dupe
http://videosift.com/video/Remember-this-video-when-some-TSA-guy-is-fondling-your-junk

>> ^VoodooV:

You may have a right to commerce..but you do NOT have a right to fly and/or drive.
two completely different things my friend.
Don't strawman. You can imagine all you want about what would happen if they said that about blacks...but they didn't.
This isn't Burger King...you don't have a right to "have it your way"


This isn't just having it "our" way. It is the standard form of transportation in the United States...restricting it in such a way as to make it extremely trying isn't right. It would be roughly the same as confiscating your horse in the 18th century because you could use it to steal things and get away quicker. So you can say black and white that Flying does not equal commerce. However it can be argued quite easily that it absolutely is and that the pushback to the TSA is entirely valid.

In anything other than a Tyranny, those in power have the responsibility to show why they have that power. The burden in a free society is completely on the people with power and we're allowed to challenge it. If they don't have a suitable reason than that center of power must be dismantled. In this case if the TSA fails to provide good reasoning (which is currently happening) than they must be disbanded.

>> ^VoodooV:

You may have a right to commerce..but you do NOT have a right to fly and/or drive.
two completely different things my friend.
Don't strawman. You can imagine all you want about what would happen if they said that about blacks...but they didn't.
This isn't Burger King...you don't have a right to "have it your way"


Rights aren't supposed to be enumerated. You have the right to do something first, the restriction is the exceptions that the laws usually address. Like always, the justification for the TSA lies in the "Necessary and Proper Clause" clause in addition to the commerce clause. Through those things will, and have, come the greatest threats to our liberties.

Nathan Fillion seductively fondles my funnybone.

Hey! I just thought of a better name for the vid!

"Fondle Me Elmo"

This is what celibacy makes you do. And you wonder why those asshole priests like fondling alter boys. Sheesh... wake up, people!

>> ^ponceleon:
The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.


Where may we view this other video for... umm, research?

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:
The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.
I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.
This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...
... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.


You make an interesting point. As it stands in the US now, pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws. That is the reason for porn plot, because a video of nothing but sex could be brought up on obscenity charges. Porn is still made on the basis it is an "Art" movie that has sex in it. And as you point out, are and pron aren't mutually exclusive. However, you could just have an understanding that pron, without any artistic merit, isn't allowed. This creates a gray area and becomes very arbitrary, but might be one of the only solutions that doesn't involve over censoring, or opening the flood gates of pron trolling.

On that note, I thought the video was kind of neat, mainly because of the slow motion shock waves rippling across the buttock. Hard to show that without some kind of nudity. I know there exists a sexual fetish based around spankings, but this didn't seem to fit in that category of video.

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the *discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:

The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.

I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.

This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...

... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.

But it looks so good
http://videosift.com/video/Exposed-breasts-Fondling-dancing-don-t-want-to-miss-this

uhm, nevermind...

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Actually, I think misogyny suits him to a T.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Your way of thinking is outdated, outmaneuvered and better suited for the middle ages; also misogyny doesn't suit you.
>> ^fjules:
She got sentenced for life because she refused to have her name on the sex offenders list. Basically, it's her own fault.
"wtf with the crying lawyer?"
Good reason why women can't be lawyers.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^deathcow:

OK downvote my comment UP, but it doesn't make that lawyer look any more professional, I'd hold her contempt for that


The Lawyer did not, at any point, disobey or disrespect the court's authority. I assume that is why you are not a Judge.

It is formal for the judge to call the court to order before issuing the threat of contempt, and sanction. The lawyer was giving her final statement, at which point she realized the futility of the situation.

Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt", such as a person "held in contempt", it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

You know why the lawyer is crying; because the judge doesn't give a shit. The whole tone of that court is bullshit.

Now I'm going to use ad homimen against the quoted person below. Do you dislike the constitution; your comment would seem to put you in that category. This case is clear cut, the Judicial Branch in Nevada does not have the power to call that law what it is; bullshit. The balance of powers is not working, and it is clear in the judge’s tone of voice; "I wash my hands of this."

Read the 8th amendment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Somehow I get the feeling that you would think the ultimatum imposed on Alan Turing was correct and immaculately moral. Read the following excerpt from Wikipedia. Turing’s ultimatum was chemical castration or imprisonment. Bear it in mind that this is the same era where Oppenheimer was persecuted for, what some would say, the same carelessness as Turing.

In January 1952 Turing picked up 19-year-old Arnold Murray outside a cinema in Manchester. After a lunch date, Turing invited Murray to spend the weekend with him at his house, an invitation which Murray accepted although he did not show up. The pair met again in Manchester the following Monday, when Murray agreed to accompany Turing to the latter's house. A few weeks later Murray visited Turing's house again, and apparently spent the night there.[38]

After Murray helped an accomplice to break into his house, Turing reported the crime to the police. During the investigation, Turing acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray. Homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time,[6] and so both were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the same crime that Oscar Wilde had been convicted of more than fifty years earlier.[39]

Turing was given a choice between imprisonment and probation conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections.[40] A side effect of the treatment caused him to grow breasts.

Turing's conviction led to the removal of his security clearance, and barred him from continuing with his cryptographic consultancy for GCHQ. At the time, there was acute public anxiety about spies and homosexual entrapment by Soviet agents,[41] because of the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents. Turing was never accused of espionage but, as with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, was prevented from discussing his war work.[42]

Your way of thinking is outdated, outmaneuvered and better suited for the middle ages; also misogyny doesn't suit you.

>> ^fjules:

She got sentenced for life because she refused to have her name on the sex offenders list. Basically, it's her own fault.
"wtf with the crying lawyer?"
Good reason why women can't be lawyers.