Most people here would consider me a kid if they knew how old I am :2 cents:

A fool huh? Who are you again?

Not someone obsessed with speaking for someone else.

Haha Steve - you know as many times as we have partied till the wee hours of the morning - I am sure that if you were pro-Bush you would have let me know. I believe that.

Besides, what I said is people who PUBLICLY support Bush get the axe. If somebody wants to make a shrine and worship at the alter of GB - that's fine, just don't try and change my mind about it.

I always amazed at the number of pro-Bush people there are in this industry, despite the concerns, but then again I also believe that the average webmaster is nothing more than a lazy slacker with low intelligence looking for a meal ticket so they don't have to get a real job. They don't realize the hard worlk and smarts it takes to succeed in this game. Really, the numbers shouldn't suprise me.

What do you do? I would love to know.

I don't sell traffic anyhow.

You 12- dick eating bitch, but I'm sure 12 dicks is just a light lunch for your gay ass.

Jay I'll be the first to laugh at you when Bush wins :glugglug ..... Did I mention you can choke on my cock? :)

Spreading horrible misinformation about serious business issues on a business board is a great idea. :thumbsup

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

Looking forward to laughing my ass off when the feds kick your door in.

I love when some Dane comes around to educate me on US law

:thumbsup


1 more month

Jay, 12clicks runs one of the oldest adult internet companies out there in addition to having multiple non-adult internet revenue streams.

He doesn't even have his programs in his sig - how can he be a post whore?

I admire what you're doing - I don't agree with you because there IS no "pro-porn" candidate unless you vote outside the democratic/republican party - but I still admire it. :) But don't think 12Clicks doesn't control an incredible amount of traffic, because he does. :winkwink:

Now that is the way to show what the USA stands for BLACKMAIL
Ya the way to go......

Jay,

You know where we stand on this issue.

Do a see the second civil war coming here?
Eveyone has the right to say whatever he wants.
When someone wants to support Bush then he is misinformed or something like that. But its still no reasont to "cut traffic" :glugglug

The next 4 years are going to see the US become even more and more divided no matter who wins :(

I don't care who he is or what he does. He is just consistantly obnoxious on the boards. If he wants to keep all of his companies you would think that he would know better than to blindly back the head money in charge. I guess dumb people can go a long way in the business.

I know the link to this has been posted quite a few times, but please - just READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE IF YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO CLICK THE LINK:

Administration wages war on pornography

Obscenity: For the first time in 10 years, the U.S. government is spending millions to file charges across the country.

By Laura Sullivan
Sun National Staff
Originally published April 6, 2004

WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.

In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.

Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

The Justice Department recently hired Bruce Taylor, who was instrumental in a handful of convictions obtained over the past year and unsuccessfully represented the state in a 1981 case, Larry Flynt vs. Ohio.

Flynt, who recently opened a Hustler nightclub in Baltimore, says everyone in the business is wary, making sure their taxes are paid and the "talent" is over 18. He says he's ready for a rematch, especially with Taylor.

"Everyone's concerned," Flynt said in an interview. "We deal in plain old vanilla sex. Nothing really outrageous. But who knows, they may want a big target like myself."

A recent episode of Showtime's Family Business, a reality show about Adam Glasser, an adult film director and entrepreneur in California, had him worrying about shipping his material to states more apt to prosecute. It also featured him organizing a pornographic Internet telethon to raise money for targets of prosecution.

Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the division in charge of obscenity prosecutions at the Justice Department, says officials are trying to send a message and halt an industry they see as growing increasingly "lawless."

"We want to do everything we can to deter this conduct" by producers and consumers, Oosterbaan said. "Nothing is off the table as far as content."

Money and friends

It is unclear, though, just how the American public and major corporations that make money from pornography will accept the perspective of the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha.

Any move against mainstream pornography could affect large telephone companies offering broadband Internet service or the dozens of national credit card companies providing payment services to pornographic Web sites.

