't what he did-- it's what he didn't do. He didn't do anything that invalidates his First Amendment rights to free speech. He didn't rape children or even film children naked. He was convicted of obscenity, which, if we're not mistaken, is basically the same charges that drove Lenny Bruce to his doom. And would anyone today deny Lenny Bruce's routines were protected speech?

As Slate put it:

“So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you’re an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years."

There's another issue here: why was a California resident, who does his business solely within the state, prosecuted in Florida? Most believe it's because local law in Florida is less kind to the porn people, making it easier to charge and convict Little. (We have yet to hear another rational explanation for the trial's venue.) Of course, we're sure Little will appeal this to the highest levels, although by the time it gets there, we may have a McCain-Palin Supreme Court passing judgment on morality and the Constitution...

Read more here. Thanks to Jeff for the link. UPDATED: For some reason, the quote at the top was deleted after the jump...

Related:

Teenage Boy Busted For Receiving A Nude Picture Message

For Every Action, There Is An Equal And Opposite (Man Boob) Reaction...

Video of the Day: Rachael Ray Corn Porn

San Francisco Street Fair Would Make The Marquis de Sade Proud

Top 5 Sex Scenes From the 1980s

Expose The Cover Up-- This Saturday At The National Go Topless Day

Brian Fairbanks — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:01:00 GMT

The ladies behind GoTopless.org are putting together a gargantuan nationwide protest honoring the Constitutional right to bare breasteses...

Here's the lineup for Saturday's events, all of which begin at noon unless otherwise noted:

LOS ANGELES: Venice Beach "Where Navy Street meets the sand" on the board walk
NEW YORK CITY: Central Park: Merchants Gate at Columbus Circle (59th Street at the corner of Central Park West and Central Park South), right by the giant Time Warner Mall
MIAMI: South Beach meeting time 12:30 PM -- 7th and Ocean Blvd across from News Cafe. Look for the topless women:))
CHICAGO Lakefront (across from Buckingham Fountain)
HAWAII: Honolulu and Hilo Big island
AUSTIN, TX: Hippie Hollow Park
BERKELEY, CA noon to 1pm Sproul Hall on the Mario Salvio famous "free speech" steps
SANTA FE, NM 1-2pm Alameda Park between Guadalupe and Sandoval
OMAHA NE "Heartland of America Park" near Downtown Omaha, Nebraska, and the parking lot is between Capitol Ave, and Douglas St. on 8th St. a link to the map is as follows. http://maps.google.com/maps?source=ig&q=41.25859%2C-95.926609 (starting time is not noon but 3PM for Omaha.
BLOOMINGTON, IN at the sample gates on campus at Kirkwood and Indiana
DENVER: (on Aug 26) at the door steps of the Presidential Democratic Convention.

Spiritual leader "Rael" says the event will raise awareness that the 14th Amendment, that pesky old footnote indicating we're all equal under the law, means women can go bare-chested if men are permitted to do the same. Some judges have-- gasp-- read this well enough to realize it applies to the cases of women who are arrested or ticketed for baring their breasts.

Thanks, Karen F.!

Jim Beam Peeping Tom Ad Too Naughty, Even For Australia

Boobs On Bikes Rides Again, Despite Violent Anti-Violence Protests

Sloppy Seconds: More Naughty Miley Cyrus Photos Leaked

Breaking News: Nerve Conquers All, Or At Least The Child Online Protection Act Trial

Brian Fairbanks — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:32:00 GMT

Do you guys remember the Live From The COPA Trial blog Nerve ran a few years back?

Word just came in from Will Doig, our Editor-In-Chief, that Nerve, Salon, and other websites have won their ACLU-led free speech fight against the dangerous Child Online Protection Act, after years of appeals and other legal wrangling by the government...

Tonight, we'll be rounding up the neighborhood children, strapping them to the chairs, and prying their eyes open to see unquestionable filth like Victoria's Secret, Barack Obama.com, and the "penis balloons" tag on Scanner, all of which will surely damage them for life. Okay, we're kidding, but we'll definitely be celebrating our glorious victory, which is in no small part thanks to testimony by defendent and Nerve CEO, Rufus Griscom...

One ACLU lawyer writes in:

We won! The Third Circuit has affirmed the district court finding that COPA is unconstitutional.

According to Wikipedia:

On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act,^[7] finding the law facially violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Reed issued an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA, commenting that "perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."^[8] The government again appealed, and the case is now before the Third Circuit.^[9]
COPA... is a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of protecting minors from harmful sexual material on the Internet. The federal courts have ruled that the law violates the constitutional protection of free speech, and therefore have blocked it from taking effect. Several US states have since passed similar laws.
The law was part of a series of efforts by US lawmakers legislating over Internet pornography. Parts of the earlier and much broader Communications Decency Act had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; COPA was a direct response to that decision, narrowing the range of material covered. COPA only limits commercial speech and only affects providers based within the United States.

We'll have more on this emerging story, including an interview with an ACLU lawyer, in the very near future...