Winners only.

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

What bout ism

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

I'm not defending the action, I am saying it may very well be legally protected.
I am a big advocate of consistency, especially when it comes to laws, protection of rights, etc. My father was VERY against the whole "Do as I SAY, not as I DO" mantra that a lot of people lived by. He was a fair man, and would never expect someone to do something that he himself would not do. I operate the same way.

IF this action by the couple falls under the guidelines of free speech, then it is free speech whether people like the "speech" or not. Legally, no different than flipping off that cop who gave you a ticket. The cop may not like the "speech", but there is nothing they can legally do about your expression. We may not like someone openly carrying an AR-15 in a WalMart, but if it is a protected right and being done legally, then we can't do a thing about it.

Like the earlier analogies I have made, the laws should be applied consistently or they really have no value at all.

so i guess im struggling to understand how making *** movies for profit falls under the freedom of speech and expression.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

so i guess im struggling to understand how making *** movies for profit falls under the freedom of speech and expression.

There was a court case over it. It was decided that *********** (unless obscene or including children) is considered protected free speech.
Again, "free speech" encompasses a lot more than just saying things aloud, just like "privacy" is a lot more than not having someone look in your windows.

If this went to court as a 1A discussion, they would have to decide whether this was an exercise of free speech, and whether it could be prohibited as such. If they say it is not allowed, then it sets a precedent for any other version of free speech expression in a similar setting.
The Bible reading being an example. If this couple can't exercise their 1A rights (assuming no statute prevents it), then no one should be able to.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Hmmmm…

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Idk if you guy realized this p0rn and ”underage” school kids is diddle kiddie ped0 stuff. Call me crazy but someone ppl on here is a groomer ped0 sympathizers. ‍♂

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

There was a court case over it. It was decided that *********** (unless obscene or including children) is considered protected free speech.
Again, "free speech" encompasses a lot more than just saying things aloud, just like "privacy" is a lot more than not having someone look in your windows.

If this went to court as a 1A discussion, they would have to decide whether this was an exercise of free speech, and whether it could be prohibited as such. If they say it is not allowed, then it sets a precedent for any other version of free speech expression in a similar setting.
The Bible reading being an example. If this couple can't exercise their 1A rights (assuming no statute prevents it), then no one should be able to.

Damn...You're just all about people fckn at school for money...

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

There was a court case over it. It was decided that *********** (unless obscene or including children) is considered protected free speech.
Again, "free speech" encompasses a lot more than just saying things aloud, just like "privacy" is a lot more than not having someone look in your windows.

If this went to court as a 1A discussion, they would have to decide whether this was an exercise of free speech, and whether it could be prohibited as such. If they say it is not allowed, then it sets a precedent for any other version of free speech expression in a similar setting.
The Bible reading being an example. If this couple can't exercise their 1A rights (assuming no statute prevents it), then no one should be able to.

ok, so i guess your stance is becoming a little more clear to me and you are speaking more in the hypothetical

you are saying IF this case was to make it to court, MAYBE they could argue the case that its freedom of speech or freedom of expression!

I mean, i guess they could argue that, but i think any judge or jury of common sense would clearly see it was not an act of self expression and was an act of monetary gain. the fact that Samantha Peer stated "I've never defended myself saying that it was an OK thing to do," she said. "Looking back at it, I would never do that again." to me is an admission that she knew she was in the wrong.

Seems to me that they took advantage of the setting to make a ****, got caught, and was fired over it for their conduct on school grounds. Not only that, but having *** in a public place even violates Onlyfans terms of use.

I for one do not agree that anyone should be having *** on public school property no matter who is or is not around.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Damn...You're just all about people fckn at school for money...

Damn, you're just about running the world based on feelings, in lieu of things like statute, federal regulation, the Constitution.

What other rights do you think should be selectively protected based on how you feel about them?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

ok, so i guess your stance is becoming a little more clear to me and you are speaking more in the hypothetical

you are saying IF this case was to make it to court, MAYBE they could argue the case that its freedom of speech or freedom of expression!

I mean, i guess they could argue that, but i think any judge or jury of common sense would clearly see it was not an act of self expression and was an act of monetary gain. the fact that Samantha Peer stated "I've never defended myself saying that it was an OK thing to do," she said. "Looking back at it, I would never do that again." to me is an admission that she knew she was in the wrong.

Seems to me that they took advantage of the setting to make a ****, got caught, and was fired over it for their conduct on school grounds. Not only that, but having *** in a public place even violates Onlyfans terms of use.

I for one do not agree that anyone should be having *** on public school property no matter who is or is not around.

BINGO
The couple could very easily argue it as 1A protected if they wanted to go to court over it. The money has nothing to do with it, and protected free speech can be used to generate income (hence the multi-billion dollar **** industry).
An additional basis (or several) of their argument could be: Was it illegal/ Were there any rules expressly forbidding it? Were there any rules that indirectly forbid it? Have they even been told not to do it? Etc, etc.
Again, like the NFL players taking a knee. Screams from "fire them!" to "kill them!" were almost immediate. But those were expressions of feelings, not of knowledge.

