Showing posts with label Rob. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rob. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Rob,The Supremes and The Klueless Loozer
(Washington, DC) On Monday, 19 May 2008 the US Supreme Court upheld Congress' most recent attempt to prosecute those who would promote child pornography (Nelson NG Garcia and Kent Barclay, his supporter for example), ruling that the law DID NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (emphasis mine).
The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that laws criminalizing "pandering" (what Barclay did in Brodie Sinclair's name a few days ago) of real or supposed child pornography over the worldwide web or through the mail met constitutional standards.
In essence Barclay won't be able to endorse that proclivity of Nelson Garcia's anymore because the majority of justices dismissed arguments Associate Justice Antonin Scalia called "fanciful hypothetical's" that the law might make documentarians, movie reviewers, and unsuspecting grandparents subject to pandering statutes.
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that "Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens"--children and teens below the age of 18.
The issue in this federal court case, was Congress' passage of the 2003 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act aka the PROTECT Act. There is a provision about the pandering of material as child pornography. It targets the person who "advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits . . . any material or purported material in such a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe that it is child pornography" (must be why Barclay promotes Nelson Garcia). Sources for the above is The Washington Post and the Associated Press.
You gentlemen and informed others may be wondering what that not so keen legal mind and opportunistic Supreme Court watcher and Nelson Garcia, the convicted pedophile, lover Kent Barclay has to say about this clear majority decision. I won't keep you in suspense. Barclay writes "Overly broad and restrictive Court ruling could apply to the movies "Titanic" or "Blue Lagoon[,]" worries industry watchdogs and civil libertarians.
Analysis: As for movies like the TITANIC AND BLUE LAGOON I AND II, those productions and plays and statues and paintings are protected forms of free speech. These have nothing to fear because the totality of the production of artwork is not meant to appeal to the peurile interest.
Does Barclay have more to say? Of course, Barclay continues to demonstrate his ignorance of the First Amendment. To illustrate arrogant Barclay's ignorance of the federal law behind this US Supreme Court ruling, I offer the following statement from Damon Kruezer, Kent Barclay's alter ego:
Analysis, point by point: # & ## taken together--Hyperbole at its worst. From the quoted Washington Post and AP story, cited immediately before Barclay's hype it is clear from context that the justices ruling in the majority narrowed this decision to the PROTECT ACT. A previous, and long standing, US Supreme Court decision protects true drama, in cinematic and live performance as well as artworks. Hence, the current decision is neither ambiguous or overly broad. To interpret the recent decision in that manner is simply another sterling example of Barclay buffoonery at play.
###This is the pedophile argument coming through. Anyone with more than half a brain would know that this is the very purpose of the PROTECT ACT to protect children and underage teenagers. Hence, Barclay has created a self-serving argument for purveying that in the language of the majority opinion, and the ACT itself, is "pandering" which the majority defined as "target[ing] the person who 'advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or purported material in such a manner that is intended to cause another to believe that the material is child pornography.'"
####Also in the quoted Washington Post and AP account of this decision, it is clearly noted that family photos are not the target, thus, nonsense a commodity Barclay deals in freely.
Does Barclay pile more on to his defense of the indefensible, that is child pornography? Yes, indeed the misanthrope doesn't disappoint. Barclay writes "[again],
Analysis: As pointed out above, and in the Washington Post and AP account cited at the head of this commentary, the 7 to 2 majority decision of the US Supreme Court does no such thing. Any discerning citizen of this nation is left to conclude that Kent Barclay is manifestly condoning the promotion of child pornography as evidenced by his unconditional support for convicted pedophile Nelson Garcia aka NG. In sum Barclay is a scumbag as well as a liar and a fraud.
posted by Rob
The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that laws criminalizing "pandering" (what Barclay did in Brodie Sinclair's name a few days ago) of real or supposed child pornography over the worldwide web or through the mail met constitutional standards.In essence Barclay won't be able to endorse that proclivity of Nelson Garcia's anymore because the majority of justices dismissed arguments Associate Justice Antonin Scalia called "fanciful hypothetical's" that the law might make documentarians, movie reviewers, and unsuspecting grandparents subject to pandering statutes.
