There Oughtta Be a Law

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Georgia State Rep. Pamela Dickerson has introduced a silly law that would prohibit Photoshopping someone’s face onto a naked body, then posting the result on the Interent. Naturally, someone on the Internet responded with this. (Possibly NSFW.)

We fight them with ridicule. Conan O’Brien got into the act last night, too. See the video below. (Probably SFW, but not safe for your dreams.)

Meanwhile, a Louisiana parish wants to ban the wearing of pajamas in public.


Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

30 Responses to “There Oughtta Be a Law”

  1. #1 |  CyniCAl | 

    Streisand Effect in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  2. #2 |  picachu | 

    She should thank the person that photoshopped her picture. I bet she don’t look near that good naked in real life.

  3. #3 |  EBL | 

    How is this constitutional given the parody decisions? There seems to be a war on free speech. The more protest the better.

  4. #4 |  Eric | 

    I would be screwed if they outlawed pajamas in public in my town. There’s nothing better than a coffee trip to Dunkin Donuts (or even an early morning grocery store run) in my corporate retreat t-shirt and flannel pajama bottoms.

  5. #5 |  Marty | 

    very nice!

  6. #6 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Weirdest boner right now (over Pelosi and Dickerson–NOT Eric’s pj story).

  7. #7 |  picachu | 

    Boyd Durkin “Weirdest boner right now (over Pelosi and Dickerson”

    Congratulations on being the first human being to ever utter that particular combination of words!

  8. #8 |  Dan | 

    Terrifying but funny.

  9. #9 |  Bob Mc | 

    If this law passes I will fly to Caddo Parish in my PJ’s just so I can ask the first cop who stops me:
    “What are you, the fashion police”?

  10. #10 |  CyniCAl | 


    Make sure you video the cop when you ask him that. They love that.

  11. #11 |  JSL | 

    A Dickerson dickering with the law? Thats unpossible!

  12. #12 |  Dante | 

    Looking at that hurts worse than puppycide.

  13. #13 |  Wunder | 

    Not that it even remotely justifies this silliness, but the article doesn’t mention what I suspect is the genesis of this – a north Atlanta suburban photographer took pictures of children and posted their heads onto pornographic images. Since the article doesn’t say it, I’m not positive that this is the rep’s justification, but the timing leads me to believe it.

    Last week, the photographer plead guilty to possession of child porn, an event which makes her proposed law even sillier – since he’s already been charged and plead to an existing law. Of course, then there’s the question of whether that was really child porn.

  14. #14 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    While I’m not comfortable with ANY form of censorship, I have to admit that the ubiquitous “celebrity head on a porn-image body” pics trouble me. Not that the usual Starlets need much help ruining their “reputation” these days….

    I guess I’m saying that I understand Ms. Dickerson’s impulse, even while thinking it’s wrong.

  15. #15 |  CyniCAl | 

    #30 | C. S. P. Schofield | January 18th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    “Elliot, … And if you can’t in your concience deal with the way things work in this country, even on the level of actively trying to change that, then please leave for somewhere more to your liking. All you are doing here is cluttering up the landscape with fake moral superiority.”

    #43 | C. S. P. Schofield | January 18th, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    “And if, out of all those options, you still can’t decide to do anything other than comment from the sidelines, from the supposed superiority of somebody who doesn’t vote or otherwise participate, THEN get out. Please. As soon as possible. Society needs politically active Hollywood twits more than it needs you.


    But, hey. You’re not comfortable with ANY form of censorship.

  16. #16 |  BamBam | 

    @15 WIN. Hypocrite exposed. Excuses forthcoming.

  17. #17 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    I don’t advocate censoring the “I’m too pure to take part in the political process” crowd. I advocate calling them on their fake moral superiority. They have a fundamental right to make their silly statements, and everybody has a fundamental right to mock them.

    Which isn’t to say that society wouldn’t be fundamentally better off if they would take their precious selves back to whatever ivory tower spawned them, and stayed there.

