BusterBunny

fiddy...............

__________________
my sig caught gonoherpasyphilaids and died

RawAlex

Tony, what do you think I could write in a blog that would be that truly offensive to 99.999999% of the people? I know porn offends some, I know hardcore porn offends more... but nothing, nothing, nothing I could write about porn could be anywhere near as offensive as child molestation and snuff.

If I have to stand up for this shit to stay in business, well, maybe Kimmy is right and it's time for me to go... I can only hold my nose so tightly before it hurts.

Alex

tony286

No you have to stand up for this shit as a american who loves freedom. It has nothing to do with porn, this is freedom of speech.

Joe Fredricks

Oh yea, this is gonna get deep.

No entertainment value in it whatsoever IMHO. But there is no victims either. And can we tolerate a thought as a basis of an obscenity conviction being set as a precedent?

I doubt you'll find many who would find her use of minors in her fantasies as acceptable. I certainly don't, but those kind of writings are not without comparison in classic writings.

Just when you believe that there is a line that can be drawn in the sand in terms of thought and fiction, can you also condem something like Titus Andronicus - The New Cambridge Shakespeare (You'll have to google it - I have less than 30 posts )

It's has all of the elements that exist in Rosie's stories. And if the thoughts and devious intentions of the characters in that work is ok, than why is that so? Because of the author? Or it's classic status in culture?

And were does exaimination of intent of mere words come to an end? Can it be expanded to descriptions? news? how about personal journals?

This case isn't good. It starts bad with what was written, and it ends bad with precedents that may very well be set in penal law. Furthermore, it's going to take an extreme measure of self control to look beyond the words at the deeper issues at play as most people's initial instinct is going to be disgust.

dig420

words are words and actions are actions, they are not the same thing. There isn't yet anything on the books covering thoughtcrime, but we're getting there bit by bit.

next up for them: any owners of oral sites showing gagging will be arrested for assault. Any site that has a story about rape will go to jail for encouraging rapists. Any site that has a negative story about our beloved President will get it's owner thrown in jail for fomenting revolution.

it's not a big mental leap to make, but I don't republicans to be able to make it.

dig420

BAN NABOKOV!!! BAN THE BIBLE!!! Filthy pedos! You are SO morally superior, right Alex?

Libertine

Let's talk about snuff, then. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis, to be exact. A deeply offensive novel to pretty much everyone who reads it. Do you believe it should be banned?

Now, keep in mind, if stories about child abuse can "encourage" people to actually perform criminal acts, the same argument can be made about this book. Serial rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo was a big fan of American Psycho.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Sarah_Jayne

Exactly, along the same lines of how I hate and despise members of groups such as the KKK but I don't think they should be stopped from marching through a town or something. The bigger picture of freedom of expression is my concern. I am not sad to see these story sites down but I don't like where it could lead. One of my faveorite books starts with the rape and murder of a child. That isn't the tone for the rest of the book but most people that call for things to be banned don't actually read the things they want banned anyway.

Sarah_Jayne

and some people listen to heavy metal and then go shoot people.....

RawAlex

Sarah, here's my way of looking at things:

For me, guns (and handguns in particular) have only one job in life: Killing people (or the sub-job, threatening to kill people). There is no sane or normal reason for everyone to have a hndgun, except that, well, everyone else has one, right?

So I say, why have guns to start with? The usual answer I get is "well, if they didn't have guns, they would use a knife or a baseball bat or whatever". I agree, but all of those things have actual purposes other than as a weapon.

I cannot think of a use for extreme pedophile spank material except to encourage and condone pedophile activity.

I can think of many uses for heavy metal music (head banging, listening, enjoyment, dancing, partying, relaxing... whatever). Do I agree with the lyrics of all heavy metal? Nope. I also don't agree with every use of a knife or a baseball bat... but on the whole, there is more good than bad, right?

When you come up with a good reason for pedophile rape and snuff stories to get distributed, let me know.

