The Blaze: “Hustler” smears S.E. Cupp; Update: Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke denounce

posted at 1:23 pm on May 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Follow the link to see what I mean. Pure degradation, and not the first time an “adult magazine” has taken special aim at conservative women. Playboy did it too with their “hate f***” piece in 2009, but that got pulled after the outcry threatened the mag’s reputation for being kinda sorta respectable. How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

Better question: Can she sue? My gut reaction was no, partly because “Hustler” has famously been down this constitutional road before and came out a big winner. But note the fine print in that decision:

This case presents us with a novel question involving First Amendment limitations upon a State’s authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress. We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do…

We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice,” i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.

The image in the Falwell case was a caricature; no one could have mistaken it for reality. A photoshop is different. The question for the court would be whether the disclaimer that “Hustler” posted alongside the image of Cupp is enough to make clear that it’s a parody or whether, in the age of the Internet and Google Images, the image has to be considered in isolation. (In that case, would they be off the hook if they simply slapped a “Satire” label in the corner of the image itself? Probably.) A separate question is what claim(s) Cupp would assert and whether the legal standards for each would be materially different. Remember, the Falwell case wasn’t a defamation claim, it was a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, although the legal touchstone that a public figure needs to show “actual malice” is the same in both. Could Cupp show that “Hustler” had reckless disregard for the truth here notwithstanding the big disclaimer next to the photoshop? It’d be a heavy lift, but we might get to find out.

Here she is chatting with Beck about it this morning. Exit quotation from her statement to The Blaze: “The outrage of Sandra Fluke will not be matched on my side. It seems that feminism has devolved into an institution that has picked losers and winners and has decided that some women qualify for respect and other women do not.”

Update: This is starting to get some movement on the left now, with Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke tweeting their condemnations of “Hustler.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9

So how much money does the dispicable POS throws at Obama ?

burrata on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

sad. unsurprising, but sad.

ted c on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Sounds like a Hate Crime.

ALINSKY RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Ed’s advice that, in the presence of insulting speech, the best answer is probably more speech holds true in this instance.

ted c on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

That sums everything up in one sentence.

What can you do to shame Larry Flynt or people who work for him?

teke184 on May 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Talk about a War on Women.

John the Libertarian on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Better question: Can she sue? My gut reaction was no

Even Mo’ bettah: Should she sue? Same gut reaction s/b no.

Hustler will get its due. Court or no court, it’ll come.

ted c on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

The wicked have no shame.

In the end, they’ll get what is coming to them. But it won’t be through shame.

ted c on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

They can’t argue with the message, so they attack the messeger.

Bunch of girly-men.

kingsjester on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Take this and ram it up their behinds. Leftists look awful when you expose them for what they are. Pinata bashing, anyone?

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

“The outrage of Sandra Fluke will not be matched on my side. It seems that feminism has devolved into an institution that has picked losers and winners and has decided that some women qualify for respect and other women do not.”

NOW are all Flukes.

PETA considers Obama’s dog-eating-fetish eclectic.

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Can someone explain the difference between a “hate f***” and outright rape?

Nevermind; I don’t want to know. Disgusting.

Spannerhead on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Hustler is still in print?

Have its subscribers not yet heard of the Internet?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

What’s worse…this or being beaten by a baseball bat in effigy?

The liberals have gone totally berserk…first the lib bashing a pinata with a bat, now this.

right2bright on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

There’s a reason Larry Flynt was shot.

ToddPA on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Uhhhhhh

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Larry Flynt has said he’s going to vote for Obama. That’s got to embarrass somebody.

Seth Halpern on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You can’t shame Hustler but you can sure shame these “women’s” groups.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

Have Julia in the centerfold…

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I was listening to Glenn this morning when S.E. was on. This is beyond horrible. IMO that picture is out for all to see. Glenn brought up the point, when S.E. has kids, they will have this picture out for them to see? How would you explain to a kid, this is not what mom does?

I don’t know if any legal action could be done for this, but if so, I hope S.E. sues and gets gobs of money!
L

letget on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

This piece of trash is Obama’s kind of literature. He should flood it with campaign propaganda.

rplat on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It’s called Liberalism.

You might have heard of it.

kingsjester on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Ladies. Ladies.

This is what Obama’s supporters think of you.

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

It’s going to be fun listening to the same libtards who want Rush kicked off the air for his Fluke comments defend Flynt on this.

