WOW! FBI charges STORY site with Obsenity! - Page 8 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 10-10-2005, 07:30 AM

350........

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Once again the speech you have to protect is the kind that really pisses you off or upsets you not just the easy stuff.

None of us have to protect anything we don't want to.

NOTHING is just black and white.

You sound like Bush, either against us or with us. WTF is with you people... we don't agree so we're not "part of the club"

Ok Jeb, just cut everyone loose who doesn't agree that people should make money off baby fucking pedo porn stories.

Whether you like it or not we're all in this industry together. We will make porn regardless of you liking us going against your belief that baby fucking pedo porn stories are ok.

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

NOTHING is just black and white.

yes it is. its called The Law.

http://www.firstamendment.com/virtual_article.php3

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

yes it is. its called The Law.

http://www.firstamendment.com/virtual_article.php3

Woooe there John Wayne.. the law changes. The GREY areas of the law are interpreted by judges and juries. Juries get to judge obscenity and create precidents.. which change the ways laws are interpreted and followed.

You can do better then that..... can't you?

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 07:47 AM

I am not here to argue really just to post links and facts.

Is Lawrence Walters taking up this case?

You said nothing is black and white. That goes against everything Lawrence Walters has fought for and any law on the books.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

I am not here to argue really just to post links and facts.

Is Lawrence Walters taking up this case?

You said nothing is black and white. That goes against everything Lawrence Walters has fought for and any law on the books.

Do you read the links you expect others to read? Pretty selfish of you not to.

The last line of that looooong article specifically states:

"In this decision, at least, the [Supreme] Court has taken a strong and definite stand in favor of First Amendment rights, and has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to protected speech: If it does not involve children and is not obscene, it deserves First Amendment protection. " NEXT!

Zester · 10-10-2005, 07:52 AM

we don't like it but we are all in this together no matter the content
we have less control of the law's definition of our content than we might think

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Do you read the links you expect others to read? Pretty selfish of you not to.

The last line of that looooong article specifically states:

"In this decision, at least, the [Supreme] Court has taken a strong and definite stand in favor of First Amendment rights, and has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to protected speech: If it does not involve children and is not obscene, it deserves First Amendment protection. "

yes, ACTUAL CHILDREN not fictional ones.

when no victims are being harmed its acceptable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comprehension

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 07:53 AM

As i daid, not here to argue because i think its fear of losing your children that drive these arguments.

Pornographers with kids are the ones living in fear, not me.

TheLegacy · 10-10-2005, 07:59 AM

its not that anyone is for CP - totally the opposite - we are glad that sites like this are dragged out into the light where they will suffer and eventually die. What scares us is that we cannot trust the government to stop there. Once they have started on CP and shit like that, who's can guarantee that they wont start lowering the bar to include s&m or other content until one day a close up on a pussy or even the description of giving oral is banned?

We may not be going over night into the Inquisitions but we are turning in that direction. Restraining religion needs to be addressed first especially when one presidents views on god does not represent everyone under his care.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

yes, ACTUAL CHILDREN not fictional ones.

when no victims are being harmed its acceptable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comprehension

Dude READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO!

"In this decision, at least, the [Supreme] Court has taken a strong and definite stand in favor of First Amendment rights, and has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to protected speech: If it does not involve children and is not obscene, it deserves First Amendment protection. "

If you think baby fucking pedo porn stories will not be judged obscene by anyone but pedos you are sadly mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

As i daid, not here to argue because i think its fear of losing your children that drive these arguments.

Pornographers with kids are the ones living in fear, not me.

You don't know me or how I live my life. I spent nine months fighting for MY RIGHT to freedom of expression, spent over $56,000 in attornies fees, only to have morons on GFY tell me I'm a "radical" because I think pushing baby fucking pedo porn stories is not ok.

I don't live in fear. I have nothing to hide.