Cable television, meanwhile, which has found late-night lineups with "adult programming" highly profitable, is unlikely to budge, and such companies have powerful friends.

Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, which offers "hard-core" porn on the Hot Network channel (at $11.99 per film in Baltimore), was co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the host committee that brought the Republican National Convention to Philadelphia. In February, the Bush campaign honored Comcast President Stephen Burke with "Ranger" status, for agreeing to raise at least $200,000 for the president's re-election effort. Comcast's executive vice president, David Cohen, has close ties to Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Tim Fitzpatrick, the spokesman for Comcast at its corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, declined to comment on the cable network's adult programming. But officials at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which Roberts used to chair, said adult programming is legal, relies on subscription services for access and has been upheld by the courts for years.

"Good luck turning back that clock," said Paul Rodriguez, a spokesman for the association.

Ashhahahahaha vs. consent

In a speech in 2002, Ashhahahahaha made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."

Given the millions of dollars Americans are spending each month on adult cable television, Internet sites and magazines and videos, many may see themselves not as victims but as consumers, with an expectation of rights, choices and privacy.

Ashhahahahaha, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives.

The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashhahahahaha held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority.

But administration critics and First Amendment rights attorneys warn that the initiative could smack of Big Brother, and that targeting such a broad range of readily available materials could backfire.

"They are miscalculating the pulse of the community," said attorney Paul Cambria, who has gone head to head with Taylor in cases dating to the 1970s.

"I think a lot of adults would say this is not what they had in mind, spending millions of dollars and the time of the courts and FBI agents and postal inspectors and prosecutors investigating what consenting adults are doing and watching."

The law itself rests on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. California, which held that something is "obscene" only if an average person applying contemporary community standards finds it patently offensive. But until now, it hasn't been prosecuted at the federal level for more than 10 years.

Since the last time he faced Taylor, Flynt's empire has grown into a multimillion-dollar corporation with a large, almost conservative-looking headquarters in California, where he and executives in dark suits oversee the company's dozens of men's clubs, sex stores and more than 30 magazines.

"He's basically crusaded against everything I've fought for for the past 30 years," Flynt said. "This is for consenting adults. They have the right to view what they want to in the privacy of their own home. And even if they don't enjoy these materials, they still don't want to be looking over their neighbors' shoulders."

Cases and results

Taylor, who has been involved in the prosecution of more than 700 pornography cases since the 1970s, including at the Justice Department in the late 1980s and early '90s, declined to be interviewed. But he did talk to reporters for the PBS program Frontline in 2001, when he was president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, an anti-porn group.

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity," he said.

"Some of the cable versions of porno movies are prosecutable. Once it becomes obvious that this really is a federal felony instead of just a form of entertainment or investment, then legitimate companies, to stay legitimate, are going to have to distance themselves from it."

The Justice Department pursued obscenity cases vigorously in the 1970s and '80s, prosecuting not necessarily the worst offenders in terms of extreme material, but those it viewed as most responsible for pornography's proliferation.

Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible."

"I can't possibly put it all away," he said. "Results are what we want."

The strategy in the 1980s resulted in a lot of extreme pornography - dealing in urination, violence or bestiality - going underground. Today, with the Internet, international producers and a substantial market, industry officials say there is no underground.

Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes. The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.

That tolerance could prove to be the obscenity division's biggest obstacle. Americans are used to seeing sex, experts say, in the movies, in their e-mail inboxes and on popular cable shows such as HBO's Sex and the City. There is no real gauge of just how obscene a jury will find pornographic material.

The majority of defendants indicted in federal courts over the past year have taken plea agreements when faced with the weight and resources of the Justice Department. More than 50 other federal investigations are under way.

In 2001, though, one interesting case emerged from St. Charles County, Mo., the heart of Ashhahahahaha's conservative Missouri base. First Amendment lawyer Cambria defended a video store there against state charges that it was renting two obscene videotapes that depicted group sex, anal sex and sex with objects.

continued from previous...