Then you get into the "public place" argument. Did the space legally constitute a "public place" at the time? For example, having *** in your car is legal becusue that car is considered your personal domain (not necessarily the legal term).

I understand your opinion on this, but I was trying to make this an intellectual discussion based on the known facts of the situation, and the known facts of how our legal system operates.
Some people simply want to "rule" based on how they feel about it, and use this as an opportunity to portray me as some kind of perv who thinks teachers should be going at it on a desk while the kids are having their cookies and milk.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Damn, you're just about running the world based on feelings, in lieu of things like statute, federal regulation, the Constitution.

What other rights do you think should be selectively protected based on how you feel about them?

Pretty sure nobody has a to "right" film **** on school property...

Unless can you show case law definitely stating it's cool to fck for money on school grounds

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Nah, it’s corruption. Deep state protecting their politicians. Has nothing to criminal behavior; has everything to do with crushing a political movement and keeping some of the most evil politicians in power.

So it would have been "the rule of law" if they nailed Hillary's *** to the cross, but it's a political deep state conspiracy when they go after Trump? Makes perfect sense.

And Biden, evil??? Forgetful, suffering from the onset of dementia. I love how our politicians are simultaneously too stupid and incompetent to be running the country, yet at the same time they're the masterminds behind a massive global conspiracy.

To quote Kate Dibiasky: "You guys, the truth is way more depressing. They are not even smart enough to be as evil as you're giving them credit for."

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Pretty sure nobody has a to "right" film **** on school property...

Unless can you show case law definitely stating it's cool to fck for money on school grounds

You are "pretty sure".
Show us how "pretty sure" you are. It's Arizona. Go ahead and show us the law that prohibits it expressly, or even by indirect suggestion.

Like I said, people used to be "pretty sure" it was illegal to burn a flag. People used to be "pretty sure" it was illegal to flip off a cop. People used to be "pretty sure" it should be illegal for inter-ethnic marriages to occur.
In a court of law however, you can't argue based on "pretty sure". You need to show the law.

*I* don't know the Arizona law that covers it. There may be one. If there's not, then it gets covered by a higher law.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You are "pretty sure".
Show us how "pretty sure" you are. It's Arizona. Go ahead and show us the law that prohibits it expressly, or even by indirect suggestion.

Like I said, people used to be "pretty sure" it was illegal to burn a flag. People used to be "pretty sure" it was illegal to flip off a cop. People used to be "pretty sure" it should be illegal for inter-ethnic marriages to occur.
In a court of law however, you can't argue based on "pretty sure". You need to show the law.

*I* don't know the Arizona law that covers it. There may be one. If there's not, then it gets covered by a higher law.

Man you're gonna die on this hill...ain't ya

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

BINGO
The couple could very easily argue it as 1A protected if they wanted to go to court over it. The money has nothing to do with it, and protected free speech can be used to generate income (hence the multi-billion dollar **** industry).
An additional basis (or several) of their argument could be: Was it illegal/ Were there any rules expressly forbidding it? Were there any rules that indirectly forbid it? Have they even been told not to do it? Etc, etc.
Again, like the NFL players taking a knee. Screams from "fire them!" to "kill them!" were almost immediate. But those were expressions of feelings, not of knowledge.

Then you get into the "public place" argument. Did the space legally constitute a "public place" at the time? For example, having *** in your car is legal becusue that car is considered your personal domain (not necessarily the legal term).

I understand your opinion on this, but I was trying to make this an intellectual discussion based on the known facts of the situation, and the known facts of how our legal system operates.
Some people simply want to "rule" based on how they feel about it, and use this as an opportunity to portray me as some kind of perv who thinks teachers should be going at it on a desk while the kids are having their cookies and milk.

knowing what i know about policy in these government settings, i really dont think they would legally have a leg to stand on. I mean, I don't pretend to know what the actual policy is as it relates to their particular school board, but im sure there is a policy somewhere where having *** on school grounds constitutes some form of official misconduct.

When i worked at the sheriff's office we had two similar incidences actually.

One took place inside a deposition room in a courthouse. A bailiff was caught in the act having *** with a court clerk. Both were terminated. The deputy appealed and it was denied. He lost his entire pension and accreditation. The court clerk was also terminated as well.

Another incident where two deputies were meeting up on their lunch breaks and having *** in their cruisers. They were meeting out in a well hidden spot that rarely ever sees people and all, but still got busted because someone forgot to turn off their in car camera and the entire thing was uploaded to the archive. They too were both terminated.

unfortunately, in this day and age, i could completely see some crazy judge and/or people trying to justify this type of behavior. i mean hell, they already are by supporting the indoctrination that is currently happening in school already