The difference is... Hollywood was not "raided" with a warrant under possible obscenity charge. Rosie was. The reason she was, at least initially, is that she allegedly published obscene material depicting incest, bestiality and pedo related content. What else is there to say??

The FBI are kinda irrelevant in this and I'd bet $1000 that there is far more reason than a possible obscenity charge. Till will tell on that...

One pervert who crept into GFY was involved in the same shit, - "possibly" innocent-looking on the surface, - but sure as hell was not. His "connection" spread over.. think five countries and involved everything from pedo imaging to associations with others who were being monitored in connection with missing children and suspected murdered kids.

99.9% of the time - there is more than a one-sided webmistress sob story about how she thought she would never get busted for "words" and spewing the usual "freedoms" and "democracy" crap in defense.

One Producer is not promoting this as a positive or good thing the other is not.

And the lame attempt to bundle all things illegal into a neat little package is not what OUR ( the adult industry) issue is. No one here said they supported Murder or drug fantasies. Many are saying they DON'T support fantasies involving SMALL CHILDREN.

We can have the discussion on Murder Fantasy when you set up your Snuff site and the FBI knocks on your door.



Do you find glorifing forced sex on an infant to be Obscene ( by definition)? In the end that is the question.

This is not about any industry, this is about free speech and the constitution. Read the first amendment and tell me where it makes a distinction between murder fantasies and porn fantasies.

When made up writing becomes illegal because it offends you, then there is no right to free speech for anyone.

If you think murder fantasies are ok, then why are you so against sick porn fantasies? Do people support murder because they think it's ok for murder to be in movies?

You want things that offend you made illegal - that view is the same as a right winger wanting all porn made illegal because it offends them.

you have no idea what its about because you dont know the charges. sorry... preach on... but dont make it something its not, until you actually know what it is.

What the fuck?

You defend the right of murder?

If you like movies or novels with murder in them, you must support murder, right?

:1orglaugh

That is scary. Very scary. What happened to the first ammendment?

The problem is taking regular porn fantasies into reality is a lot different then when even one of the pedo's decides to take his sicko fantasies to reality with a real infant, toddler or child.

That's the difference. And a lot of these pedo guys do start molesting real kids.

So this argument doesn't wash with me.

While I think it would be GREAT to rid the internet of this kind of pedo trash, I worry its just the first step in 'explicit content' censorship.

They start with the stuff everyone agrees they dont like - Next thing you know, theyre busting people for legit 18+ stuff, and using things like this to get the public to shutup about censorship in general.

...and the media will tie it all together "FBI shut down sites featured extreme hardcore content, and child sex stories". Extreme hardcore content = gangbangs, max hardcore, etc.

Watch.

My post that you replied to is an argument about free speech, not about this case.

Read my previous posts. I suggested that Xbiz remove the article until they know the facts. It is likely that there is more to this story.

However, it's sad how many GFY members are against free speech if the content of the speech offends them personally.

Yet you support murder in movies, even though it might encourage someone to murder in real life?

:1orglaugh

No, I just don't want to have a country where its legal to run a web site and publish obscene material involving infants, toddlers and little children getting fantasy fucked.

I'll defend free speech, but there is a limit and if you believe there isn't than you need to study case law on the subject and recgonize free speech has certain restrictions attached to it that do not impede on the constitution's overall protection of those rights.

would you please answer my one simple question?



Do you find glorifing forced sex on an infant to be Obscene ( by definition)?



This isn't any issue about my being offended. the issue is was the content obscene.

It's either Obscene or it is not. This isn't about hollywood, or murder and drun fantasies. Do you find glorifing forced sex on an infant to be Obscene ( by definition)?

Mr F... the FBI did not "raid" Rosie because she was purveying "fantasies". Fantasies are still not illegal. Initially they raided her on the basis of *obscene publications* which is a valid offense.

Tho... bet more than :2 cents: that what they wanted was more related to accessing her computer hard drives than obscene publications. Whether they proceed with any obscenity case is another matter.

WTF???

Mr. Fiction, it goes way beyond just people on GFY being offended. I bet 99% of the general public if surveyed would be offended by the content on that site.

xbiz are idiots for the shit they publish. its a joke. i agree with you completely. one side of the story is not a story. thats just simple journalism.

