(06-04-2023 06:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 10:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 09:16 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 07:40 PM)maximus Wrote:  That movie/show has a rating to allow audiences of certain ages to see the show.... what don't you understand that kids aren't involved.

Thats not a law nor part of a law. Care to try again?

Yes it is,

Tennessee Code 39-17-907, enacted in 1989, states, "...viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian..."

Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Couple of things --

1) Seems the federal judge disagrees with you on the applicability of the now enjoined law to showing RH Pic Show and that the point is made moot by the R-rating statute. Imagine that.

and

2)

Quote:During the hearing, Defendants agreed with the Court’s observation that current obscenity laws already account for much of the conduct that the Statute seeks to punish. When the Court asked exactly what conduct this Statute reaches that is outside the scope of Tennessee’s obscenity laws, Defendant initially answered that the Statute adds very little

Did you catch that little thing about 'current obscenity laws' there Max?

The funny thing is that the issue with the now-enjoined law is that it seemed overbroad, and should be scaled back to avoid it being overbroad.

No one disagrees with your issues on that there should be activity that should be prohibited.

But your response to the issue that the law is overbroad is to label anyone and everyone who thinks that it should solely be crafted more carefully somehow supports the more extreme items you go spastic and apeshit about.

Good grief. Talk about unhinged.

So do the current obscenity laws make it illegal for children to be in attendance at drag shows? If they do then why aren't they being used?

You must support these perversions as well, it is the ONLY reason for someone to argue in favor of them.

You are all sick frickin weirdos that don't mind children being exposed to sexual deviants and deviancy.

Come around my grandchildren with that crap while I'm present and you won't like the results.

So the pedo groomer fans now wanns make it a parental rights issue and scream freedom.

There is no reasoning with these twisted freaks. Im just gonna beat hell out of them if they try it around me and mine and face the consequences.

Worth it

Yet another example of lib logic-

Taking your kids around drag fags is “parental rights”

Also…..

Parents shouldn’t have the right to say their child isn’t taking the clot shot


It always amazes me how liberals can flip flop back and forth 180 degrees with their opinions

(06-04-2023 10:58 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Yet another example of lib logic-

Taking your kids around drag fags is “parental rights”

Also…..

Parents shouldn’t have the right to say their child isn’t taking the clot shot


It always amazes me how liberals can flip flop back and forth 180 degrees with their opinions

They have no moral code.

(06-04-2023 10:15 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 06:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 10:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 09:16 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Thats not a law nor part of a law. Care to try again?

Yes it is,

Tennessee Code 39-17-907, enacted in 1989, states, "...viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian..."

Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Couple of things --

1) Seems the federal judge disagrees with you on the applicability of the now enjoined law to showing RH Pic Show and that the point is made moot by the R-rating statute. Imagine that.

and

2)

Quote:During the hearing, Defendants agreed with the Court’s observation that current obscenity laws already account for much of the conduct that the Statute seeks to punish. When the Court asked exactly what conduct this Statute reaches that is outside the scope of Tennessee’s obscenity laws, Defendant initially answered that the Statute adds very little

Did you catch that little thing about 'current obscenity laws' there Max?

The funny thing is that the issue with the now-enjoined law is that it seemed overbroad, and should be scaled back to avoid it being overbroad.

No one disagrees with your issues on that there should be activity that should be prohibited.

But your response to the issue that the law is overbroad is to label anyone and everyone who thinks that it should solely be crafted more carefully somehow supports the more extreme items you go spastic and apeshit about.

Good grief. Talk about unhinged.

So do the current obscenity laws make it illegal for children to be in attendance at drag shows? If they do then why aren't they being used?

You must support these perversions as well, it is the ONLY reason for someone to argue in favor of them.

You are all sick frickin weirdos that don't mind children being exposed to sexual deviants and deviancy.

Come around my grandchildren with that crap while I'm present and you won't like the results.

So the pedo groomer fans now wanns make it a parental rights issue and scream freedom.

There is no reasoning with these twisted freaks. Im just gonna beat hell out of them if they try it around me and mine and face the consequences.

Worth it

I like it.

(06-03-2023 05:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 03:42 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 12:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 10:21 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Federal court found drag show law unconstitutional:

“The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially
overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to
provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement. The
AEA is substantially overbroad because it applies to public property or “anywhere” a minor
could be present.”

And... it'll be amended and move forward.

The fact you're joyous over this means something.