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that "Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens"--children and teens below the age of 18.
The issue in this federal court case, was Congress' passage of the 2003 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act aka the PROTECT Act. There is a provision about the pandering of material as child pornography. It targets the person who "advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits . . . any material or purported material in such a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe that it is child pornography" (must be why Barclay promotes Nelson Garcia). Sources for the above is The Washington Post and the Associated Press.
You gentlemen and informed others may be wondering what that not so keen legal mind and opportunistic Supreme Court watcher and Nelson Garcia, the convicted pedophile, lover Kent Barclay has to say about this clear majority decision. I won't keep you in suspense. Barclay writes "Overly broad and restrictive Court ruling could apply to the movies "Titanic" or "Blue Lagoon[,]" worries industry watchdogs and civil libertarians.
Analysis: As for movies like the TITANIC AND BLUE LAGOON I AND II, those productions and plays and statues and paintings are protected forms of free speech. These have nothing to fear because the totality of the production of artwork is not meant to appeal to the peurile interest.
Does Barclay have more to say? Of course, Barclay continues to demonstrate his ignorance of the First Amendment. To illustrate arrogant Barclay's ignorance of the federal law behind this US Supreme Court ruling, I offer the following statement from Damon Kruezer, Kent Barclay's alter ego:
"THE KRUEZER believes this ruling mistakenly sets an overly broad precedent that could allow ambitious local prosecutors to bring cases on an extremely ambiguous basis,# and if literally applied could even lead to the recall or banning of such movies as the original "Blue Lagoon" or the German movie "Europa", and possibly softcore versions of adult films in which the protagonists' characters appear to be of questionable age even though the actors are provably 18+.##
Even more worrisome, this ruling allows for criminal prosecution for those who appear to be offering child porn, or who have an interest in acquiring it, without ever actually possessing it.### Thus[,] an email containing an offer to show innocent photos of family or friends' children could be misconstrued as being an offer to show lewd pictures and thus run afoul of this ruling."####
Analysis, point by point: # & ## taken together--Hyperbole at its worst. From the quoted Washington Post and AP story, cited immediately before Barclay's hype it is clear from context that the justices ruling in the majority narrowed this decision to the PROTECT ACT. A previous, and long standing, US Supreme Court decision protects true drama, in cinematic and live performance as well as artworks. Hence, the current decision is neither ambiguous or overly broad. To interpret the recent decision in that manner is simply another sterling example of Barclay buffoonery at play.
###This is the pedophile argument coming through. Anyone with more than half a brain would know that this is the very purpose of the PROTECT ACT to protect children and underage teenagers. Hence, Barclay has created a self-serving argument for purveying that in the language of the majority opinion, and the ACT itself, is "pandering" which the majority defined as "target[ing] the person who 'advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or purported material in such a manner that is intended to cause another to believe that the material is child pornography.'"
####Also in the quoted Washington Post and AP account of this decision, it is clearly noted that family photos are not the target, thus, nonsense a commodity Barclay deals in freely.
Does Barclay pile more on to his defense of the indefensible, that is child pornography? Yes, indeed the misanthrope doesn't disappoint. Barclay writes "[again],
THE KRUEZER opines that the wording is sufficiently vague as to lend itself to twisted interpretations that could criminalize even the most innocent references or blameless movies. We hope that further rulings clarify and severely restrict its impact and implementation.
Analysis: As pointed out above, and in the Washington Post and AP account cited at the head of this commentary, the 7 to 2 majority decision of the US Supreme Court does no such thing. Any discerning citizen of this nation is left to conclude that Kent Barclay is manifestly condoning the promotion of child pornography as evidenced by his unconditional support for convicted pedophile Nelson Garcia aka NG. In sum Barclay is a scumbag as well as a liar and a fraud.
posted by Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