Cambria won, convincing a jury of 12 women, all between the ages of 40 and 60, that the tapes had educational value and helped reduce inhibitions. They reached the verdict in less than three hours.

The department's most closely watched case involves "extreme" porn producer Rob Zicari and his North Hollywood company Extreme Associates. The prolific Zicari is charged with selling five allegedly obscene videotapes, which he now markets as the "Federal Five," that depict simulated rapes and murder.

Almost reveling in the charges, Zicari's Web site says, "The most controversial company in porn today! Guess what? Controversy ... sells!"

The case hangs on a strategic move by the Justice Department that could make or break hundreds of future cases. Instead of bringing charges in Hollywood, where Zicari easily defeated a local obscenity ordinance recently in a jury trial, department officials ordered his tapes from Pittsburgh, Pa., and charged him there, hoping for a jury pool less porn-friendly.

Industry lawyers and top executives contend that the courts should rule that because the tapes were ordered on the Internet, the "community standard" demanded by the law should be the standard of the whole community of the World Wide Web.

The Internet is filled with ample evidence of even more hard-core or offensive material from abroad, they say, and someone in Pittsburgh should not be able to determine what someone in Hollywood can order.

Either way, Nguyen, father of a 2-year-old girl, and his co-workers spend their days scouring the Internet for the most obscene material, following leads sent in by citizens and tracking pornographers operating under different names. The job wears on them all, day after day, so much so that the obscenity division has recently set up in-house counseling for them to talk about what they're seeing and how it is affecting them.

"This stuff isn't the easiest to deal with," Nguyen said recently while at his computer. "But I think we're going after the bad guys and we're making a difference, and that's what makes it worthwhile."



Copyright ? 2004, The Baltimore Sun

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

I openly support Bush. Read about it here:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...adid=365832&s=

Very interesting logic......However, I would be more concerned with terrorist attacks, the economy, foreign relations, etc than the porn business. One bad attack and you can kiss your "sit-on-your-ass job good bye. When it becomes "crunch-time" expect the government to get away with whatever they want. They don't like your site, biz, you,...YOUR FUCKED....they will do what ever they want without reason or justification.

:2 cents:

good policy

I openly trash Bush.
Can I have more traffic now?
:Graucho

I am more concerned about that - I believe Kerry would handle all of these issues better than Bush.

Really, that's not true - being locked in a Federal Prision for a legal job and I pay taxes on concerns me the most, as it should all of you.

I really can't believe how Bush has brainwashed so many of you sheep.

I'm with you Jay !

I can't believe I let this thread go without linking to the blacklist I tried to make back in February.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=239773


:1orglaugh


:1orglaugh


:1orglaugh


(Doesn't understand the difference between indecency charges and fraud.) :1orglaugh

Classic thread :glugglug

I don't know who I'm going to vote for but it won't be Bush.

You really think it's a simple matter of being an upstanding citizen that pays his taxes and you're ok while you make money making women gag on your penis?

When it comes to things like "obscenity", people will see what you do differently than you do because "obscenity" is a vague and subjective term. Some will say a blowjob is fine, but a blowjob that involves gagging is obscene. When you have grey areas like that, don't be surprised that you wind up in jail even though you've never had problems with the law before, paid your taxes, and are a nice person.

But that would violate the 1st amendment you say? We legally violate the 1st amendment to people everyday when we think they're doing something that they shouldn't be doing. Prisons are filled to the brim with people who are having their 1st amendment violated. But it's done legally. Most of them are in prison because broke the rules and society's standards of conduct. It's worse when the rules and conduct are subjective and based on things like "obscenity" because what is deemed fine today might be deemed "obscene" tomorrow.

Never win on their crusade you say? Sodomy laws are pretty insane don't you think? You can't stuff you penis in somebody's willing ass in some States even if they're consenting adults because it's "obscene". It's actually ridiculous to have this law, but guess what, ridiculous laws have apparently passed in those states. What makes you so certain new laws like this won't be instroduced, except that it will include sodomy AND chicks gagging on male penises? If it did, you'd have to find a whole new niche to work in being the honest tax paying citizen that you are, right?

