[svcw]

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.

[Conservative4Ever]

Wow, I guess Obama really, really, really didn't like the freeper skeet photo with the little red hat and harlequin plaid jockeys. (Snicker)

[Pan_Yan]

From the Fox News article:

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.

[PLD]

They just do not have humor when it comes to how stupid they look in these photo shopped pictures..Most of these idiots do not need the picture to be photo shopped they are vulgar looking and it takes very little to make them look stupid..

[BfloGuy]

Interesting that the article never mentioned his party and that no one here seems curious. Hint: He’s not a Republican.

[Travis McGee]

Who needs to photoshop, when reality is so....

[RIghtwardHo]

Nope. First Amendment.

These are always silly, misguided laws and always unconstitutional.

[EyeSalveRich]

Freedom vs. license is an old and complex debate. People don't really believe in absolute liberty, defined as I can do anything I want. We don't want anyone to have the freedom to walk around with a machete hacking up everyone they come across. Freedom is never the right to DO wrong. It is the right to BE wrong.

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?

[RetSignman]

I 'grand fathered' this one in...just in case

[dangus]

Alternate Headline:
Rep Earnest Smith Announces He Volunteers As Subject of New 4-Chan PhotoShopping Contest

[Lazamataz]

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.

[baddog 219]

Oh Crap! As a avid Photoshop'er..I'm so screwed!

[Cyber Liberty]

Nowhere does in mention, in the entire story, this bozo is a Rat. Someone points that out a few comments down.

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[DoctorBulldog]

Hmmm... I wonder why he would do that?:

[V_TWIN]

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.

[TexasRepublic]

If you call it Art, you can get away with anything, particularly if you are a Liberal.

[jpsb]

The recourse to photoshops that are malicious lies should be in civil courts not criminal courts.

[discostu]

cracked.com could be in a lot of trouble if this passes.

[rlmorel]

This should be a good thread. I will get a picture of this “lawmaker” when I get home and get busy!