The minority of you on this board saying the people who don't agree with you are AFRAID or AGAINST FREE SPEECH or are CONSERVATIVE are as bad as Bush. Everyone has to agree with you or they're a nonconformist, in an indisutry of nonconformist... oh that makes great sense. Very logical. I don't think you guys step out of your bubbles and take a good look at yourselves and the messages you put out in the world.

GigoloMason · 10-10-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

What's the difference between writing about CP and images of CP?

Because to film cp you actually need to use a child?

Either way that site being rubbish aside we keep sliding further down the slope as the feds keep expanding the application of obsinity laws, and that to me is much more disturbing in the long run.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

If you think baby fucking pedo porn stories will not be judged obscene by anyone but pedos you are sadly mistaken.

I have not once in this thread defended child porn stories. I have only defended the fact that stories about rape do not make people rape. you shoudnt lump me in with your enemies. I speak only about protected free speech, you guys see to have went and read all these sick stories. I chose to just not look. Thats my right. I also notice you people are the ones describing these stories in detail.

Quote:

You don't know me or how I live my life. I spent nine months fighting for MY RIGHT to freedom of expression, spent over $56,000 in attornies fees, only to have morons on GFY tell me I'm a "radical" because I think pushing baby fucking pedo porn stories is not ok.

No one is pushing anything and neither myself nor anyone in this thread has said they would sign up for a sponsor that does this. You mothers rage victims are the ones who scream the loudest and its usually because you are afraid of what you are. You are afraid people will take away your children so you scream against others free speech while maintainging you fight to protect it.

Untermensch is all that comes to mind. I will never defend "actual cp" but freedom of speech i will.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/untermensch.html

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

You resort to name calling so soon, a sure indication you can't rationalize your stance.

I can rationalize my stance, and have in fact done so a fair number of times already. Since your argument basically says rationalization is irrelevant - theory being one of the most important parts of rationality - you shouldn't be one to be talking about rationalization anyway.

Aside from that, someone who is clearly ignorant of one of the more important laws of argumentative logic, namely that the validity of an argument is independent from any and all personal traits or actions of its propopent, should really shut up about rationality altogether.

I said: "Are you seriously trying to say that you can't have valid and true opinions on things you wouldn't die for?
If so, you are an idiot."

If you feel you have been called an idiot by that, you apparently subscribe to the idea that one can't have valid and true opinions on things one wouldn't die for, and have thereby proven yourself to be an idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

You fail to realize that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for their belief in freedom and democracy, yet you label me, and all those who have fought for freedom, and those who have died, fundamentalist?

I label you a fundamentalist because you judge arguments not by their merits but by people's willingness to die for them. I label you a fundamentalist because you do not believe in rational debate - which, by definition, is theoretic - but only in the value of fighting to the death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

It's all a game to you, a mind fuck. For you and the very few others here who think this kind of material is theoretically ok to support, none of you have given your money to the red rose defence fund.

Do you give money to Unicef? If not, you don't care about children starving. Do you give money to Amnesty International? If not, you don't care about torture and human rights violations. Do you give money to the WWF? If not, you don't care about wildlife welfare. Do you give money to the Red Cross? Etc.

Clearly, that argument doesn't work. It is possible to have strong opinions about things, actually care about things, and still focus your life on other things. By no means does that make arguments less true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Did you even read the forum link someone here provided where she says specifically that she has found out the hard way that what she's done by writing and diseminating this content is illegal... yes... already illegal. She's not talking out of her ass either, it's what her counsil has advised her.

You mean the piece where she says: "The ONLY legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman, consenting to MISSIONARY POSITION SEX, in a dark room."?

Clearly, she is just talking matter of fact, and is in no way intending the piece as an angry criticism of what happened.

And look at the following: "You CAN NOT write beastiality, water sports, scat, b&d, s&m, slavery, threesomes, orgies, or sex with children. It is considered OBSCENE and is prosecutable. TRUST ME ON THIS. I found out the HARD WAY."

So she is not just "talking out of her ass" or criticising censorship, and it is in fact illegal to write about threesomes and orgies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

You are severely misguided.