The Adult industry is small fry. This can have two effects. It can mean that we are ignored and left to do what we want because we really don't make a dent in the economy. It can mean the opposite too. It could mean that we get shutdown because we are a small powerless community, and the larger mainstream community feels that what we do is obscene enough to cut us off. Nobody knows which road or how far on the road an Administration is going to travel. It's like Visa being concerned about our industry. They aren't because we make up a small fraction of their revenue (something like 2% I've heard). That's why they have no problems shutting down multi million dollar processors overnight. They might think twice if we did say 50% of their revenue regardless of the headaches we cause them with chargebacks and the like.

On another note, I'm not clear on why people assume that under Kerry we'll be better off. That's completely unknown unless you can predict the future. I suppose many feel that it couldn't be worse than what it is now (maybe it can?). But if you think that such laws would be struck down under Bush I suppose the logic would stand that they would be struck down under Kerry too by the courts.

Just something to think about. I see that you have other reasons for voting for Bush such as supporting the troops and so forth, and that's your right. I would take issue with all of those reasons (example supporting Bush is not supporting the troops but rather supporting the wanton death of troops because he's put them somewhere they shouldn't be) but that's for a seperate discussion.

That's nice to say but you and I know that almost none of us vote based on larger issues. Most of us vote on issues closer to home that have immediate effects on us. Still, I think that most people that say they are voting for Kerry would argue that they think he will do a better job with Terrorist Attacks (they would say Bush's actions are breeding the terrorists 20 years from now), the economy (they would say Bush encourages outsourcing jobs and does not support small business - porn is a small business for many especially here), foreigh relations (heel the wounds caused by phrases like Axis of Evil and mend those ties with nations like France and Germany) and so on.

it's nice to see people taking a stand for what they believe in:thumbsup

Well....they went after the fraud because it was the "easiest" thing. Al Capone was busted on tax evasion - do you think that was the biggest thing he did or the easiest way they could nail him?

BTW, my ex boss in adult audiotext is currently serving a 4.5 year term in the federal pen for tax evasion. Why? Because it was the easiest thing they could nail him on. Oh, and this happened under Clinton :winkwink:

Now, if you're sure you've never done a single other thing wrong - all your taxes are 100% above reproach, you haven't bought any type of illegal drugs or served alcohol to one of your 20 year old models, then it be a lot harder for them to nail you. But if you have ANYTHING that can send up the flare, THAT'S what they'll go after.

The general perspective is based on the equation

bad for porn = Bush

Because of the attorny general under Bush

While there is no evidence that the people Kerry would appoint will be any better they take the theory that a liberal president will be more likely to appoint more liberal people

I could be wrong.. I don't know

I can't vote and I don't give a fuck either way.. personally I think your high if you think it makes any real difference regarding the porn industry

Just thinking...probably because there are less religious zealots or at least less influential ones in the democratic party.

They should arrest people who are committing fraud in our business, that's a GOOD thing. They should go after people who don't pay their taxes.

You can't see the difference between that and the obscenity charges Asskroft is going after? A religious nut who's spending millions having people search the web to find sites they find offensive? Are you really telling me you don't understand how that is much much worse for this business? I know you apologists can make up excuses about anything but please, think this one through before you start thinking of ways to argue. Please.

This thread is still kickin nice one jay :thumbsup

time to cut off oc cash. two can play this game.

who are you to decide what party people should vote for?

He was nailed for tax evasion because he was guilty of evading tax?

You are implying that he is guilty of other crimes, no?

I don't think he's trying to tell anyone how to vote.

He's saying if you support Bush you're not getting any of my traffic.

thats exactly what he's trying to do.

4 more years!

So are you trying to tell him how to decide who to send traffic to?