This money-slut walk is in response to a police recommendation, not to carry large amounts of cash. We object to such victim blaming. The money is ours. We can carry it wherever we want. No matter if we are drunk or not.

These money-slut walkers are simple fighting for their right show off their money	These ‘slut walk’ women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty
Its my hot money, I do what I want Men and women march through East Los Angeles high crime neighborhood during the money-slut walk, which organizers described as a demonstration against those who blame the victims of robberies.	Women march through downtown Boston during the ‘SlutWalk’ in Boston, which organizers described as a demonstration against those who blame the victims of sex crimes
True liberation is men or women carrying the cash they want and abandon credit cards and modesty	True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.

In this Video, the great Steven Pinker how and why we convey innuendos instead of overt clear language.  Why do we use veiled hidden messages behind our words. The topic is  clarified with nice enlightening drawings by rsa-animate. Must see!

I leave it to the watcher, what this has to do with our favorite topics like dishonesty, unconsciousness,hypocrisy …

"Unborn child pornography is unborn child abuse. In any of its forms, it is an affront to humanity. Any delay in reporting unborn child pornography gives a green light to those who take pleasure from the rape of unborn children."                   (Adapted freely from protectchildren.ca/app/en/mandatory

.

Perverts take ultrasound photos of unborn babies and  distribute them on the internet. source  But does it harm nobody? Weinstein’s critics argue that merely “viewing” unborn child porn does real harm to unborn kids by perpetuating a $3 billion annual market. The Justice Department estimates that in creating their product, unborn child pornographers have abused 1 million unborn kids in the United States. And some studies suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of viewers of unborn child porn also molest a child.     (freely adapted from theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/jack-weinstein/8273/)

Fetuses engaging in indecent touching. Perverts owning such photos deserve to be raped in jail forever. This picture would be rated 7 on the 10 point Copine child pornography scale: Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult. The fetuses also should be arrested at birth:  handcuffed, jailed, and be registered as sex offenders for life.

It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of an unborn child. The lives of the unborn children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered. Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The unborn child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.         (adapted freely from missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504)     “He didn’t intend to hurt anyone. However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.”  thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9019133.html

Technology has made it possible to have unborn porn. Source: uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Child_porn I thank Uncycolpedia for their child porn persiflage which gave me inspiration for this article

Children of 17 years, 12 years, 5 years, 1 year, 1 month of age are all protected strict laws from being abused  by viewers of sexual erotic photos and videos. Owning such photos of children and looking at such photos and videos is child abuse.

But why this 0-18 year age limit? The 18 year cutoff rate already is getting softened. Europe and Australia already punish the possession of depictions of "aparently underage" for 22 year old women in pony tails that look as if they were 17 years old. Thus  the law now protects young looking 22 year old women from child abuse. (see 17 year old "children"?)

Now we need to work on the other end of the age range. Who says that the lower age limit  for child pornography prosecutions has to be zero year old new borns? Embryos and fetuses need protection against abuse and rape, too. Right from conception, when human life is created.

Unborn-child-porn leads to 100 000′s child killings

Often such ultrasound photos are the first step in the monstrous killing of unborn babies. Most abortionists demand ultrasound photos of the unborn child before killing it.  Or even with mothers who did not plan to kill the unborn child, ultrasound pictures discover a problem with the child and thus cause her to decide to kill the innocent unborn child.

And these child killings feed the market for mutilated dead-fetus-porn (dead-unborn-child-porn)

Mutilated dead unborn-child-porn (mutilated fetus porn)

Warning: fairly gruesome photos follow. Dead-unborn-child-porn, mainly from "pro-life" organizations.

Warning: very graphic pictures. These fotos are so gruesome, we will not endeavour to publish them. Many are clearly unborn-child=porn, as the genitals are obscenely exposed. We only publish censored blacked-out pixelated versions. Click to see the uncensored mutilated dead unborn-child-porn. 

Dead fetuses in indecent poses with genitals exposed

There are people who produce, collect, distribute depictions of dead and mutilated unborn children. Pedophiles know no bounds.

Obviously people getting their kicks from watching these photos. Embryos in indecent position with genitals clearly visible. There is an entire web site dedicated to such cruelty. Remember: each time a mutilated embryo is being looked at, it is suffering mutilation again!

• Unborn child with obscenely opened legs and clearly visible genitals
• Dead fetus with in indecent position showing genitals
• Mutilated fetus with legs opened indecently
• Indecent exposure of the behind of an aborted fetus

Rumors are these unborn child pedophiles (also perversely called pro-life) rummage in garbage bins to find life-less victims to photograph.

Some 300, 000 children a year are taken from their wombs because of neglect and abuse. The most horrific crime that can done to an unborn child is sexual abuse. The ridiculous idea is that you can stop abuse by allowing digital unborn child porn. I was a real unborn child exposed to unborn child pornography and it almost killed me.

[...] Unborn child pornography is one of the most overlooked forms of unborn child abuse that exists. This is due in part to the misconception that these victims are willing participants.

[...] The effects of pornography on unborn children specifically and society as a whole are quite obvious. Almost all agree, even the researchers from this study, that in the case of unborn child pornography, where a real unborn child is videotaped or photographed there is always a victim.

Most would also agree the effects are similar for the victims whose pictures have been altered and their face is superimposed on an adult body.        (Freely adapted after MICHAEL REAGAN: Child Porn Is Child Abuse. I Know Because It Happened to Me)

Dead fetus porn (dead-unborn-child-pornography)

Dead fetuses are seen all over the internet! Just because they did not die a violent death by the hand of man does not mean they are not victims.