Even in the wild dogs piss on trees to mark their teritory, other dogs know where they can, and can't go, without reprocutions. Even with no government, no society, wild animals have rules to follow to survive.

And freedom is not the natural state, anarchy is. If you feel, to live a true life, is to live in anarchy, the "free state of being", then goto the desert and roam free! But don't live in any kind of society because you will always feel like the man is keeping you down.

Nevermind the fact that you missed the actual point... How could I have been so stupid as to use a metaphore when discussing something with a person like you.

Here's a tiny little philosophy lesson:
In political philosophy, concepts like "the original position" and "the natural state", used most commonly by social contract philosophers like Hobbes and Rousseau, are not meant to refer to biological or historic facts. They are used as metaphores, intended to emphasize the influence of the state and in which ways it changes and can change the social position of individuals, contrasted with the position they would have if there was no state.

In such a context, the "natural state" being one of freedom means that freedom is the basic position of the individual, which can only be limited by a state. The role of the state is to limit, not to allow.

Compare the following two positions (where x stands for any random act):
1. "You can do x, unless it is explicitly forbidden"
2. "You can't do x, unless it is explicitly allowed"

The position I hold is, quite clearly, #1. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to assume #2. However, #2 makes no sense when you look at it closely. Am I allowed to put peanutbutter between my toes? Under #2, it would be forbidden until explicitly allowed, which would be ridiculous. In fact, common sense makes it clear that #2 is a plainly wrong way to look at things. It would be impossible to put into practice, and it denies the fact that human beings are active agents.
Clearly, then, freedom is not given, it is the very basis of human existence.

But since you won't understand any of this anyway, I may as well stop typing

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

What scares us is that we cannot trust the government to stop there. Once they have started on CP and shit like that, who's can guarantee that they wont start lowering the bar to include s&m or other content until one day a close up on a pussy or even the description of giving oral is banned?

We may not be going over night into the Inquisitions but we are turning in that direction. Restraining religion needs to be addressed first especially when one presidents views on god does not represent everyone under his care.

We all know better then to trust the government in the first place, at least this administration.

We are the ones who are on the forefront of this social battlefield. The government has, and always will, fight to maintain control. Some administrations are more liberal then others.

Just look at the Visa rules... you can have the term "girl" on your site descriptions, but not "boy" We are already censored

There are more important things for us to piss over here then this baby fucking pedo porn story site.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

I have not once in this thread defended child porn stories. I have only defended the fact that stories about rape do not make people rape. you shoudnt lump me in with your enemies. I speak only about protected free speech, you guys see to have went and read all these sick stories. I chose to just not look. Thats my right. I also notice you people are the ones describing these stories in detail.

No one is pushing anything and neither myself nor anyone in this thread has said they would sign up for a sponsor that does this. You mothers rage victims are the ones who scream the loudest and its usually because you are afraid of what you are. You are afraid people will take away your children so you scream against others free speech while maintainging you fight to protect it.

Untermensch is all that comes to mind. I will never defend "actual cp" but freedom of speech i will.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/untermensch.html

This is not a mind fuck game. You wouldn't go off on personal attacks and tangents if you didn't find this amusing.

The facts are, as you state, that you don't even support what you're defending, either physically or financially. You only support in theory, not reality, which has about as much substance as a fishes fart 3 miles under the sea. Get real.

Fletch XXX · 10-10-2005, 08:21 AM

I DO find it amusing.

because you guys are the ones with people trying to take your kids away because you live disgusting and perverted lives full of sin.

jesus christ will have his way with you sinners.

i just hope some of you make a thread when you lose your kids because of your pornographer lifestyle.

sick sick sick

/sarcasm

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

I can rationalize my stance, and have in fact done so a fair number of times already. Since your argument basically says rationalization is irrelevant - theory being one of the most important parts of rationality - you shouldn't be one to be talking about rationalization anyway.

Aside from that, someone who is clearly ignorant of one of the more important laws of argumentative logic, namely that the validity of an argument is independent from any and all personal traits or actions of its propopent, should really shut up about rationality altogether.