Kataklysmic on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Better question: Can she sue? My gut reaction was no, partly because “Hustler” has famously been down this constitutional road before and came out a big winner. But note the fine print in that decision:

And that sure took a long time to settle. In my opinion, though…no, she shouldn’t be able to sue, any more than Palin should be able to sue the porn company that made a film based on her. Is it vile and contemptible? Sure…but how many conservatives actually read Hustler, anyway?

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

They want war.

I say we give it to them.

Red Cloud on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Given the intellectual level of liberals, I’d imagine that issue will be snapped up. Just like the recent Time and NewSpeak mags. Seems idolatry and child porn have gotten a leg up in the liberal world.

GarandFan on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Is it a parody you condone? Is it honorable?

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

What can you do to shame Larry Flynt or people who work for him?

teke184 on May 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You can’t, it’s like trying to dirty a sewer rat.

Although I have more respect for sewer rats than I do for the child molestor Larry Flynt.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I just fell in love with S.E. a little bit more. Honestly, I didn’t think that was possible.

dts-01 on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Larry Flynt…Obama supporter. Nuff said.

When is Obama going to denounce the Lefts War on Women?

HumpBot Salvation on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

Really. The shameless cannot be shamed, by definition.

Flynt has been crapping on the sidewalk for decades, and he will smear anyone to get attention. He isn’t the only sicko to devote perverse attention to attractive conservative women.

novaculus on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Heck, it took the National Enquirer to expose Jessie Jackson for his infidelity, not the MSM. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised Hustler also has higher standards than the MSM.

Yakko77 on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

You can’t shame Hustler but you can sure shame these “women’s” groups.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

No – unfortunately – you can’t. They don’t care.The opinion of women like you means nothing to them.

CycloneCDB on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

A copy of the image was sent to the National Organization for Women. A press aide told The Blaze she was not authorized to speak for the organization and could not say whether NOW would speak out against it.

Of course not…NOW doesn’t speak against the new shariah, just signed by Karzai and the Taliban, either. Nor did Obama and Hillary. They support tyranny against women.

Only stupid women will vote for Obama and stand with NOW.

This will backfire like all other leftie stupidities will.

Leftie trolls…here, here, here…I can’t wait for your support of yer excrement of a party.

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

You can’t shame Hustler but you can sure shame these “women’s” groups.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Exactly. Get copies of that image to every one of them, and to a few prominent female Cabinet officers, Senators, Reps, and House Minority Leader, and ask them what they think about that. Or what they’re going to do about it.

de rigueur on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

You can’t shame Hustler but you can sure shame these “women’s” groups.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Exactly. They sit by while lefties attack Ann Romney for her horses (please don’t give Hustler any ideas!). They watch as Nikki Haley is lynched and then beaten by Big Labor. And then they snicker when someone puts phallic images in S.E.’s mouth.

But, don’t show up at a rally with a “Confederate flag.”

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM</blockquote
Is Hustler saying this is a parody or are they claiming this is a real picture of Ms. Cupp?

- I have ZERO desire to click on the link… actually I have a desire, which is why I won't.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Is this “HOw would such-and-such celeb look with…” a thing they do in every issue? I honestly don’t think that has to do with her being a conservative/libertarian. I think this has to do with her being hot.

Not defending what they did. However, this seems more like “outragiously outraged” then anything. Don’t go down that road.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

You can’t shame Hustler but you can sure shame these “women’s” groups.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

This. NOW needs to be asked to step up and renounce this defamation of women. repeatedly.

Lost in Jersey on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Just imagine if they made a picture like that using Nancy Pelosi. Actually, don’t imagine that. Seriously, stop imaging it. Arrgh – you can’t!!

Uncledave on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Larry Flynt…Obama supporter. Nuff said.

When is Obama going to denounce the Lefts War on Women?

HumpBot Salvation on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Larry and Bill Maher should team up: Obama supporters that degrade women.

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

How can a smut magazine smear anybody?

Good Lt on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Can Axelrod somehow work this into a campaign ad? Never let a crisis go to waste.

a capella on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

By shaming the people who buy it, although they might be well past any kind of shaming.

kim roy on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

…Yeah, I heard about it. I actually quoted the opinion in this very post.

She’d have a very hard time winning, but as I say, the Falwell case involved a caricature and this involves a photoshop. Is it a “parody”? Would people presented with the image in isolation see it that way? And should the image be considered in isolation or with the disclaimer next to it?

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Just imagine if they made a picture like that using Nancy Pelosi. Actually, don’t imagine that. Seriously, stop imaging it. Arrgh – you can’t!!