Let's look at this argument from a simple perspective.

If publishing content that describes perverted graphic sex with infants, toddlers and little kids isn't obscene, then what the fuck is obscene?

I can't think of anything more deserving of saying Yes that is obscene than what this site was doing.

make up your mind what term you want to stick to.... "Child Porn" or "obscene" sometimes you come off as being extremely bright and well spoken... other times you act as if you are completely high on coke or something and you are just babbling and almost incoherent.

This issue has plenty to do with Hollywood movies, novels, and any other material with murder fantasies. It has to do with the right to free speech for anyone who is publishing offensive material of any kind.

Post a link to the definition of obscenity in the U.S. constitution.

I believe in people's right to free speech, even when it offends me personally.

If you don't, then how are you any better than the religious people who would ban all porn?

Yep! It is that simple and has nothing to do with "free speech", "fantasies" or ramblings about Hollywood. It's about pedo/incest/bestiality *obscenity* - nuff said!

The definition of obscentity is indeed in the eyes of the reader. Under US law it is the eyes of a jury.

If there was child pornography on the computers there will be no sympathy from me; it is illegal and immoral. If they were just running a Literotica type of site then there is a problem for everyone who does value free speech. My judgement is witheld until all the facts are in.

Each of us will draw a different line in the sand as to what we believe is obscene, the law in the US is at that same level, pornography is legal unless it is obscene. All of us in this industry would sleep better at night knowing whether we are safe or over the line; if only we knew what that line was.

You are wrong.

Pedos are pedos from day one ... This is a " disease, sickness", not something that popups one morning:
" Wow, whAt a nice day... I think I will go at the school yard and rape a few boys " .....

Boy abusing priests didn't become like that because of reading stories ( well, maybe the bible). They went in the priesthood because it served their goals.

You can make me read all those stories all day. I will be disgusted, will probably beat the shit out of you, but I will not run to abuse a girl or boy ....


But, if you are right, then we should close:

- gay sites: people seing them will become gay, a sin.
- DS sites: viewers will go choke their victims on their vomit
- Max Hardcore: viewers will drown victims in piss

and the chocking sites, teens dressed as " little girls "...

The day you go thru the system, maybe you will understand ...

So is this the polite way to say you would prefer not to answer the question?


This goes way beyond offensive. Hell, I find your posts in this thread offensive but not obscene.

I also support a persons right to free speech, even when it offends me. But there is a difference between offensive and obscene.

And I for one totally support your rights to not find glorifing forced sex on an infant to be Obscene. But I will not agree with you.

The definition is always elusive and often unknown until a verdict day :winkwink: It's much the same in countries other than the US.

One classic case was the prosecutor who asked the jury "Would you allow your manservant to read this book?" :1orglaugh (Penguin Books re Lady Chatterley's Lover)

Regardless, it's not easy presenting a defence for pedo/incest shit and tho, least as far as is known, may be "just words" - they can be the killer in any defense. Tell a jury about finger-fucking babies and the judge will order some sick bags to let them throw up.

So free speech should be limited by what the majority of the general public finds offensive?
I bet 95% of the gerneral public would be offended by Max Harcore content.
I bet 80% of the gerneral public would be offended by any gay adult site.
...
...

Majority rules. That's how the game of life works.

Absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with you here - but that's not what the original article stated - this discussion has strayed from what was presented as facts (be it true or not) that it was a wide variety of stories including "threesomes" that were involved in this situation.

If, indeed, it was nothing but a front for a kiddie porn site, yes - stories involving babies are sick. My question is where does it stop? IF it's true that a wide range of stories were at fault and not just that kind.

Cyn

Have you ever read Helter Skelter? In my opinion that is obscene. But it falls under the blanket of literary. What about Anne Rice's Beauty series about a woman who is held against her will and forced into sexual acts. This was published by a major publishing house. I know, I know, it's not someone sticking their finger in a two year old - I got that - but we need to widen our vision here. This discussion is about who decides what is obscene and what isn't it. Last I heard, even the Supreme Court had trouble on that count.

Cyn

Search the site on Google. Its as low as it goes in terms of CP. Stories about having sex with newborn infants??? Come on, anyone who justifies that under free speech is simply being absurd.

