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.
Oh Crap! As a avid Photoshop'er..I'm so screwed!
Nowhere does in mention, in the entire story, this bozo is a Rat. Someone points that out a few comments down.
bttt
great pics.
OH ok, all those years of libs photoshopping W as a monkey or hitler well that was OK, but now that it’s happened to HIM well, now somethings gotta be done. F you AHOLE.
I think you described pretty much my thinking, but more eloquently than I could have. It comes down to “my rights end where yours begin” — that is, the machete wielder is perfectly fine possessing and carrying the weapon, but once it uses it to start harming others without just cause, then it’s wrong.
In this case, that is, photoshopping, it’s fuzzier because the damage potentially done is to abstract concepts such as reputation. Clearly, an attempt to falsely manipulate an image for gain would be fraud, but at the same time, parody and satire are strongly protected concepts.
I think, regardless of the content of the image alteration (e.g., “lewd”, “obscene”), and such altered image that is presented as being “true” that can damage a person’s reputation and/or livelihood (the example of photoshopping an image of a pastor or priest (or say, elementary school principal) entering a porn shop is a good one) should be subject to AT LEAST civil damages for libel.
A criminal charge is harder to justify, though when you get into the realm of pornographic imagery, you’re already treading in gray areas to start with.
But something clearly presented as parody or satire (barring any obscenity issues) should be immune from such litigation.
lol....I hadn’t seen that one. That’s hilarious.
If you call it Art, you can get away with anything, particularly if you are a Liberal.
The recourse to photoshops that are malicious lies should be in civil courts not criminal courts.
cracked.com could be in a lot of trouble if this passes.
all the liberal muck mucks who make fun of people left and right,wonder what they are thinking...
and earnest you’re a scmmy politician, not our parent. 1st amendment earnest. don’t likey, don’t listen.
earnest forgets there are libel and slander laws, with hundreds of years of case law behind that.
This should be a good thread. I will get a picture of this “lawmaker” when I get home and get busy!
pictures or it didn’t happen.
What the he x 2 hockey sticks is THAT? Looks like a transvestite who chased me with a knife while on Shore Patrol in Naples...
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Thanks. Agreed. Satire, and humor are entirely different than something presented as truth. The only problem with that is that in the internet age something done well and fuzzily presented as satire can then later take on a life of its own as something real. Once it has it is hard to squash, and damage can be done before it does. Still I wouldn’t want to legislate against it. We as internet consumers need to be careful that we don’t propagate misinformation. Many founding fathers quotes on 2nd ammendment for example are unsupportable from original historic sources. We would do well to check our sources and only using good information. There are plenty of valid quotes.
Lewd and obscene, I agree, are considered grayer areas. My point with that is that 200-300 years ago that was not at all gray. Is that because they were out of touch with liberty, or because we are out of touch with morality?
Will simply putting two pictures in close proximity be cause for a fine, even if you don't alter the photos?
so how do you guys get picts in the posts? Do you just type an anchor tag with href to a link to the picture somewhere else on the internet?
Without even looking, I know this clown’s a democrat. All you need to know is that a person is calling for something very clearly unconstitutional, and you know it’s a dem. Free speech? What? 1st Amendment? Not for long.
I’ll try to send some Info tonight...
Ah, I see you are all set...;)
Hahahaha...I was on Shore Patrol duty, and was supposed to PREVENT people from paying her...er him...er...it!
Ah. One of the old favorites.
I can’t even laugh at it now. This guy is in office, likely will be for the rest of his life, and is making laws that affect me personally.
Now, it makes me want to puke when I see it.
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.