Uncledave on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Make it stop! Palomino! PALOMINO!!!

teke184 on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Let the record show that the left seeks to secure followers not by the power of persuasion, but by the threat that those who fail to fall into line will be publicly abused.

A political movement based on intimidation, not on the positive power of its ideas.

Chuckles3 on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Sounds like a Hate Crime.

ALINSKY RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Problem is, the National Socialist Left has no rules.

Chip on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

They’re clear this is faked.

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This is just a variation on the left’s favorite argument:

Shut up, they explained.

It should be pointed out, as S.E. and Beck have done, and then we should move on. Never engage a skunk in a p!ssing match.

Purple Fury on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

You ignore Hustler. You shame Obama and his Leftist friends.

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

It occurs to me, that the party who LOVES to use the term “rape” for everything from soup to nuts, is also the party that is so obsessed with “hate f*$King”. Correlation? And conservatives are the psychotics, riiiggggghhhhhtttt.

waterytart on May 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

They think this helps them? The only people that could possibly find this okay would never vote for a GOPer anyway but it will make the marginal leftist think about what they’re really for. Imagine having to defend it.

DanMan on May 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Larry Flynt has said he’s going to vote for Obama. That’s got to embarrass somebody.

Seth Halpern on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

These are democrats. Isn’t that an impossibility?

kim roy on May 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I just fell in love with S.E. a little bit more. Honestly, I didn’t think that was possible.

dts-01 on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

All this aside, that woman is gorgeous!

CurtZHP on May 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

How do you shame “Hustler,” though?

Um…how do you shame anybody on the left?

I don’t think it’s possible.

kbTexan on May 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Can she sue?

Well, yes. Of course she can. The question is:

Will she win?

Not likely. If she got past summary judgment to a jury, she might get a verdict on sympathy. But on appeal this one is a loser for sure.

novaculus on May 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Perhaps we should ask the rest of the National leadership of the esteemed socialist-left whether they agree with this attack on women?

Chip on May 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

…Oh boy!…this is going to bring out every spokesperson from NOW announcing their outrage 24/7 on all the Media outlets. Why??
…oh…what?…never mind!

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

However, we couldn’t do this for Obama because that would be illegal

- NC public school teacher

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

It’s called parody and Falwell lost that case already.

You might have heard about it.

Moesart on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

What if they’d photoshop such a picture with Michelle Obama, with that in her mouth, because it might not be “fattening”?

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

We have entered a system where there are only two groups; a certain group can have anything and everything done to their person, their character, their honor and their reputation, without anything negative happening to the perpetrators of the offense. And at the same time there’s a second group where if anything happens in any way to them, regardless of whether its an actual offense, a made up offense, a ridiculous offense or a penumbra of an offense, it becomes a crime on par with serial murder where the perpetrators are to be hung drawn and quartered regardless of the validity of the ‘crime’. It’s basically a feudalist system; the proles can be brutalized to the ruler’s pleasure, and any ruler who is harmed in any way can extract brutal punishment on the offender

Defector01 on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The left can demonize, destroy and savage a person on the Right and their image/brand/personhood…….

but we can’t talk about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, the A.R.A., Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s college transcripts, etc.?

BATTLESTATIONS: CONSERVATIVE SUPERPACS!!!

PappyD61 on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Official statement from NOW:

Oh. Never mind.

spiritof61 on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Well, I’d say it’s about time to cancel my subscription. /

Client Number Nine on May 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

What I find hypocritical about Hustler’s behavior is this:

They say sex in all it’s forms is perfectly natural, nothing to be ashamed of. We should embrace it and enjoy it. Stop resisting, it’s all good it’s not dirty. There’s nothing disgusting about it, everyone needs to grow up.

Then they take it, and use it to humiliate someone.

So is it dirty and disgusting or isn’t it ?

moc23 on May 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Yeah, I heard about it. I actually quoted the opinion in this very post.

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Come on, man. We’re supposed to read all this?

/

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Actually, NOW will probably reluctantly (and quietly) denounce this. How could they not.

blink on May 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Too busy rallying around Sandra Fluke who would gladly do the photo shoot (sans photoshop) in the name of sexual liberation.

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

lorien?

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Just imagine if they made a picture like that using Nancy Pelosi.

Uncledave on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Don’t make me come hurt you.

kbTexan on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Talk about a War on Women.

John the Libertarian on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Indeed. Only stupid women believe that the lefties are not misogynists of the first rate.

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

The disclaimer is in plain sight based on the Blaze photo. This is no different than a photo shopped version of pretty much anything.

