casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Freedom to make stupid decisions is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of making said stupid decisions. So cry harder.

log_jammin: casual disregard: As it is, you despise your fellow man.

that's it. I despise my fellow man and I support sharia law.

At least you admit it. Most will not.

I feel like I'm on the razor's edge of converting you. Please visit our fake church and worship our imaginary friend. Our brownies are exceptional.

The My Little Pony Killer: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Freedom to make stupid decisions is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of making said stupid decisions. So cry harder.

I think that you might have just stated something important. Please expand on this thought.

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

It is strange to me how you can be both wrong and right.

You are you and I am me. You cannot touch me, and I cannot touch you. Your freedom is most expansible, but it cannot expand to consume my freedom. Do whatever you want, just don't bother me.

EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.

James F. Campbell: Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.

Your use of charged words and naked assertions is both ineffective and transparent.

If he distributed videos of women having sex with animals why did they even have to prosecute under an obscenity charge, as production and distribution of bestiality films is illegal, right?

/IANAL

Omahawg: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

another word for nothing left to lose?

You win the thread.

Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

dopekitty74: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

I question the use of the word abuse in cases where the participant is willing and happy to cooperate.

Should male animals be prevented from having sex because they are incapable of saying hey, i wanna do this, when it's quite obvious they DO indeed want to do it? If that's the case, you might as well just put chastity belts on females of all species, and castrate all males at birth because obviously they're not capable of informed consent because they can't tell us in human language that they want to fark.

We're ALL animals, we're ALL meant to fark, and sometimes interspecies sex happens in the quadruped world all on its own without anyone to worry about how immoral it is.

Much of animal on animal action in nature is rape, but we are capable of being above that.

Omahawg: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

another word for nothing left to lose?

Eagles: "Just some people talkin". Nuff said.

James F. Campbell: EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.

Dear Mr. Campbell, you may be right. Please offer a better definition. I'm open about this. Tonight may just get interesting after all.

No kids or animals I'm okay with.

Trying to stop the industry that is shiat-vid is too dumb for words.

Some Morality Lobbying group getting the government to prosecute this loser three times in order to garner a conviction is a little creepy as well.

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.

You know, the more I read and re-read your reply, the more interesting you become. You're a good man, and I'm glad to know there are folks like you in the world. Why you and I are on fark.com - now that is the real mystery.

I fear you give me too much credit. You might not like what I like in the long-run.

As long as this guy isn't forcing anybody to do anything he shouldn't be arrested. However he needs to be arrested for the animal stuff.

I bet the same jury would have allowed torture porn.

Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint

I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

I understand he represented himself.

starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Isn't it obvious. The message is that women enjoy being shiat on.

C18H27NO3: If there's music/talk on the radio I don't like, I don't tune in.
If there's a show or topic on tv that I don't like, I change the channel.
If I have a dvd in front of me of something I might find offensive, I don't play it.
Websites that contain topics I might find offensive, I don't type them in.
If someone is discussing something with me I find offensive, I change the subject or walk away.

fark that jury.
/Oh and fark that jury.

That's quite sensible, rational, mature and intelligent of you. Sadly there are far too many meddlesome ratbags* around who make it their life's work to attack others for behaviour that harms no one and has no effect on their own lives.


* (c) Viz comic

James F. Campbell: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

Truth. But if you're an artist and you piss off the wrong people, you will be taken down. Just ask Mike Diana.

wow there's a name i haven't seen in 20 years.
is he somewhere playing golf with Jim Goad?

/dkdc

starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.

Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

casual disregard: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.

It does matter. If there is no message and it is simply 'noise', well, hell. We even let muncipalities regulate noise, nevermind the feds.

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Isn't it obvious. The message is that women enjoy being shiat on.

That or a desperate attempt to regain power lost by the patriarchy to women in the last century

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW

starsrift: casual disregard: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.

It does matter. If there is no message and it is simply 'noise', well, hell. We even let muncipalities regulate noise, nevermind the feds.

I'm exasperated. It's not noise, it's expression. It is not something that "should" be done but rather we must accept that it "can" be done.

I accept that awful people will say awful things. I accept that I must tolerate these things in order to live free.

I am an avowed leftist. I could not exist without free speech.

AverageAmericanGuy: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW

Ya ya ya, we know, the dog humped your leg one day and now your confused about your sexuality.

Mike Chewbacca: Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans.

They can't consent to being given baths, either, but they can certainly object. I don't think you or you and two of your friends together could get my Doberman to do anything he doesn't want to do. Of course, if you try to have sex with him, I'll still kill you, even though I don't think he'd let you.

How is this verdict not completely unconstitutional, again?

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.

Actually, I'd buy that argument, in all fairness. Exposing workers to unsafe conditions should apply to porn as much as anything else, I'm not sure if that's the agency that requires condoms and/or absurd amounts of STD testing but it probably should be.

untaken_name: They can't consent to being given baths,

Consent isn't required for tasks that amount to taking proper care of your dependent. You can also give your kids booster shots and dock their allowance for not doing their homework without their consent.

If farking your dog was a vital part of keeping him healthy and free of infection, it wouldn't be illegal. Also dogs would probably not be quite as popular as pets with the exception of some pretty niche markets.

untaken_name: Mike Chewbacca: Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans.

They can't consent to being given baths, either, but they can certainly object. I don't think you or you and two of your friends together could get my Doberman to do anything he doesn't want to do. Of course, if you try to have sex with him, I'll still kill you, even though I don't think he'd let you.

How people don't get arrested for giving their uncompliant children baths, I have no idea

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW

You know that's not what we're talking about here.

I had assumed the animals were not 'receiving'.

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

casual disregard: I'm exasperated. It's not noise, it's expression. It is not something that "should" be done but rather we must accept that it "can" be done.

I accept that awful people will say awful things. I accept that I must tolerate these things in order to live free.

I am an avowed leftist. I could not exist without free speech.

I don't disagree with accepting that people can be allowed to say awful things. Or things, rather, that I think are awful.

But I'm not convinced this film is actually saying or expressing anything.

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

This..... Willing to drop the 2nd fight over 30 round magazines if we can drop the 1st fight over shiat like this. It isn't art.

FARK come to read about corprophilic videos, then discuss animal farkers

Jim_Callahan: untaken_name: They can't consent to being given baths,

Consent isn't required for tasks that amount to taking proper care of your dependent. You can also give your kids booster shots and dock their allowance for not doing their homework without their consent.

If farking your dog was a vital part of keeping him healthy and free of infection, it wouldn't be illegal. Also dogs would probably not be quite as popular as pets with the exception of some pretty niche markets.


Why are you even responding to him? He is a troll, the type of person that shaves his dog, then glues the hair onto his nuts to make himself look like a grown man.

Uranus Is Huge!: Real poo or simulated poo?

It matters.

From what I've read it wasn't real poo. Still gross, but it was some sort of chocolate mixture, and not actual poo.

1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

OMFG, are you serious?