Texas court rules it's ok to be a pedophile or a pervert

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop:

Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post

Pages: 1 | 2 | Next > [ show all ]

thirtygoats

Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 1,992
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Texas court rules it's ok to be a pedophile or a pervert

#20587371 - 09/19/14 10:42 AM (12 years, 27 days ago)

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/18/texas-court-its-ok-for-creepy-guys-to-take-upskirt-pictures-of-women-or-photos-of-children/

"Yeah, you didn’t read that wrong. A Texas court actually made this disturbing ruling.
In an 8-1 ruling that will likely unleash throngs of perverts upon unsuspecting women and children across the state, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down what it called a “paternalistic ban” on upskirt photographs and other sick uses of cameras. Basically, if a pedophile wants a picture of your child to fiddle with himself to, he now has the legal right to take it. Or if a pervert really wants a photo of a woman’s crotch, he can take that picture even if the woman objects. And what did the judges call this creepy behavior?

“Inherently expressive.”

You know, like art, movies, books, poems, etc… Are you creeped out yet?

“Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that the First Amendment was designed to guard against,” wrote presiding judge Sharon Keller. “The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush.”

Amazingly, a constitutional law expert actually agreed with the ruling. Peter Linzer is a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, and he also thinks it’s ok for perverts to take photographs of women and children without their knowledge or permission.

To think that it’s unlawful to look at a little girl in a swimsuit, when you have lascivious thoughts, in public, and you did not do anything to that child? That cannot be made a crime in the United States. The fact that some people might find that very offensive doesn’t change anything. You can’t prevent someone in public from looking at you and having dark thoughts.

No, you can’t prevent someone from having thoughts, but taking pictures is another thing entirely. It’s a complete violation of a person’s privacy and body. The ruling even includes visual recordings, which means a pervert can place a video camera in a public toilet and record women or children going to the bathroom all he wants for his own sexual gratification. And he can simply call it “art” and get away with it.

What makes this ruling all the more ironic is that conservatives constantly claim that legalizing same-sex marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to increased rights for pedophiles. But Texas is one of the most anti-gay states in the nation, yet one of its own courts just made it easier for pedophiles to photograph children against their parents’ will and for perverts to take upskirt photos against the will of women.

What’s next, Texas? Are you going to make murder, rape, and hate crimes legal too? Surely there are many people who would argue that these actions are “inherently expressive” as well. Therefore, the First Amendment protects them as well. Thoughts are not actions, but snapping a photograph IS. So is shooting someone and assaulting someone. And if you committed the action out of hate, anger, jealousy, fear, desire, or greed, that’s expressive too, is it not?

The fact is, the First Amendment shouldn’t protect everything. The Constitution also protects gun owners, but if they use their gun to murder someone, they go to jail and they lose their guns- at least most of the time. Just like guns, cameras can be used against others in a harmful way and there should be laws that protect people in public. No parent should have to worry about a pedophile taking a picture of their child or have to think about what that pedophile is doing with that picture. Allowing pedophiles to take pictures of children just makes it simpler for them to target future victims. Furthermore, women should not have to worry about being violated because they decide to wear a skirt or use a public restroom.

Congratulations, Texas. You’re still scared to death of two consenting gay adults being intimate in private, but you’ve just paved the way for real perverts to be creeps in public. Women and children beware."

---

Hide ya kids, hide ya wife, etc... if you're in Texas cause they're pedophiles and rapists but they think it's wrong to smoke weed. :thumbdown:

Extras:

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Supreme Court rules it OK for local Governments to seize personal property	DeadPhan	789	1	06/23/05 03:09 PM by gdman
Federal Anti-Drug Laws Trump State Pot Rules	THE KRAT BARON	1,682	6	06/08/05 11:26 AM by barfightlard
Court Allows Church's Hallucinogenic Tea ( 1 2 all )	Deadmaker	4,393	31	02/23/06 12:27 AM by Divided_Sky
Thank God For Texas	daimyo	1,108	14	11/17/05 04:14 PM by Madtowntripper
DeLay Indicted in Texas Fundraising Probe	Deadmaker	838	1	09/28/05 07:40 PM by vinsue
I need someone to write me a rule for The Pub ( 1 2 3 all )	Ripple	2,149	41	03/19/05 09:52 AM by Ripple
latest supreme court descion	phlegmmaiden	1,139	13	01/25/05 05:48 PM by AnyColor
Upskirting is now legal in Massachusetts ( 1 2 all )	OrgoneConclusion	5,898	22	03/07/14 01:30 PM by Konyap