*related=http://videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD

Yeah, that's it.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD

The other one was
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Arab-guy-doesn-t-seem-too-comfortable-being-taken-drifting

Girl in a Toyota Supra - The full, uncensored version in HD has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

Arab guy doesn't seem too comfortable being taken drifting has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

The girl at the end is from:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
(or click here if it turns out I can't invoke related)

Invocations (related=http://videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD) cannot be called by MilkmanDan because MilkmanDan is not privileged - sorry.

Where can we see the uncensored version?

" "Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any reasonable artistic and educational merit, implying its sole intent is to cause sexual arousal." -- Da rules.

We're not prudes here, so 4 of those don't count of lack of proper nudity, and Girl in a Toyota is funny and has a story. Britta crosses the line and should also be * discussed. If it had been discussed and approved already, you'd have a point.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^messenger:
Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?
And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.
They all work for me, but that's neither here nor there.
On the point of "single-purpose fap material"...
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Huh-Title-Just-a-minute
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-To
yota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goe
s-topless-in-Choke
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Kate-Upton-The-Many-Talents
-of-Kate-Upton
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Hot-Girl-Dancing-Around-in-H
er-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-B
ETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows
I can't call this video enjoyable for any reason but that's also neither here nor there, IMO.
I like the line to be clear as well, but it never is. It depends who submits, who complains, what day it is, which way the wind is blowing, etc. I just can't justifiably call this pornographic; certainly no more so than any of those accepted videos above.

>> ^messenger:

Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?
And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.

They all work for me, but that's neither here nor there.

On the point of "single-purpose fap material"...
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Huh-Title-Just-a-minute
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goes-topless-in-Choke
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Kate-Upton-The-Many-Talents-of-Kate-Upton
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Hot-Girl-Dancing-Around-in-Her-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-BETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows

I can't call this video enjoyable for any reason but that's also neither here nor there, IMO.

I like the line to be clear as well, but it never is. It depends who submits, who complains, what day it is, which way the wind is blowing, etc. I just can't justifiably call this pornographic; certainly no more so than any of those accepted videos above.

unedited / uncensored version:
http://youtu.be/SOUwxaAmoAk

this is the censored version, not the uncensored.

at 7:18 in this version he says "Father. Yes son. I want to kill you. Mother.....I want *SCREAM*"

the real uncensored version you can find searching youtube for Doors The end Live.

in the uncensored version recorded in a live performance he says "Father. Yes son. I want to kill you...Mother.... I want to fuck you!"

someone mislabeled this video on youtube, cause this is the radio censored version.

>> ^rottenseed:

I saw the uncensored version before they took it down. He says "cocksucker".>> ^eric3579:
What was the bad word? I want to know.



Al Swearengen as a little boy.

I saw the uncensored version before they took it down. He says "cocksucker".>> ^eric3579:

What was the bad word? I want to know.

"The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell - 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Given the disclaimer, “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it's hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably interpret it as "stating actual fact". Even outside the context of Hustler magazine without the disclaimer (which probably should have been part of the image itself), photoshopped images like this are usually pretty obvious. I haven't been able to find an uncensored version of it, though, so I can't really say, but assuming the editing is obvious, the above argument still holds.

Cenk's point about the image being circulated without their permission is a good one. Clearly you couldn't hold Hustler Magazine accountable for unlicensed distribution, any more than you can hold an ammunition manufacturer accountable for a murder committed with one of their products.

I think one could make a valid legal argument against Hustler if, for instance, an image of her being gang-raped was created and published. In that case, there would be a further issue of promoting violence in general, and upon her in particular. I don't know if it would work, but I think the argument could be made.

All that said, this is really slimy, even for Larry. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone denouncing the image and the actions of the creator/publisher.

And to answer your question @bobknight33, "if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy [sic], Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok[?]," - for the first three, legally yes, but also just as slimy, laughable, and worthy of ridicule/shaming. A mom who isn't a public figure is red herring in this context, but nice try at the emotional jab.

I know you're butt hurt right now, but that's ok. Literacy is something to be proud of.
In reply to this comment by shang:
Yea, short dick man was their only hit though.

here is the uncensored video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrlxvO4YxSE


I actually still own the Vinyl, no idea why the fuck I'd get the vinyl.. but it's sitting amongst my other vinyls, when I saw this posted I had to see if it was same group that did short dick man.

And @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://usesprozac.videosift.com" title="member since August 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#80beed">UsesProzac who clicks a fucking video? I watch the video from the main site. if you watch a video from the main site you don't see the description, you'd realize that if you werent trying to be a mong tard troll about it.

>> ^shang:

Yea, short dick man was their only hit though.
here is the uncensored video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrlxvO4YxSE

I actually still own the Vinyl, no idea why the fuck I'd get the vinyl.. but it's sitting amongst my other vinyls, when I saw this posted I had to see if it was same group that did short dick man.
And @UsesProzac who clicks a fucking video? I watch the video from the main site. if you watch a video from the main site you don't see the description, you'd realize that if you werent trying to be a mong tard troll about it.


But you submitted a comment, surely that takes you to a place with a description? I'm sorry, what was that? It's hard to understand phrases like, "mong tard troll."