I said: "Are you seriously trying to say that you can't have valid and true opinions on things you wouldn't die for?
If so, you are an idiot."

If you feel you have been called an idiot by that, you apparently subscribe to the idea that one can't have valid and true opinions on things one wouldn't die for, and have thereby proven yourself to be an idiot.

I label you a fundamentalist because you judge arguments not by their merits but by people's willingness to die for them. I label you a fundamentalist because you do not believe in rational debate - which, by definition, is theoretic - but only in the value of fighting to the death.

Do you give money to Unicef? If not, you don't care about children starving. Do you give money to Amnesty International? If not, you don't care about torture and human rights violations. Do you give money to the WWF? If not, you don't care about wildlife welfare. Do you give money to the Red Cross? Etc.

Clearly, that argument doesn't work. It is possible to have strong opinions about things, actually care about things, and still focus your life on other things. By no means does that make arguments less true.

You mean the piece where she says: "The ONLY legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman, consenting to MISSIONARY POSITION SEX, in a dark room."?

Clearly, she is just talking matter of fact, and is in no way intending the piece as an angry criticism of what happened.

And look at the following: "You CAN NOT write beastiality, water sports, scat, b&d, s&m, slavery, threesomes, orgies, or sex with children. It is considered OBSCENE and is prosecutable. TRUST ME ON THIS. I found out the HARD WAY."

So she is not just "talking out of her ass" or criticising censorship, and it is in fact illegal to write about threesomes and orgies?

Nevermind the fact that you missed the actual point... How could I have been so stupid as to use a metaphore when discussing something with a person like you.

Here's a tiny little philosophy lesson:
In political philosophy, concepts like "the original position" and "the natural state", used most commonly by social contract philosophers like Hobbes and Rousseau, are not meant to refer to biological or historic facts. They are used as metaphores, intended to emphasize the influence of the state and in which ways it changes and can change the social position of individuals, contrasted with the position they would have if there was no state.

In such a context, the "natural state" being one of freedom means that freedom is the basic position of the individual, which can only be limited by a state. The role of the state is to limit, not to allow.

Compare the following two positions (where x stands for any random act):
1. "You can do x, unless it is explicitly forbidden"
2. "You can't do x, unless it is explicitly allowed"

The position I hold is, quite clearly, #1. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to assume #2. However, #2 makes no sense when you look at it closely. Am I allowed to put peanutbutter between my toes? Under #2, it would be forbidden until explicitly allowed, which would be ridiculous. In fact, common sense makes it clear that #2 is a plainly wrong way to look at things. It would be impossible to put into practice, and it denies the fact that human beings are active agents.
Clearly, then, freedom is not given, it is the very basis of human existence.

But since you won't understand any of this anyway, I may as well stop typing

Congratulations!

You have just proven this is all a game to you, a mind fuck.

You, and Fletch, the vocal minority, both don't support the baby fucking pedo porn stories in reality, only theory.

You ignore most of what I say that is on topic, and go off on tangents as part of your game.

Life is not a game. Reality is not a game. The repercussions of what we do in reality is not a game. How many GFY'rs trading dead body pics for porn or writing baby fucking pedo porn stories going to jail will it take before you get it through your thick head... life is not a game. You can't do whatever you want and fuck with anyone or fuck anyone over without repercussions. That's reality.. in society and in the wild. Deal with it.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Congratulations!

You have just proven this is all a game to you, a mind fuck.

You, and Fletch, the vocal minority, both don't support the baby fucking pedo porn stories in reality, only theory.

You ignore most of what I say that is on topic, and go off on tangents as part of your game.

Life is not a game. Reality is not a game. The repercussions of what we do in reality is not a game. How many GFY'rs trading dead body pics for porn or writing baby fucking pedo porn stories going to jail will it take before you get it through your thick head... life is not a game. You can't do whatever you want and fuck with anyone or fuck anyone over without repercussions. That's reality.. in society and in the wild. Deal with it.

You still haven't given a single logical, rational and valid reason for your position.