Dig, GFY. crawl back into your corner and be quiet.

NikKay

First of all, let me say that I realize this is a very sensitive subject for most people and it's very difficult to break away from the emotions it envokes to get to the heart of the issue. I am also a mother, and while I would be sickened to read something like these stories (and have been sickened for weeks at a time by TRUE stories I have read in the news), I still maintain that this person should have the freedom to write and publish them.

There are countless printed books that touch on themes that most people find sickening, immoral, and disturbing. There are countless distributed movies that do the same. There are countless works of art that disturb a lot of people. Should we be banning these artistic works because they delve into things we don't want to know about?

If you believe that a fictional story about a 2-year-old being raped and tortured encourages a person harboring such fantasies to go out and act on them, okay, I don't have the statistics to argue with you. But if you truly believe this, then you should also lobby to ban movies that depict murder sprees, torture, drug use, and rape. While you're at it, lobby to ban books that touch on these topics as well.

FightThisPatent

what makes this country great, isn't just free speech, but that we have the ability to create things, do things, explore things, drive from one end of the country to another without police checks.

What makes this country great is that it is the land of opportunities that our Constitution grants us (grants, because if you abuse it, you lose it).

Given that freedom, individuals use that freedom how they see fit.

Rob Black has the freedom to produce the content that he does, and when the government comes down on him, i feel he should be defending his right, but to expect others to come to the defense for fear of some "slippery slope", is selfish. (insert pic of rob black wrapped in the american flag )

Max Hardcore has the right to produce his content. While many may object to the creative work, he hasn't asked people to defend his right to do such work. He made the choices to run his business, he gains the profits and losses from such.

If someone wants to run a website that harbors stories that are truly of a vile nature, thats their choice in doing so. If the law feels that they have crossed that line, then THEY have to deal with it.

I disagree with the "slippery slope" idea... that if you don't support one thing then all will fall.. what will fall is the target that caused such disruption.

If "extreme" content gets under fire, it won't affect most people, its isolated.. .. but if you believe that the elimination of "extreme" content will then make other content the next target.. then wait a couple of decades for the government to clean up the "extreme" stuff before you have to worry about the slippery slope.

The government is not a good critic of what is "good" or "bad" since its so skewed by the morals and ethics of those in power at the time, and that is why we do have the consitution and the supreme court.

i have faith in our laws and our judicial system, and if we want change, then we have to enact the change.

But these issues involving first amendment cannot be changed or altered by voting in the right party, since it comes down to the execution of the law and the judgement of the law.

So for those that get targeted for obscenity, its going to take alot of money to fight to the supreme court.. and in the end, the ruling will be whether that person goes to jail or not.. and whether that kind of content will then be targeted by the precedent.

i reject the "slippery slope" idea, and i believe if you are going to push the boundaries, then take some self-responsibilities to accept the potential liabilities in light of any return (whether money or just creative outlet) and if you get snared, you'll have to deal with the consequences.

If there are those that want to help fund that defense, more power to them and their generosity... but there are so many people pushing the boundaries, and just means more of those cases will be targeted.


Fight the banana peels on the incline!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

tony286

Fight how can you not see, fuck our industryits so much bigger than that. This creates a bar for free speech and once a bar is created it can be moved. Censorship of free thought happens slowly then one day its like remember that political blog well they arrested him. The speech you must protect is the speech you hate!

FightThisPatent

So let's be pragmatic... how do you fight for the thing you hate, but have to fight for it for the bigger picture?

What should people be doing?

Should they be donating money to this case so that she can hire attorneys to take this case to the supreme court?

Should we just post up that we send her good karma for excercising her right to freedom of speech in harboring/promoting vile content?

And what about the next obscenity case that comes? and the next?



Fight the piggy bank!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

tony286

this is a thought crime, its made up doesnt exist.fiction just like a book at borders.I cant believe you dont see its bigger than adult.

