Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Malcadon Apr 20, 2010 18:05:24	For those who dont know, Crush-Videos have "gams" (shapely lady lags with high-heels) with the cutest fuzzy things on earth (kittens, puppies, and bunnies)! You take two of the nicest things on earth... ...and when you put them to gather, you get the most glorious thing on earth! Crushed little kittens and puppies!!! (WOW, both picture together kinda looks freakish together! But why is it making me so aroused?) Animal-rights activists tried to block the sale and distribution of these videos on the grounds of it being too "inhumane", but seeing how these fuzzy things are not even "human" (not to mention that the members of the Supreme Court "took the little bus to school"), I can we can all enjoy these happy little videos - legally! >^.^< ~ MEOW! And good news fellow Pokemon fans, now you can also legally enjoy the bloody spectacle of Pokemon fights!!!
#2 dragom Apr 20, 2010 19:10:43	I'm at once aroused and repulsed by the evil of that.
#3 EscherEnigma Apr 20, 2010 19:15:05	I'd have to double-check, but didn't the supreme court's decision basically say that the law they were striking down was overly broad and on the grounds that it made "permitted" videos (such as hunting videos) illegal, it was an unfair and inappropriate restriction of free speech?  And that, if a more carefully crafted law were put into place, they would have no problem with that?
#4 EscherEnigma Apr 20, 2010 19:23:34	Okay, here's an article.  [link] Here's a few choice quotes about what Justice Roberts wrote: "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." and But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional." Justice Alito Jr., who dissented, wrote "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes[.]"
#5 The_Silversword Apr 20, 2010 19:26:28	Eh? I dont get it. I dont see anything actually being crushed!
#6 dragom Apr 20, 2010 19:35:16	I know, I too was confused. "Crush-Video Kitten" gets you the Kitten Killer of China and her confusion that anyone could object to her filming herself stomping a kitten to death with her Stiletto high-heels. So it passes my "ya, thats a real thing" test
#7 Malcadon Apr 20, 2010 21:50:00	Eh? I dont get it. I dont see anything actually being crushed!
#8 ORC_Sinister Apr 20, 2010 22:06:03	I’ve removed content from this thread because topics of a explicit nature is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...   Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.