Your main argument seems to be that rational debate and logic are just "a game", and from that you conclude that your position is correct.

To those of us who do believe in logic and argumentation, and do not consider them to be "games", your reasoning seems to border on insanity.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

You still haven't given a single logical, rational and valid reason for your position.

Your main argument seems to be that rational debate and logic are just "a game", and from that you conclude that your position is correct.

To those of us who do believe in logic and argumentation, and do not consider them to be "games", your reasoning seems to border on insanity.

I've already explained my stance, a number of times. You're just bored and wanting to engage in pointless discussion by going over points that have already been made.. sounds like an old girlfriend.

Supporting something in theory, and not reality, is not supporting it at all.

Baby fucking pedo porn stories have no value other then to get pedos off and disgust the curious. Our current laws state that if it involves minors and is obscene, that it's against the law. This content is, and will be, judged obscene. My stance is simple, and has been stated yet again.

Mr.Fiction · 10-10-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Our current laws state that if it involves minors and is obscene, that it's against the law.

Are you totally ignorant of the law and the constitution? Obscenity does not exist at all in the constitution and the supreme court has already ruled that content that does not involve a real child is not child porn.

Are you supporting government censorship of content that offends you? Do you also support the governments of China and Cuba when they censor their citizens?

What are you, some sort of communist? Why don't you leave America if you hate it so much? Take your pro-censorship views to a country like China where they will be appreciated.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Are you totally ignorant of the law and the constitution? Obscenity does not exist at all in the constitution and the supreme court has already ruled that content that does not involve a real child is not child porn.

Are you supporting government censorship of content that offends you? Do you also support the governments of China and Cuba when they censor their citizens?

What are you, some sort of communist? Why don't you leave America if you hate it so much? Take your pro-censorship views to a country like China where they will be appreciated.

Oh yes the third blind mouse.

Was that the "if you don't agree with me leave" argument? Sounds like Bushes "if you're not with us, you're against us." comment... something like I'm unAmerican if I don't believe that pushing baby fucking pedo porn stories is ok like Mr. Fiction.

directfiesta · 10-10-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Oh yes the third blind mouse.

Was that the "if you don't agree with me leave" argument? Sounds like Bushes "if you're not with us, you're against us." comment... something like I'm unAmerican if I don't believe that pushing baby fucking pedo porn stories is ok like Mr. Fiction.

it's called */sarcasm*/

Seems you don't catch that either.

Mr.Fiction · 10-10-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Oh yes the third blind mouse.

Was that the "if you don't agree with me leave" argument? Sounds like Bushes "if you're not with us, you're against us." comment... something like I'm unAmerican if I don't believe that pushing baby fucking pedo porn stories is ok like Mr. Fiction.

Why should anyone care what you say? We are capitalists in America, not communists. I thought Reagan sent all of your type back to Russia in the 1980s.

Bladewire · 10-10-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

it's called */sarcasm*/

Seems you don't catch that either.

Not when there are people here posting the exact same sentiment.

This isn't sarcasm, this is ignorance regarding our current situation:

"Obscenity does not exist at all in the constitution and the supreme court has already ruled that content that does not involve a real child is not child porn."

This statement shows he is clueless to the topic at hand.

A couple of the people who cannot grasp the concept of obcenity are the ones sitting in jail right now, who can't make their bail, and thought this was all a big game of theory relating to the constitution.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

I've already explained my stance, a number of times. You're just bored and wanting to engage in pointless discussion by going over points that have already been made.. sounds like an old girlfriend.

Supporting something in theory, and not reality, is not supporting it at all.

Baby fucking pedo porn stories have no value other then to get pedos off and disgust the curious. Our current laws state that if it involves minors and is obscene, that it's against the law. This content is, and will be, judged obscene. My stance is simple, and has been stated yet again.

Supporting theory is not supporting it at all? What kind of nonsense is that?
This is a *discussion*. In a discussion it's about *arguments*. "You don't really mean what you're saying" is a really, really crappy argument. In fact, it isn't even an argument, since it doesn't actually touch the discussion. It's a pathetic and irrelevant ad hominem.