Mr. Romance

As far as I feel, fuck her and any mother that fucks with Minors!


Mr. Romance

__________________
Free Leads Program now paying up to $6

Gerard-Director of Global Sales
Sign up Here: CamStarCash
Check out: FreeCamStars
ICQ: 330 662 299
gerard at freecamstars . com

RawAlex

Tony, that is exactly the point... slippery slope is a bullshit excuse that the .00000001% of the most radical and extreme people use to protect their often vulgar and disgusting ideas and writings. They are preying on your fear to get you to support their twisted words, for fear of losing your right to say your piece. You have been tricked into becoming their partner, their supporter.

There is a (weak) concept of community standards that applies to porn. Why it can be applied to images (even cartoons) but not words (produced by the same hand as those cartoons even) is just not logical.

Unlimited freedom is a myth, as freedom brings responsibility, respect, and restraint. The Red Rose story site didn't show very much of those important things.

FightThisPatent

yes, and i saw Minority Report, and we a long ways to having cars that can drive vertically.. we can't even get fuel celled cars into mass production.

I don't subscribe to the idea that our country is going to be overrun with any doomsday scenario of the curtailing of freedom....

and if that does occur, that would ONLY occur because the masses, the majority wanted it... while alot of america is conservative, i don't see them being too hypocritical to know they can;t be wagging their finger at someone who is producing porn, when they watch it in their homes.

Fight the dog!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

BitAudioVideo

expressing my freedom of speech....

think ill start a site, writing stories and charging $10/mo...

about the various ways to torture "Red Rose" and her 29 members.

__________________
Hi-Quality Encoding - Bulk Orders - On Time!
http://bitaudiovideo.com
icq 50476697 - aim n3r0xXx

FightThisPatent

If she made a million dollars off that content, you think she is going to give it to her supportors? you thiknk she wll invest heavily in other people's defenses?

there might be a little bit set aside, but she is running a business and what she earns , she does for herself.. its all in self-interest,. that is what is great about our country to be able to make something from nothing.. BUT, if she crosses some legal line, SHE needs to have prepared for the consequences of such actions.

I'm talking about taking responsibility for your own actions if you are going to push the envelope.


Fight the paper cuts!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

FightThisPatent

while i get your jest, the serious side is that credit card companies like Visa and MC will do a faster job of shutting sites down like Rose, or this fictious one above due to their standards.

So if MC or VISA shutdown her processing due to content, there is no recourse.

So its great to be fearful and watchful of government actions, more concern should be focused on the credit card processing.. and again, if you want to push the envelope.. and a credit card processor cuts you off, that's YOUR own outcome to deal with.

So as a business owner, you need to evaluate your risks of the content and business model you want to engage in.


Fight the no mo cha-ching!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

tony286

29 members money wasnt the motivation dude,there isnt a legal line for the written word. You dont see borders employees being arrested for selling the book lolita which is also about cp.

FightThisPatent

what is joe webmaster to do? specifically. to support those in the crosshairs for content that joe webmaster personally may object to?

i'm all for academic debate, but if this is such an important issue, i would rather know what everyone is supposed to be doing to protect from the slippery slope.

Fight the short post!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

latinasojourn

well said.

Kimmykim

There is nothing grey in this area at all. It's so plainly black and white, it should make your eyes hurt.

Everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to their own thoughts. NO matter how sick, twisted or Republican those thoughts may be.

Neither society, nor the law, has the right to take away thought. Or the legal expression of that thought.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does this woman's actions violate the rights of others, or violate the basic premise of the First Amendment.

bdld

hopefully that piece of scum gets serious jail time. what an idiot.

notabook

Seriously man... your post brought a tear to my eye. So beautifully said.

__________________

Quentin

A few points, snipped from a piece I've completed for YNOT, but that has not yet posted.

