Not Guilty.

sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?


Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.


>> ^kir_mokum:

sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.

Never heard of this person before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Never heard of this person before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp


Oh, she's a peach.
http://videosift.com/video/S-E-Cupp-Women-Should-Marry-Rich-TYT

i like how you assume i look up to michelle obama, nancy polosi, or hillary clinton or that my sentiment comes from the fact that S E cupp is women.

if you say vapid, dangerous shit, especially if you say vapid, dangerous shit professionally, you probably need a cock in the mouth. left or right, male or female, straight or gay.

i'm consistent in my distaste for people.

>> ^bobknight33:

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?

Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.

>> ^kir_mokum:
sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.

"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.

This is the [censored] version of the image, as printed in Hustler, replete with a Disclaimer. (SFW)

(My personal view is that this is totally within the bounds of satire, especially with the accompanying disclaimer printed beside it and thus, should not be made illegal.)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Cee Cupp, Hustler' to 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, SE Cupp, Hustler' - edited by Trancecoach

Hustler has been doing this for years.

>> ^Trancecoach:

This is the [censored] version of the image, as printed in Hustler, replete with a Disclaimer. (SFW)
(My personal view is that this is totally within the bounds of satire, especially with the accompanying disclaimer printed beside it and thus, should not be made illegal.)


I am actually in agreement here.

Hell, they could go ahead and 'Shop her face onto some naked woman's body, for all I care. It isn't illegal. I mean, sure, it is in bad taste... but it's HUSTLER. What did anyone expect?

They even put in the disclaimer (in Extremely Obvious Yellow!) to maintain a little 'journalistic' integrity. I would not have expected that.

I was with Ana until the "But you're a man" nonsense.

She's not wrong that someone could remove the disclaimer and just post it out there. But then that's not on Hustler. Hustler did their due dilligence to put that disclaimer on there.

The internet cannot be policed like that.

Besides, S.E. Cupp cannot complain too much, she uses sex to advance her career, I've seen the clips of her with her legs on the desk showing off her assets. Very professional Ms. Cupp. If she was not a very attractive woman, I doubt she would be in the position she is.