Posted on 02/14/2013 7:36:50 AM PST by TigerClaws
Sometimes people don't appreciate flattery. They are so engrossed in their own grossly skewed view of the world that their sense of humor flies into the night like a married lover late home for dinner. How else can one explain the quite bizarre intentions of Georgia state Rep. Earnest Smith? He clearly sees a vast importance in being Earnest. He clearly believes that his constituents are so drawn to his Earnestness that anything that deviates it from absolute Earnestness deserves the full metal force of the law. Which is why he wants to make lewd, coarse, filthy Photoshopping illegal and punishable with a fine of $1,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
Before I decide if this is a good idea or not, I want to see pictures of what is considered “lewd, coarse, filthy”.
Maybe four or five examples of each would help.
I bet people could have a lot of fun Photoshopping pictures of Earnest.
What about newspapers that manipulate photos? In 1988, ATEX merged with Eikonix to form EPPS (Electronic Pre-Press Systems. There we were introduced to the Digitizer. The lesson learned was “never believe a photo you see in a newspaper or magazine ever again”.
Everyone has a right to privacy,” he told FoxNews.com. “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right.”
Typical liberal. The Bill of Rights does not include the "right to privacy" your friends made up.
Interesting that the article never mentioned his party and that no one here seems curious. Hint: He’s not a Republican.
Right, little Obambibozopencilarmliar looked like a fool with the photoshopped picture that THEY submitted to make him look ruthless, cunning, manly, barf.
Ok when they do it, but when someone else does it to Obambi, it's a sin.
Reduced to its simplest explanation, any depiction of "Earnest the politician" that casts "Earnest the politician" in a negative light will be deemed "lewd, coarse, filthy".
Photoshops of other people won't get nearly the scrutiny.
Nope. First Amendment.
These are always silly, misguided laws and always unconstitutional.
But that leaves us with the complex question of what is right and wrong. Many libertarian and freedom loving conservatives would define wrong as anything which harms some elses' life liberty or property. But even that definiton is not simple in implementation. By that definiton drunk driving at three time the legal limit of alcohol is not wrong. It is only wrong once you hit someone.
In the current context, could someone's reputation, and therefore life, career, family etc. be harmed by this type of photoshopping? For example someone photoshops the local pastor going into a porn shop. Could it damage his family and career? Is it only wrong if it does damage his career, or harms him in a way that he can prove it in court beyond any reasonable doubt?
What do you think our founding fatehrs in the 1650's would have done if someone painted such a lewd figure of a public figure and put it in public view? Would the action you think they would have taken been because they were liberty hating religious nut prudes, or perhaps is your reaction instead skewed based on successive generations of moral debasement in America?
I 'grand fathered' this one in...just in case
Alternate Headline:
Rep Earnest Smith Announces He Volunteers As Subject of New 4-Chan PhotoShopping Contest
Alinskys Rules for Radicals says ridicule is a powerful weapon, look at the MSM and Conservatives. Moron.
F*** you, Earnest Smith. I am now going to embark on a long litany of outright-obscene photoshops of you. I will double my output if this becomes law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.