(I'll spare you its full length here... and maybe post a link to the full piece when it goes live)


(snip 1)
As I see it, the current debate concerning this case and its relationship to free speech actually consists of three related, yet discrete, topics and discussions:

1) The reality of limitations on ?free speech' as a matter of US law, within the context of expression protected by the First Amendment, and as interpreted by US courts, to date.

2) The general subject of ?free speech? as a matter of philosophy and an exercise in logic, entirely divorced from the realities of speech-restricting law, US or otherwise.

3) How and where the boundaries of ?free speech? should be set within law, US or otherwise ? in essence, an extension of the philosophical ?free speech? discussion represented in item 2.
(end snip1)


(snip 2)
It?s useful here to note that no known society, ever, anywhere, has adopted a standard of entirely ?free? speech ? meaning that literally anything can be written and/or said without risk of running afoul of that society?s system of law, however that society?s law might be codified and executed.

Throughout the history of the published word, crimes against the State, as well as crimes against individuals and institutions composed of the printed word alone have been punished, and punished severely. In societies both ancient and modern, crimes of heresy, apostasy, obscenity, libel, slander, and defamation ? just to name a few ? populate the codes of law.

The question, then, is not ?should speech be restricted?? Speech is restricted, by law and otherwise, as a matter of course, and throughout human history it has been thus. The question is how much speech should be restricted, by what standard, and by what means should that speech be restricted?
(snip 2)


and finally....

(snip3)
Consider the statement made by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan concerning Fletcher?s stories: ?Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children.?

Note the separation and distinction there; ?not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders.?

Some who read this quote have confused Buchanan?s rhetoric with a legal argument ? namely, that the reason for the indictment is the direct ?harm? the speech does by ?emboldening sex offenders.? It is the first part of the statement excerpted above, however, in which Buchanan specifies the legal claim; Fletcher?s stories are a violation of obscenity law, and material need not cause actual ?harm? in order to be deemed legally ?obscene.?

This confusion has caused some to draw an analogy between this prosecution and the oft-cited example of the legal sanction one might face for ?yelling ?fire? in a crowded movie theater.? This analogy fails, because the prohibition of yelling ?fire? in a crowded theater has to do with the actual harm that speech can cause ? a panic-driven stampede of moviegoers towards the exit, possibly leaving trampled peers in their wake.

Given that the government is not required to show direct harm to prove its case, and likely will not endeavor to do more than suggest harm in its arguments, the crime alleged in the Red Rose case is an example of how American law restricts material that can cause offense as well as speech that causes direct harm.

In the end, topic #3 as I have listed it here is one that cannot likely be ?settled,? in the sense that human laws restricting speech will continue to be challenged, and by such challenges be refined, ad infinitum.
(end snip 3)


I know, I know... I'm one verbose prick. I think the debate is one worthy of delving into deeply, however, and one that has to be framed in some maner of context agreeable to both sides of the debate, otherwise the conversation goes nowhere except increasingly insulting circles.

- Q.

__________________
Q. Boyer

FightThisPatent

verbosity from Quentin is always desired and expected!

While i do have a differing of opinion of the need to defend those on the extreme fringes for fear of the "slippery slope", i wanted to reiterate my question from previous post, since as you framed your closing paragraph of a debate.

What should/could/would the average joe webmaster do? Should they be sending money to help in these extreme cases so that the defendant can make it the supreme court if necessary? For every case that could potentially trigger the slipper slope?

Should people just verbally defend these defendants as a show of moral support that even though there is personal disagreement with the content, that the differences should be ignored (or remain silent) in order to project a unified stance?

You can already imagine in court, the prosecution talking about these items that are from the indictment docs (from avnonline article):
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=276804


For Count One, that text is, "'melinda.txt', a text description of the kidnapping and sexual molestation of eight-year-old 'Melinda.'"

For Count Two, the text is, "'4men2.txt,' a text description of the sexual molestation of a five-year-old girl."

For Count Three, the text is, "'katie.txt,' a text description of the kidnapping, torture, and sexual molestation of six-year-old 'Katie.'"