Let me say this: I am really in favour of free speech. I fully support your right to write up elaborate stories involving fetuses getting raped by shitting dogs and gay horses. I support that right. Not in theory, in practice.
My argumentation for my position is, necessarily, a theoretical one. After all, that's what argumentation is - defending a specific theoretical framework of reality over another one.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of arguments

So, perhaps, it shouldn't be a surprise that you still haven't given a single relevant argument for your position. It is rather shocking, however, to see you defend your lack of arguments for your position by an attack on the very concept of arguments.

Your "stance" is just that: a position, with no relevant logical foundation, devoid of context and meaning. It is based solely on emotion, not on rational thought.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

None of us have to protect anything we don't want to.

NOTHING is just black and white.

You sound like Bush, either against us or with us. WTF is with you people... we don't agree so we're not "part of the club"

Ok Jeb, just cut everyone loose who doesn't agree that people should make money off baby fucking pedo porn stories.

Whether you like it or not we're all in this industry together. We will make porn regardless of you liking us going against your belief that baby fucking pedo porn stories are ok.

This is true then don't bitch when they come after what you do, I never said cp sites are ok or am I for them. This is written word not pics or videos, this was created in someones mind no matter how much it turns my stomach, it has to be protected. Protecting free speech thats easy, that you feel comfortable with isn't protecting anything. Its the stuff that turns your stomach we have to protect because once they start on thought crimes which is going after stories its a slippery slope they will lead to much more vanilla stuff. Bush wants you to take sides because they can keep chipping away at your free speech rights.

Mr.Fiction · 10-10-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

A couple of the people who cannot grasp the concept of obcenity are the ones sitting in jail right now, who can't make their bail, and thought this was all a big game of theory relating to the constitution.

Most good free speech lawyers will tell you that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.

Certain people throughout history have been willing to fight censorship so that you have the right to publish adult material today. If everyone just did everything the government said when some laws are clearly violating the Constitution, you would not have the free speech rights you have today.

Someone has to fight the government to protect all of our rights. No one here wants to be that person, but some here eventually will be.

KRL · 10-10-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

yes it is. its called The Law.

http://www.firstamendment.com/virtual_article.php3

First thing they teach you in law scool is that laws are subject to interpretation.

That why we have courts for christ's sake.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

This is true then don't bitch when they come after what you do, I never said cp sites are ok or am I for them. This is written word not pics or videos, this was created in someones mind no matter how much it turns my stomach, it has to be protected. Protecting free speech thats easy, that you feel comfortable with isn't protecting anything. Its the stuff that turns your stomach we have to protect because once they start on thought crimes which is going after stories its a slippery slope they will lead to much more vanilla stuff. Bush wants you to take sides because they can keep chipping away at your free speech rights.

Exactly. As soon as some words are made illegal, the entire realm of speech becomes vulnerable. There is little as dangerous as a government with the right to imprison people based on the arbitrary social acceptability of their writings.

Mr.Fiction · 10-10-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Most good free speech lawyers will tell you that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.

Certain people throughout history have been willing to fight censorship so that you have the right to publish adult material today. If everyone just did everything the government said when some laws are clearly violating the Constitution, you would not have the free speech rights you have today.

Someone has to fight the government to protect all of our rights. No one here wants to be that person, but some here eventually will be.

I can't edit this post, so I wanted to clarify that obviously no lawyers will tell you to ignore obscenity laws. As a business, you need to be very aware of them. But what free speech lawyer doesn't personally argue and believe that obscenity laws are unconstitutional?

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:03 AM

hahahaha, clueless porn pushers.
hahahaha,
yes, lets defend pedo so the people of our country know who's side we're on.
hahahahaha

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Most good free speech lawyers will tell you that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.

well, they certainly couldn't continue to fleece pornographers by admitting obscenity laws *are* constitutional.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, clueless porn pushers.
hahahaha,
yes, lets defend pedo so the people of our country know who's side we're on.
hahahahaha

Yes, your option is a much better one. Let's encourage the steady erosion of free speech and civil liberties, then watch in wonder when it's our own turn to fall to censorship.