Tasteless and disgusting, yes. But I don’t think she would have a winner here.

CTSherman on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

What if they’d photoshop such a picture with Michelle Obama, with that in her mouth, because it might not be “fattening”?

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

“Illegal!”

- (again) NC Public School Teacher

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, I heard about it. I actually quoted the opinion in this very post.

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Wait…you mean there’s more to read than simply the headline? I’ve been missing out all these years…

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

When will Obama and his camp denounce this? 3, 2, …never…

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

kbTexan on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Agreed, totally uncalled for! /sort of.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Tasteless and disgusting, yes. But I don’t think she would have a winner here.

CTSherman on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, I’d give her maybe 5% odds of winning.

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What we can use is a little graphic or poster that depicts “Larry and Barry” and includes Larry’s endorsement. That would get some circulation.

I have no skills in that department, but surely someone hanging around here does.

novaculus on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

So is it dirty and disgusting or isn’t it ?

moc23 on May 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I guess it’s only degrading if you don’t happily strip off your clothes or something… hmmm… like rape?

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You ignore Hustler. You shame Obama and his Leftist friends.

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Right. You ask little Bammie to denounce this, and watch him do his usual tapdance. Mark my words, he won’t clearly denounce this, and neither will his court jester Carney.

slickwillie2001 on May 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Larry Flynt and Jabba the Hut, separated at birth.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

It should be pointed out, as S.E. and Beck have done, and then we should move on. Never engage a skunk in a p!ssing match.

Purple Fury on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

If “should be pointed out” involves, um, rubbing it the leftist ladies’ faces, I’d go with that. It’s less about “shaming” them (they’re beyond that) than heightening the hypocrisy of their silence for interested onlookers.

de rigueur on May 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

“I know at least 3 S.E. Cupps” — Carney

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Hustler is still in print?

Have its subscribers not yet heard of the Internet?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

You might be able to find substitutes for Hustler’s witty repartee and insightful journalism on the internet, but it’s not like the web can deliver hardcore pornographic images to you.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Right. You ask little Bammie to denounce this, and watch him do his usual tapdance. Mark my words, he won’t clearly denounce this, and neither will his court jester Carney.

slickwillie2001 on May 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

And WE KNOW he won’t call S.E. on the phone.

MeatHeadinCA on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

What we can use is a little graphic or poster that depicts “Larry and Barry” and includes Larry’s endorsement. That would get some circulation.

I have no skills in that department, but surely someone hanging around here does.

novaculus on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You forget…Larry and Barry would enjoy it.

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

@AP: She’d have a somewhat better chance against Hustler given its standard of “reading,” I’d guess.

Seth Halpern on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

She’d have a very hard time winning, but as I say, the Falwell case involved a caricature and this involves a photoshop. Is it a “parody”? Would people presented with the image in isolation see it that way? And should the image be considered in isolation or with the disclaimer next to it?

Allahpundit on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

What if this pic was of Michelle Obama ?
or Sebelius ? Or Huffington ?

burrata on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Tone.

cd98 on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

No – unfortunately – you can’t. They don’t care.The opinion of women like you means nothing to them.

CycloneCDB on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

You are right, they don’t care but it won’t go unnoticed by the woman on the street who is perplexed about the double standard. NOW want’s advertisers to drop Rush, they should expect no less from advertisers of Hustler.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Yawn. This is Chump Change compared to what Flynt’s misogynists did to Sarah Palin 4 years ago.

Never forget.

Del Dolemonte on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I think we should retaliate and create a similar photoshop with Debbie Washerwoman Schultz.

Oh wait…nevermind.

HumpBot Salvation on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Anyone up for shopping a pic of Larry Flynt having sex with animals?

John the Libertarian on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

This does not seem like a case that anyone would want to take to court. You know Larry Flynt will ask her to identify every phallus she has ever performed said act on and would force her to call all those individuals to “testify” to prove it was not them in the picture.

oconp88 on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

She’d probably lose the lawsuit, but she would bring some attention to this insulting hit job. Not sure if that attention would help or hurt her cause, though.

cd98 on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Haven’t seen the actual picture and don’t intend to.

I suspect, however, that its publication speak volumes about the fantasy’s, depravity, and perversions of its proponents and . . . other than that, has no redeeming value.

EdmundBurke247 on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Anyone up for shopping a pic of Larry Flynt having sex with animals?

John the Libertarian on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

He’d see that as a bragging point.

CurtZHP on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9