For Count Four, the text is, "'redonnashow.txt,' a text description of the torture and sexual molestation of an eight-year-old girl, a nine-year-old boy, and a four-year-old girl."

For Count Five, the text is, "'jandj.txt,' a text description of the torture and sexual molestation of two-year-old 'Mina;' and the sexual molestation and murder of four-year-old 'Cindy.'"

For Count Six, the text is, "'M&M.doc,' a text description of the torture and sexual molestation of five-year-old 'Katey;' and the sexual molestation of a six-year-old girl."


It's gonna take a pretty strong personal conviction to be able to say, yup, nothing wrong with that content.. and i dont mean just as a board post where its easy to say anything, try saying that in public or around people to try to make people understand that freedom of speech applies to all content.

As i have stated previously, people should take their own responsibility for their actions and creative efforts. if they cross the line, they need to address the consequences and if people want to support them, the generosity will probably be welcome, but shouldn't be expected.

My viewpoint is from a business perspective, not from a 1st amendment purist position or even of a moral/ethical one. If you don't have responsbility or accountability for your own actions in the business or art that you are engaging, then you maybe should be re-evaluating the choices.



Fight the line in the sand!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

RawAlex

FTP, I understand where the slippery slope mentality comes from. Most US constitutional issues are set on a scale of absolutes: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT / YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT. Nothing more and nothing less. But as has been shown with images, obscenity is something that can, to some extent, restrict or somehow curtain that absolute right to "free speech", all the while serving the apparent desired interests of the communities involved (ie, community standards).

You are correct. That list of stories is something that nobody in their rights minds should be comfortable in supporting. I have see some of the stories from that site, and they are very specifically spanking style stories, playing exactly to pedophile fantasies and worse.

Some people will try to put this up against a book like "lolita". They don't stop to consider the difference in intent and focus of the stories. Lolita tells a tale where the sex is there, but is truly secondary to the story of fobidden seduction and manipulation by both parties. The stories from this website focus and dwell on only the sexual and violence of the situation.

It is hard to phrase the difference. In Lolita, the sex acts are there but are in passing, like a teen romance novel. On the website, the molestations are all to clear, realistic, and in complete detail.

Think the difference between, say, daytime soap opera and extreme hardcore porn. It is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it (or read it).

Alex

notabook

And that is the problem. When all of the stories that are of the Red Rose caliber become censored and forbidden, it?s just a matter of time before less offensive (but STILL offensive) stories like Lolita will get put on the banned list. And then what? For those who don?t think that the slippery slope is very real you are sadly mistaken. In history you can see it happening again and again, and in both directions.

Just look at civil liberties in the USA. When blacks won their freedom, they slowly but surely gained other civil rights which eventually spread to other groups. When black men gained their right to vote, it slowly spread and eventually women got the right to vote. The slippery slope can be observed positively (as in this case) as well as negatively all throughout history.

You don?t have to agree with the Rose stories. You can hate her with a passion. But if she goes down for her (and other contributors at her site) use of freedom of speech it is just a matter of time before other will too. And when all of ?those? are gone, do you really think they will be content to stop with that? Fuck no they won?t, and they will eventually move on to less-offensive material to ban as they see fit.

__________________

RawAlex

notabook, this is where we disagree. The redrose stories don't pass the stink test... even the most hardened pornographer can tell that these stories are way over the line. Even if the "community standard" applied is pornographers, we could pretty much all agree that these stories depict acts that we find obscene, in as much as the concept of the acts themselves but moreover the explicit detail in which those acts are discussed and wallowed in.

They cannot "ban as they see fit" because it isn't open ended. In each and every case obscenity would have to be proven, in the same manner that it is proven with images. Obscenity is obscenity, regardless of how it is produced. Would it be more or less obscene if it included cartoons. stick figure images, or perhaps 3d rendered models? Why would the inclusion on any sort of image add or remove from the level of obscenity?