Sad

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Yeah, it means I respect the first amendment and understand the the constitution applies to everyone and not just people I agree with.

Slinging dick in front of kids... doesn't equal First Amendment rights...



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Agreed that 'slinging dick' in front of kids, let alone anybody, doesnt equal 1st Amendment rights.

Hate to tell you that a man dressing as a woman doesnt equal 'slinging dick in front of kids.'

There is a reason the law was found 'overbroad'.

(06-04-2023 06:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 10:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 09:16 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2023 07:40 PM)maximus Wrote:  That movie/show has a rating to allow audiences of certain ages to see the show.... what don't you understand that kids aren't involved.

Thats not a law nor part of a law. Care to try again?

Yes it is,

Tennessee Code 39-17-907, enacted in 1989, states, "...viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian..."

Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Couple of things --

1) Seems the federal judge disagrees with you on the applicability of the now enjoined law to showing RH Pic Show and that the point is made moot by the R-rating statute. Imagine that.

and

2)

Quote:During the hearing, Defendants agreed with the Court’s observation that current obscenity laws already account for much of the conduct that the Statute seeks to punish. When the Court asked exactly what conduct this Statute reaches that is outside the scope of Tennessee’s obscenity laws, Defendant initially answered that the Statute adds very little

Did you catch that little thing about 'current obscenity laws' there Max?

The funny thing is that the issue with the now-enjoined law is that it seemed overbroad, and should be scaled back to avoid it being overbroad.

No one disagrees with your issues on that there should be activity that should be prohibited.

But your response to the issue that the law is overbroad is to label anyone and everyone who thinks that it should solely be crafted more carefully somehow supports the more extreme items you go spastic and apeshit about.

Good grief. Talk about unhinged.

So do the current obscenity laws make it illegal for children to be in attendance at drag shows?

Depends on the drag show.

Quote: If they do then why aren't they being used?

I suggest you ask the state officials, dude. Im not really the best one to answer.

Quote:You must support these perversions as well, it is the ONLY reason for someone to argue in favor of them.

A false assumption. Both sides of that sentence.

Please define what you deem 'these perversions'.

I have zero issue with a guy dressing up in women's clothing for the most part. Not my cup of tea, but typically no skin off my back.

The line could be crossed into obscene behavior in the above, and when that happens I also have zero issue with the person being charged with obscene conduct.

What I am pointing out is that the law in question to me seemed to be overbroad, and prohibited behavior that probably is protected by the 1st Amendment on its face. It looks like the Fed judge agreed with me.

If you put on your thinking cap, Im not arguing *for* obscene behavior, but against an overbroad application of a state power.

Quote:You are all sick frickin weirdos that don't mind children being exposed to sexual deviants and deviancy.

Lolz. I guess the above is a nuance you dont understand. And choose to spout a bunch of false statements and idiocy. Fun, fun, fun.

Quote:Come around my grandchildren with that crap while I'm present and you won't like the results.

The web warrior outrage machine is in full operation today it seems.

Groomer

(06-04-2023 07:49 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Groomer

Lolz.

(06-04-2023 07:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 05:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 03:42 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 12:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 10:21 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Federal court found drag show law unconstitutional:

“The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially
overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to
provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement. The
AEA is substantially overbroad because it applies to public property or “anywhere” a minor
could be present.”

And... it'll be amended and move forward.

The fact you're joyous over this means something.

Sad

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Yeah, it means I respect the first amendment and understand the the constitution applies to everyone and not just people I agree with.

Slinging dick in front of kids... doesn't equal First Amendment rights...



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Agreed that 'slinging dick' in front of kids, let alone anybody, doesnt equal 1st Amendment rights.

Hate to tell you that a man dressing as a woman doesnt equal 'slinging dick in front of kids.'

There is a reason the law was found 'overbroad'.

Yeah I know right

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Pretty awful taste, fairly awful behavior.

I guess you dont understand the concept that bad taste doesnt equal you can prohibit it.

Is it truly your position that a guy in a dress is equal to slinging dicks in front of kids? A simple yes or no will suffice, since that was your rhetorical post a few back.....

(06-04-2023 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is it truly your position that a guy in a dress is equal to slinging dicks in front of kids? A simple yes or no will suffice, since that was your rhetorical post a few back.....