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Yes, your option is a much better one. Let's encourage the steady erosion of free speech and civil liberties, then watch in wonder when it's our own turn to fall to censorship.

hahahaha, yeah, that is the position of the pedophile and his friends.
"hey, once they come after baby fucking, they'll come after you!"

haha, silly kid.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, clueless porn pushers.
hahahaha,
yes, lets defend pedo so the people of our country know who's side we're on.
hahahahaha

Your not part of we you do mainstream now if Im not mistaken, so who really cares what you have to say? If everyone was sheep like yourself and didnt fight for rights, there would be no porn and you would be selling used cars for a living.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, yeah, that is the position of the pedophile and his friends.
"hey, once they come after baby fucking, they'll come after you!"

haha, silly kid.

If you don't see the difference between fucking a baby and typing on a computer, you are blinder than I thought.

KRL · 10-10-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Yes, your option is a much better one. Let's encourage the steady erosion of free speech and civil liberties, then watch in wonder when it's our own turn to fall to censorship.

Come on enough with the argument, all our speech rights will be eroded by taking down a CP site.

We all know the govt can only go so far in terms of censorship. We're only talking about something incredibly off the scales of being obscene and perverted by any standard and that is all.

I'll defend free speech to the death, but when it comes to a sicko site like this, I'll defend the imposition of censorship just as strongly.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

Come on enough with the argument, all our speech rights will be eroded by taking down a CP site.

We all know the govt can only go so far in terms of censorship. We're only talking about something incredibly off the scales of being obscene and perverted by any standard and that is all.

I'll defend free speech to the death, but when it comes to a sicko site like this, I'll defend the imposition of censorship just as strongly.

You are for thought crimes its doesnt take long before you are in their sights, the hop isnt as great as you think. No if they were trading cp I say throw them in jail but for stories no matter how gross I think it is , that has to be protected at all costs.

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Your not part of we you do mainstream now if Im not mistaken, so who really cares what you have to say? If everyone was sheep like yourself and didnt fight for rights, there would be no porn and you would be selling used cars for a living.

you're mistaken.
let me school you a bit. I still made more in erotic stories last week than you have in your career.
sheep like yourself are confused because they have stories on the site. If raw alex is to be believed, and he's generally right, there was much more going on than stories.
now why don't you run along and let the grown ups talk.
Calling people with more knowledge on the subject sheep will get you rave reviews with the kids but not with the adults.

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

If you don't see the difference between fucking a baby and typing on a computer, you are blinder than I thought.

again, you too are confused by the site being called a "stories site"

thats the cool thing about a chat board, when the truth comes out about the site, your misguided opinion will be long forgotten

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

you're mistaken.
let me school you a bit. I still made more in erotic stories last week than you have in your career.
sheep like yourself are confused because they have stories on the site. If raw alex is to be believed, and he's generally right, there was much more going on than stories.
now why don't you run along and let the grown ups talk.
Calling people with more knowledge on the subject sheep will get you rave reviews with the kids but not with the adults.

If you still do adult and support the current admin ,then your not smart you got in the internet early and got lucky.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:22 AM

Also 12 your a marketer of porn which is not a pornographer many get confused by that. I produce adult so these things really matter to me.Where for you its porn today ,mortgages tomorrow.

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

If you still do adult and support the current admin ,then your not smart you got in the internet early and got lucky.

is that how you rationalize your limited success compared to others?

directfiesta · 10-10-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

C
I'll defend free speech to the death,

So why did you fold when the DA said he would prosecute you ( re: your phone sex ... ).
Were you already dead ?