Free speech and obscenity are NOT opposite ends of the stick.

notabook

Different societies view different things as being obscene, and thusly, obscenity must be decided (at least partially) by society. Right now at this point in time the Red Rose caliber stories are considered the "most obscene". Let?s hypothetically say that they are all banned out of existence? then the next ?most-obscene? materials get on the chopping block. Then those get banned. Then the next ?most-obscene? materials are next, and so forth and so on. So yes of course they will be able to ban them as they see fit because the level of 'obscenity' will become less-and-less tolerated. We?re all on dangerous footing here on such a slippery slope. If we don?t fight for freedom of speech now we may be looking at a future where the thought police do indeed exist and freedom of speech is nonexistent.

__________________

Quentin

For those interested, the full article I posted excerpts from earlier is now live on YNOT.

- Q.

__________________
Q. Boyer

RawAlex

Notabook, again, nice concept, but reality is different. You are reciting what is to me a total brainwash deal that free speech people are forever spouting: the idea that if even one letter, one item, one iota is somehow supressed, suddenly you have given up everything and the game is over.

Sort of like playing football, and as soon as the offence gets 1 yard, the defence leaves the field and allows them to score directly - why bother? They have proven they can get 1 yard, so they might as well have them all, right?

The other mistake is to assume that there is some sort of "slippery slope" that goes all the way to the basement. The assumption is that we will all be goose-stepped into some sort of one party state because certain stories that depict the violation of children are somehow censored or removed from distribution. It is as if a single ruling about a single piece of material would suddenly make the drudgereport illegal.

Again, does making, example, bioengineered grasses illegal suddenly make it against the law to have a lawn?

Alex

ronaldo

Fantastic article Quentin.

It made me think about a few things.

Kimmykim

Sorry Alex, that dog won't hunt. Words are words, images are not words. No matter how hard you try to equate the two, they are not the same.

At the time the US Constitution was penned, it was considered treason.

Solid Bob

You mean like in a movie or tv show?

__________________
[email protected]

notabook

No, it would mean it would be illegal to have lawns with bioengineered grasses. Then sooner or later, and in all honesty sooner rather than later, you would have some zealots come along and capitalize on the fact that bioengineered grasses have been outlawed and strive for pure organic grasses only. They will decide that the chemicals to help your grass grow brighter and greener are unlawful, and they will end up citing precedent over the bioengineered grasses, saying how since they were bad that these nasty horrible chemicals are ruining our grass and have got to go. Soon enough, chemically-enhanced grasses will then be outlawed and the only type of lawns that are legal are pure organically grown yards.

__________________

RawAlex

... and if you beleive that, you better get a strap for your tin foil hat before it falls off! ;)

RawAlex

Even AG Gonzales has admitted that some porn is "protected free speech". "speech" can take many forms including images.

As for "treason", well, I invite miss redrose to go form her own country, I vote her off the island. ;)

Alex

notabook

So if they (lobbyists or whomever) have the power to get bioengineered grasses outlawed you think it is outside their power to get chemically-enhanced grasses outlawed? If so, why? Do you think they?ll be content at stopping at one ridiculous issue? If they win on one issue (in your hypothetical case of bioengineering grasses) what is to stop them from going after another, then another, then another??? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

__________________

Solid Bob

This is a tough subject sure and I'm torn on it. Yes a slippery slope situation can happen no matter how much you stick your head in the sand RA.

"In the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in 2005 banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, under the Cenotaph in October, without police permission. [1]"

I'm pretty sure the same person that thinks the stories discussed in this thread are "clearly over the line" would find this situation not over the line. Too bad the UK government doesn't agree.

And RawAlex, it doesn't matter if 99.9999% of people think this should not be protected. What about all of the material that 51% of the population doesn't think should be protected? Better yet, what about all of the material that 51% of lawmakers, congress, or judges find offensive? Just because something crosses your moral line does not mean it should be written into law. That is not what the laws were intended for.