Like i've said before, existing spam filters will one day control the internet & block all obscenity in the form of text.

And i bet 20% of the ones who answered that poll secretly watched his films

150....... :xmas-smil

:1orglaugh Of course they did!

I never seen this shit, but chances are that's the *acceptable* face of porn.

Fingering babies and ass-fucking your eight year old daughter is not.

I am trying to picture the new show at 10PM on (insert network here): How to properly finger your 6 month old daughter.

You really think it is a question solely of "freedom of speech"? If that is what freedom of speech gets you, I think many, many people would give up a little of their freedom to know that sick fucks like this guy spend the rest of their days in jail rather than anywhere near a minor.

This isn't "fucking teens"... it's molesting 6 month old children.

It is sick, sick shit. Anyone standing up for it makes me wonder.

Alex

Plus this sicko site is apparently facilitating the trading of images for its members and I guarnatee you they sure as hell aren't trading mickey mantle baseball cards.

:1orglaugh

Have you seen that movie "Lolita" , its several years old and drew allot of contorversy when it was released.

No mickey mantle cards KRL?? :winkwink:

Hell, my freedoms and rights to collect my baseball cards have be violated yet again :1orglaugh

Sure.. it was "adventurous" for it's time. I saw bits of it recently while walking past the TV - excellent cast and funny seeing the dirty old man failing! :)

The slight difference - it never showed much oral/anal/whatever sex with children - they must have cut that out and restricted the First Ammendment Rights :winkwink:

I posted this some days ago and it went largely ignored?



http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/524342-buh-2257-porn-squad.html


I am really starting to see why the adult entertainment industry is such an easy target and a whipping boy for whatever Johnny come lately moral debate is the talk of the day. A lot of the guys in this industry are complete fools with zero understanding of business, politics, or law.

Now before the loser?s start flaming let me explain something to all of you.

Your livelihood is at risk!!!!!
It can happen to you!!!
It will happen to you if the industry doesn?t stick together.

The 3 recent raids over the last week are only the opening rounds of an all out war being waged by the Christian right. And in war every small victory amounts to overall defeat of the enemy. (You)

While stories about sex with kid?s disgust me?...

And Scat turns my stomach????.

And dead bodies sadden me???

I support each and every one of those site operators because they were operating within the limits of the law.

If you turn your back on them, instead of support them that will make it that much easier for the government to convict you when your number is pulled.

You see people the bible thumpers are many and they are powerful and they are resourceful. But what makes them a formidable enemy in a time of war (and they are the enemy) is that they stick together and move as one. They are methodical and surgical in their attacks and believe me they intend to win.

Let?s talk about precedent and its relation to one of the cases

prec?e?dent P Pronunciation Key (pr s -d nt)
n.
1.
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

Know what that means??

Ok I will tell you, let say the lady with the website with the stories about teens having sex is prosecuted and eventually convicted??that will set a precedent that will make it easier for other government law enforcement bodies to prosecute and convict individuals based on what is now considered obscene.
Once precedent is set its all down hill and some or all of the words used as evidence against her become sort of like an unwritten law. In this case I am sure the word teen would be one of them.
Ok so now you have precedent that says you can prosecute someone for using the word teen in stories or in effect associated with sex or sexuality hmmm
Goodbye every domain with teen in it relating to sex or pornography
Hello an even newer precedent

You know what I think I am going to stop right here as it just dawned on me that this board is infested with idiots and this will fly over the head of the majority but for the rest of us ( those who do not support raids against legal businesses) we really should pay close attention tall of this the Christians are cashing in their IOU with bush and the adult entertainment industry is in the crosshairs.

Dont watch the boulder on the track while the train comes around the bend?fucking speak out and do something

Are you fuckin nuts?????

Sorry, but no way in hell can anyone justify supporting and defending CP sites in the name of Free Speech and the industry's livelihood.

The adult entertainment industry wants nothing to do with sites that promote CP in any way, shape or form.

And that crap is NOT within the limits of the law. It is obscene and it will be prosecuted successfully.

not the brighest candle are you huh....

a story about sex even with teens or pre teens can not be child porn...its a story :warning

get a clue dude this raid has nothing to do with child porn

:Oh crap

open your eyes a little wider and I promise you will be able to see the whole picture