  18. #18 |  GaryM | 

    I don’t see what’s unreasonable about the bill. It specifies that “A person commits the offense of defamation if such person intentionally causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that the image depicted was that of the person so wrongfully identified.”

    Both intent to deceive and success in deceiving a “reasonable person” are necessary. There are still issues with the bill, such as whether that should really be a civil rather than a criminal matter and whether it draws arbitrary lines between defamatory and non-defamatory depiction, but surely some kind of legal action is legitimate in such situations.

  19. #19 |  CyniCAl | 

    #17 | C. S. P. Schofield | January 19th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    “I don’t advocate censoring the “I’m too pure to take part in the political process” crowd. I advocate calling them on their fake moral superiority.”

    That moral superiority is quite real actually. Sucks to be you.

  20. #20 |  JOR | 

    I’m not too pure to take part in the official political process. I just find it ineffective for achieving my ends. I don’t think it’s morally wrong to vote or campaign within established parties (the arguments that doing so somehow legitimizes the state are not just wrong but plainly stupid); I just see it as a waste of time (at best). Bitching from the sidelines on a blog probably is more effectual (given my aims) than pouring my heart into getting Chairman Ron or whoever elected just so, on the off chance that my efforts pay off, my electoral hero of choice can be immediately impeached or assassinated (assuming they don’t simply trash their principles to Work Together with the Viral Center or pander to the theocons/border communists/capitalist overclass).

  21. #21 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    CyniCAl & JOR,

    I have run into far too many people who decline to vote ….. Or do much of anything other than trot out the “it doesn’t change anything” excuse at cocktail parties. If you do something, pretty much ANYTHING, else to effect changes, you are different. I don’t care if it’s picking up trash by the roadside or working with Habitat For Humanity. But please, do something other than post “I don’t vote” comments. The people who (apparently) believe that refraining from exercising the franchise is a positive and sufficient contribution baffle me.

  22. #22 |  Matt | 

    Didn’t Jon Stewart photoshop Supreme Court justices’ faces onto naked bodies for his textbook thing that came out a few years ago?

  23. #23 |  JOR | 

    Everyone who doesn’t vote makes your vote carry that much more weight. Simple math. So why complain?

    Anyone who, say, throws ideas out to broaden horizons, or breaks the law whenever it’s convenient for them to and gets away with it, is doing something more and better than casting an irrelevant vote for an at best irrelevant political candidate. No, it still isn’t much, at all. That’s how useless voting is.

    By the way, I’ve never been to a cocktail party.

  24. #24 |  Jamessir Bensonmum | 

    I haven’t watched Conan in years. Does he still do the “if they mated” skit where he combines the faces of 2 people to show their potential offspring? That was painful to watch. Ban that too if you’re going to ban this photoshopping stuff.

    As for outlawing pajamas in public I support that. I would appreciate people making an effort to look presentable – pressed slacks, clean shoes, etc. But that’s just me.

  25. #25 |  Jim | 

    Cocktail parties? Really?!?!

  26. #26 |  CyniCAl | 

    CSP, when you finally understand that voting is violence, you will understand the error of your ways. Unless violence is something you approve of. Which you do, if you vote.

  27. #27 |  Rupton |

    I suggest you read the civil lawsuit filed against the individual and The Citadel!

  28. #28 |  tired dog | 

    Dickerson ? ok…

  29. #29 |  mad libertarian guy | 

    While I’m not comfortable with ANY form of censorship, I have to admit that the ubiquitous “celebrity head on a porn-image body” pics trouble me. Not that the usual Starlets need much help ruining their “reputation” these days….

    It disturbs me too.

    No one should have the ability to sully the good name of a starlet by placing the face of a despicable politician on their bodies.

  30. #30 |  Georgia Lawmaker Looking To Make Photoshopping Heads On Naked Bodies Illegal « | 

    […] this so someone doesn't just get a slap on the wrist." Well, the Uptons are in luck. Sort of. The Agitator informs us that Georgia State Representative Pam Dickerson is looking to close this legal loophole by making […]