By sheer fucking odds you will always have times in the course of decades that you will get a super conservative group calling the shots on one level or another. I guess people only give a damn when it touches them personally.

To sum it up, if someone beat this person to death tomorrow I would not feel bad for them at all. If however they end up in jail over the written word I will feel sorry for this industry, this country, and everyone who has fought to protect our freedoms from simple minded people that think their personal line is good enough for everyone.

P.S. Arguing about censoring speech on gofuckyourself.com is a bit retarded.

__________________
[email protected]

Solid Bob

__________________
[email protected]

tiger

I couldn't have said it better myself.

__________________

FightThisPatent

yes, but our system is set up as "government for the people and by the people", and even Thomas Jefferson suggested that there can be revolutions and major changes in government.

The Supreme Court can be skewed to have serious impact upon constitutional interpretations based upon who the president is able to nominate and get approved. Things like Roe v. Wade could change just like the viewpoint on obscenity and what is "free speech" or protected speech.

The Supreme Courts ruling on Eminent Domain was truly disturbing.

In all of these obscenity cases, it is a few small percentage of the overall population that is affected, but the resonance of such actions might spread over a slightly bigger percentage of population (ie.online adult websites), but its still very small compared to the greater population like say, counting the "NASCAR dads", etc. (if the adult community were large enough, it would have been able to affect more change in elections, but the sad fact, is the population of adult biz is very small... while the population who looks at porn is very high... FSC Michelle wanted to expand FSC to be like the NRA, to have like 2-3M members comprised of surfers/consumers of porn... and she was right.. that is what is needed to get the kind of membership numbers to truly make effective change and show representation).

I reject the notion that once conservatives are done with "extreme" content, that they will keep going to eliminate porn.

"Conservatives" are consumers of porn. NASCAR dads are consumers of porn. Jokes, news items, etc in everyday have some mentioning of porn.

Porn would not be relegated to prohibition status. These are much different times. The internet has brought out instant communications and awareness to issues.

There is always a balance point where the pendulum of morality will swing from side to side, and clearly, the news items on "attacking" obscenity is one such swing, but the other side of the swing is mainstream acceptance of porn with the balance that its not in their face, its not polluting their emails, it's not putting them in pop-up hell, etc.

If people want to see porn, they will find it. If they don't want to see porn, they have the right not to see it.

I am all for the notion of "what you do inside your home is your own business", and even if that includes writing truely perverse stories such as what redsose was distributing, but if some DA, AG, or law enforcement has a problem with it as crossing some legal line, then that content, and the propreitor of that content is going to have to face their responsibility for engaging such activity.

I try to not go into the moral/ethical impacts of society of the Redrose content, but stay in a more pragmatic place of evaluation that so much of the problems that our society faces, in every facet of life, is due largely from the lack of taking responsibility for your own actions and for the actions that affect others.

Our laws come down to one basic fact... if you don't like the law, do something to change it, otherwise, you have to work within the law. Those that push the envelope of the law or break the law, find themselves in the defendant position, while everyone else stays within the lines.


Fight the box!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

RawAlex

Solidbob, consider the concept that booze was at one time entirely banned. You know exactly what happened with that. At the end of the day, regardless of what the high and mighty and moral politicians of the day thought, the people thought otherwise and in the end, the situation was resolved.

My approach on how things should be approached is "how would this look on the O'Reilly Factor... or how would this sound on Rush Limbaugh's show"? You can just picture them all there getting huffy and indignant because all these porn people are protecting this person's right to publish baby rape and snuff stories. You know exactly how the media would treat the rest of us, and public opinion won't be in our favor. Suddenly we are all distributors of child porn and supporters of raping children and killing them.

