Free speech shouldn't include violent porn

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Define "violent" in legal terms.

I love this question...

The reason all these free speech cases are lost and a waste of tax payer money is the hypocricy; point Boxing and Ultimate Fighting which is quite violent and doesn't come with a disclaimer for minors to view is not mentioned. These people just use adult to sensationalize their position - they all need to get a life or have sex.

[Mediaguy]

In the Great White North, the only definition of "obscenity" used is sex with violence, ie., a violent act during the penetration, slapping and fucking, whatever...

Violence can precede the penetrative act, or follow it, but can't occur simultaneously.

Hey, I met Max Hardcore, he's a mellow dude, quiet and polite, and good conversationalist, and if his freak or kink or turn-on is violent, degrading sex, it doesn't affect his demeanor or treatment of people (men and women) outside the boudoir.

Personally, it turns me right off... I'm also not turned on by women in diapers, or foot fetish (though I 've seen the occasional pretty foot) and balloons.

But, some people are and do get into those fetishes... to me that's all it is.