I think the position is hat a guy in a dress slinging dick in front of kids is a guy slinging dick in front of kids. In the situations that I am aware of where action has been taken, that has been the case, and that bills that I have read seem written specifically to address that situation. The bills that I am aware of specifically require lewd behaviour in the presence of minors. As long as they are restricted to that, even my libertarian side does not have a problem.

(06-05-2023 12:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is it truly your position that a guy in a dress is equal to slinging dicks in front of kids? A simple yes or no will suffice, since that was your rhetorical post a few back.....

I think the position is hat a guy in a dress slinging dick in front of kids is a guy slinging dick in front of kids. In the situations that I am aware of where action has been taken, that has been the case, and that bills that I have read seem written specifically to address that situation. The bills that I am aware of specifically require lewd behaviour in the presence of minors. As long as they are restricted to that, even my libertarian side does not have a problem.

That wasnt the question asked, #s.

Many of the people here point to someone in drag reading a book to children as what they consider to be the point of the issue.

In distinction to your comment above, no one is disputing that 'slinging dick' is 'slinging dick', and no one on this board is disputing that obscene behavior isnt protected by the 1st Amendment.

The original poster of 'slinging dick isnt protected by the 1st Amendment' seemed torqued that someone pointed out that 'dressing as a woman isnt slinging dick', and steadfastly avoids the pointed question.

No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

(06-05-2023 07:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 12:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is it truly your position that a guy in a dress is equal to slinging dicks in front of kids? A simple yes or no will suffice, since that was your rhetorical post a few back.....

I think the position is hat a guy in a dress slinging dick in front of kids is a guy slinging dick in front of kids. In the situations that I am aware of where action has been taken, that has been the case, and that bills that I have read seem written specifically to address that situation. The bills that I am aware of specifically require lewd behaviour in the presence of minors. As long as they are restricted to that, even my libertarian side does not have a problem.

That wasn't the question asked, #s.

Understood. But my point is a different one. The comparison you are invoking is not a relevant one.

I have researched several situations where there have been allegations that nothing more than men in dresses in front of audiences 18 and up have been prosecuted. But upon digging deeper, I have found that the situations prosecuted have in fact involved slinging dick in front of children as young as 3 or 4.

To clarify, a man in a dress does not equal slinging dick. A man in a dress slinging dick in front of minors does equal slinging dick. And the statutes that I am aware of address the latter, not the former.

A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way.

Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

(06-05-2023 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 12:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is it truly your position that a guy in a dress is equal to slinging dicks in front of kids? A simple yes or no will suffice, since that was your rhetorical post a few back.....

I think the position is hat a guy in a dress slinging dick in front of kids is a guy slinging dick in front of kids. In the situations that I am aware of where action has been taken, that has been the case, and that bills that I have read seem written specifically to address that situation. The bills that I am aware of specifically require lewd behaviour in the presence of minors. As long as they are restricted to that, even my libertarian side does not have a problem.

That wasn't the question asked, #s.

Understood. But my point is a different one. The comparison you are invoking is not a relevant one.

The comparison I am referring to is the one brought up by a supporter of the bill on this board when addressing the distinction between drag activity and obscenity.

So I suggest you tutor him -- not me. And chastise *him* for that issue coming to the forefront.

Quote:I have researched several situations where there have been allegations that nothing more than men in dresses in front of audiences 18 and up have been prosecuted. But upon digging deeper, I have found that the situations prosecuted have in fact involved slinging dick in front of children as young as 3 or 4.

And to beat a dead horse, no one is against restricting obscene behavior.

Quote:To clarify, a man in a dress does not equal slinging dick. A man in a dress slinging dick in front of minors does equal slinging dick.

No problemo on any of those propositions.

Quote:And the statutes that I am aware of address the latter, not the former.

The TN statute refers to a 'prurient interest' standard. Again, rather overbroad and vague. I think there are better ways to craft a standard. But, I dont think that matters to some here. Damn cross dressers -- just arrest them if they are around kids...... lolz.....

(06-05-2023 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way. Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

I never said ANYTHING about illegal. There's often a BIG difference between legal and right.

I don't care if it's legal or not. It won't happen in my world, legal or not, and if you let it happen in your world, legal or not, you're a sick pervert.

Kind of humorous that Mr Groomer apparently can't relate to that position.

(06-05-2023 07:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

Have you ever seen a real drag show Mr Groomer?

I have.

It's not anything remotely similar to a woman in a three piece suit. There's nothing sexual about a woman in a suit. Everything about drag is sexual. Are you really serious?

But you just keep on showing your stupidity with your ignorant comparisons.