You don't think that the conservatives can have a field day with that stuff? Every restrictive law (including the changes to 2257) have been written in the name of "protecting the children". Itis the hot button issue that these politicians can use to pretty much legislate us out of business. Every time we stand up for a RedRose or some distributor or scat or bestiality or whatever, we end up making it that much easier for those that oppose porn in general to paint us with an ugly stripe and get the public on their side.

You can say you support RedRose, hold your nose, and try to avoid the smell, but the smell stays on you... and the conservative hunting dogs follow that stench.

DaddyHalbucks

Is Nabokov's book "Lolita" child porn?

What is the purpose of the anti-child porn laws? It is to PROTECT actual childen from being abused --not to disallow perverted writers from writing about their sick fantasies.

NAMBLA advocates for child sex right on their website. Sure it is repugnant, but it is protected speech.

http://www.nambla.org/

__________________
Boner Money

jayeff

The "slippery slope" which is so often mentioned in the context of issues like this is emotive claptrap. We accept any number of restrictions on our lives because as communal creatures it would be unrealistic to do otherwise. My neighbor is constrained from destroying my garden, because what might be freedom for him could make my life miserable.

Fortunately for me, the community at large long ago decided it is on the side of those who do not want their gardens to be trashed according to someone's whim. In a myriad more and less serious ways we embrace the concept of "community standards".

Is there a slippery slope at all? If so, is it that while burglary remains a crime, some police forces are so overwhelmed that they do little more than file reports. Or is it that in California the penal system has become so abused that someone sentenced to a year in prison may end up serving four. Is it that the authorities have prosecuted someone for attempting to profit from pandering to tastes which offend many of us, or that protestors against government policy must accept being told where they can conduct their protest.

Ironically, since the principle of freedom of speech would likely not exist except in a democracy, the slippery slope is democracy itself. Thomas Jefferson once commented that "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." He was absolutely right, except that what he did not mention was that if only fifty percent of the people bother to express an opinion, it takes less than twenty-six percent of the population to dictate to the other seventy-four.

I may appear to be rambling, but the point I am working towards is that cases such as the one which prompted this thread should be important primarily because they are a symptom of how far we have gone down a road which few of us, in our hearts, really wish to be travelling. The society in which we live is being changed by things provocative enough to make the headlines, but it is being changed much more by things which do not. And all of these things are able to happen because so few of us give a damn.

This story will generate thousands of comments around the 'net, hundreds of column-inches in newspapers, and enjoy a few moments of fame on radio and TV. But during the days it has sufficient impact to inspire a few people to become more active in their communities, many more will excuse their lethargy by claiming that no-one listens.

That's bullshit. The reason that in some states pharmacies do not now provide the morning-after pill is precisely because those states did listen to the people who demanded that pharmacies stopped doing so. They listened because those were the people talking, or at least, talking loudest and in the largest numbers. In an ideal world, the powers-that-be would attempt to identify the wishes of the silent majority, but here on planet earth, they listen to those with the power to put them into office and keep them there.

In other words, so long as people start bleating every time something like this happens, but otherwise accept whatever comes down the pike, don't expect to be taken seriously. The outcome of this particular case is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things, because around the country there are probably thousands of cases and hundreds of pieces of legislation in progress, with the potential to impact negatively on many lives. Just this month my local TV station refused to show that 911 documentary for fear of FCC reprisals: their fault for being faint-hearted or mine for sitting on my ass and permitting the existence of the rules they fear?

There is no more logic behind fearing the slippery slope in respect of freedom of speech than fearing the slippery slope of allowing speed restrictions on our roads. In both cases you get to decide how far you will let things go before you finally do something about getting your own opinion heard.

FightThisPatent

i appreciate your parallel paths of reasoning, but in the end, do you feel that Redrose should be defended by all adult webmasters due to the "slippery slope" or that there isn't a "slippery slope" conclusion and Redrose needs to take their own actions with consequences, or some other conclusion?

i couldn't tell your position like i can normally appreciate from all of your other insightful posts.


Fight the clarifications!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957