12clicks · 10-10-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Also 12 your a marketer of porn which is not a pornographer many get confused by that. I produce adult so these things really matter to me.Where for you its porn today ,mortgages tomorrow.

hey listen, if you want to produce pedophilia, go defend it. I understand you not getting into the game early means you have to do things I don't.
I mean for me its porn today, mortgages tomorrow, for you porn today pedophilia tomorrow. I understand the whole keeping your options open thing.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

Come on enough with the argument, all our speech rights will be eroded by taking down a CP site.

We all know the govt can only go so far in terms of censorship. We're only talking about something incredibly off the scales of being obscene and perverted by any standard and that is all.

I'll defend free speech to the death, but when it comes to a sicko site like this, I'll defend the imposition of censorship just as strongly.

Yes, speech rights do get eroded when stories, works of fiction, are banned based on their content. It's just one step of many, but an important one nonetheless.

The government can only go so far in terms of censorship for a reason: at some point, people will stand up against the erosion of free speech. If you don't do it though, it won't happen. Rights that are lost are very hard to regain, and if you don't wake up in time you may find you will have lost more than you bargained for in the end.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

is that how you rationalize your limited success compared to others?

No this is how I rationalize people that make stupid comments but have made a bunch of money. I dont do bad for myself, I dont make a bad living beats a day job, its provided me the ability to take classes and learn many new skills. I dont think Im anything special unlike yourself I dont have to puff myself up to make my poor self image feel better.

tony286 · 10-10-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hey listen, if you want to produce pedophilia, go defend it. I understand you not getting into the game early means you have to do things I don't.
I mean for me its porn today, mortgages tomorrow, for you porn today pedophilia tomorrow. I understand the whole keeping your options open thing.

Dont be fucking stupid.

Libertine · 10-10-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

again, you too are confused by the site being called a "stories site"

thats the cool thing about a chat board, when the truth comes out about the site, your misguided opinion will be long forgotten

If the police had any indication that the site served as more than just an exchange of stories (i.e. as an exchange of child porn), I fully support their decision to take action. If they acted solely based on the stories, and intend to prosecute based on the "obscenity" of stories, I am strongly opposed to what happened.

What part of that don't you understand?

10-10-2005, 07:30 AM	#351
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,883	350........ __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

10-10-2005, 07:47 AM	#355
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	I am not here to argue really just to post links and facts. Is Lawrence Walters taking up this case? You said nothing is black and white. That goes against everything Lawrence Walters has fought for and any law on the books. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

10-10-2005, 07:52 AM	#357
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	we don't like it but we are all in this together no matter the content we have less control of the law's definition of our content than we might think __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

10-10-2005, 07:53 AM	#359
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	As i daid, not here to argue because i think its fear of losing your children that drive these arguments. Pornographers with kids are the ones living in fear, not me. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

10-10-2005, 07:59 AM	#360
TheLegacy I'm Bi-sexy Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brantford, Ontario Posts: 14,431	its not that anyone is for CP - totally the opposite - we are glad that sites like this are dragged out into the light where they will suffer and eventually die. What scares us is that we cannot trust the government to stop there. Once they have started on CP and shit like that, who's can guarantee that they wont start lowering the bar to include s&m or other content until one day a close up on a pussy or even the description of giving oral is banned? We may not be going over night into the Inquisitions but we are turning in that direction. Restraining religion needs to be addressed first especially when one presidents views on god does not represent everyone under his care. __________________ Robert "TheLegacy" Warren Skype: robjameswarren RobertWarrenSEO.com

10-10-2005, 08:21 AM	#367
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	I DO find it amusing. because you guys are the ones with people trying to take your kids away because you live disgusting and perverted lives full of sin. jesus christ will have his way with you sinners. i just hope some of you make a thread when you lose your kids because of your pornographer lifestyle. sick sick sick /sarcasm __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

10-10-2005, 10:03 AM	#382
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,737	hahahaha, clueless porn pushers. hahahaha, yes, lets defend pedo so the people of our country know who's side we're on. hahahahaha __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

10-10-2005, 10:22 AM	#393
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Also 12 your a marketer of porn which is not a pornographer many get confused by that. I produce adult so these things really matter to me.Where for you its porn today ,mortgages tomorrow.