A six week embryonic age or eight week gestational age intact Embryo, found ia Ruptured Ectopic pregnancy case. source

Victim of a spontaneous abortion, in indecent position with legs wide open. Each time this photo gets looked at, the fetus gets abused again. A complete spontaneous abortion at about 6 weeks from conception, i.e. 8 weeks    source

Twin unborn child pornography

Twin fetuses, of same sex of of opposite sex, confined into a small space.  

Two fetuses together. Why would anyone want to look at such photos?

Two clearly underage fetuses together in close contact. A pedophile’s fantasy

.

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

• The anti child porn crusaders give the (absurd) impression that the average man is prone to get sexually excited by depictions of pre-pubertal children and babies. Men can get in trouble for photographing their own child.
• The anti child porn crusaders suggest that the prohibition of such photos protects children from rape and abuse. 
  • it seems the opposite is the case: Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii). In other words, the entire child pornography craze probably backfires, and actually increase violent rapes and abuse of children.
  • These photos of adolescent and child nudity are so dangerous, we even  sacrifice airline safety due to insane child porn laws, to make sure nobody can see the outlines of an adolescent body on an airport scanner’s screen.
  • It is perfectly legal to show, for profit, on mainstream TV movies of children getting humiliated in fights, beaten to death, stoned to death,

• Child porn laws are dangerous in many ways: Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
• so human-stupidity.com just extends that allegation that most men are prone to attraction  and sexual activity with pre-pubescent children to the equally preposterous allegation that lots of men would get sexually excited by nudity of unborn fetuses
• We understand that some people find it perverse, that we make jokes about "child pornography"
  • Some misunderstanding stems from the perverse fact that due to absurd alteration of our vocabulary,  "Children" can be 17 years old (17 year old "children"? )and "pornography" can be nude photos or even videos of dressed girls in Leotard dancing provocatively. (Knox vs. United States). So Child pornography spans the gamut of 15 year old girls in Leotards dancing provocatively, to 17 year olds photographing themselves in the nude,  to 3 year olds getting violently penetrated and mistreated
  • we think John Wayne Bobbitt dick cutting jokes are tasteless ** “I remember waking up in a pool of blood, with my penis missing, and my first thought was, ‘Y’know, this would make a really amusing stand-up comedy routine.’”…”They told me they were going to re-attach my penis using Micro-Surgery. I was humiliated. I wanted Jumbo-Surgery”… “My medical and attorney bills are over $750,000. Not to brag, but that’s $95,000 per inch”…
  • We think that most literature and legislation child porn sound like bad jokes ( Voodoo science of child pornography laws). Most of the texts from this article were directly adapted from real texts for child pornography persecution apologists.
  • We are outraged that thousands of upstanding normal men are in jail for decades, for possession of so called "child porn", most of which is neither porn nor involves what normal people would call children.
  • But it is not clear to us, why even mere possession of real porn involving real children should be such a terrible crime deserving higher prison terms then the actual act of child abuse.
  • This is shown by the following macabre child-porn-joke. Though somewhat tasteless, we believe it has a deeper meaning:

After being found guilty of the abduction, torture, sexual abuse and then murder of one child, I would have thought now being caught wanking over child porn was demonstrating an improvement in behaviour.  sickipedia.org/getjokes/similar/489667

In case you don’t get the deep meaning of the joke

• according to Dr. Diamond’s research, child porn reduces child abuse crimes exactly because pedophiles get an outlet for their sexual drive.
• even judges protest the insane sentencing laws in the US that punish possession of child porn with higher mandatory jail sentences then for actual child abuse.

Related articles

(in case you don’t get the joke.

• If you shove a policeman and he gives you one single punch only, the policeman already suffers an inquiry.
• if you punch a guy, and he knives you in self defense, your punching victim may go to jail
• You mess with a dog, the dog has no human rights training. The dog has no scruples.
• The dog is like a mobster, like a motorcycle gang member. The has a short trigger, and reacts impulsively, with no mercy.
• You don’t mess with a mobster, a gang member, a motorcycle gang member. Nor with a dog.
• so if someone invades a yard guarded by 3 dobermen, he gets dilacerated. And nobody pities him.
• if a group of punks invade a yard guarded by 3 security guards, the security guards are too afraid to respond in force

)

The changes became known as the “Golden Globes Rule,” for singer Bono’s 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase “really, really, f—ing brilliant.”

All quotes  from http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/supreme.court.indecent.speech/

This not an example of profound human stupidity. It is even understandable that some want to protect their kids from foul language.

Nevertheless, the “Golden Globe Rule” seems to be going overboard.
This is just an amusing example of exaggerated dogmatic conservativism. It must be quite expensive to have all live television programs delayed a few seconds, so that professional who dedicates his live to beeper-button-pressing can bleep out any indecent word that could possibly be spoken.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said “customs of speech” and context made the Federal Communications Commission’s position unworkable.

“As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent,” he wrote. “But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency.”

And Stevens wondered why the agency was going after words that he said had a “tenuous relationship” to sex and bodily functions, while at the same time prime-time commercials “frequently ask viewers whether they, too, are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made clear how she viewed the broader free speech questions the high court may be forced to confront in coming years. “There is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court first ventured into the broadcast speech debate in 1978, when it ruled as indecent a monologue by comedian George Carlin on society’s taboo surrounding “seven dirty words.” The bit had received some radio airplay. Stevens, 89, was the author of that opinion.