4 ms·
> "...But I know it when I see it" I have tended to think Stewart was being disingenuous with that statement. Simply because he seems to imply that only what
by cr0sh 9y ago
> "...But I know it when I see it"
I have tended to think Stewart was being disingenuous with that statement.
Simply because he seems to imply that only what he thinks is pr0n is pr0n.
He doesn't seem to realize that anything and everything can be and is pr0n. I've often wondered, upon showing him an image or video of woman's foot in a high heel shoe crushing a wine glass, if he would think that was pr0n or not?
If he said "No, that is not pr0n" - would he ever realize how wrong he was?
- knz 9y agoIsn't his point that the context is what determines the classification? A foot crushing a glass is just that. But the classification and regulation of that image may be different if the context is sexually explicit versus first aid. To use the Nazi example - someone with a SS flag might be a collector or history nerd but if they start marching through the streets with it while chanting racist slogans they will likely be interpreted differently. Defining that in law is difficult but most people know the difference, including those hiding behind free speech.