By the way I send money to the ACLU every year. Just so you guys recognize I am a huge proponet of freedom of speech and not an ultra conservative.

:1orglaugh

Yes.

54321

You're a 'huge proponent of freedom of speech'???

coulda fooled me.

yeah but you also claim to donate so much to protect animals but invest in uranium. ;)

i find the uranium investment encouragement the funny thing due to its clear effects on animals and how much its routinely used tested on animals.

sorry. had to.

I think gore pictures of people being killed, tortured and dismembered are totally offensive, unwarranted in any situation and I further believe that anyone who enjoys viewing them is a sick motherfucker. Fletch :)

However, I would never support any politician who wants to outlaw them. You can find someone who's mortally offended by almost anything, and a politician who'll base his campaign on outlawing whatever particular thing it is that morally outrages you. Before too long, we won't have anything left to watch, read or do that isn't governmentally pre-approved as safe for all and non-corrupting, including anything that would undermine our faith in our government and our fearless all-wise, all-knowing leaders.

Yes to both.

To post here an image of chid porn, I must find a child and actually abuse it ....

To post a text file, I do not need to create a victim,,

Example:

- The baby was nakedon the bed... He approched with his finger extended, .....

See the difference? Probably not.

You are confusing morality with legality....

Do images stimulate sexual desire?

Does text stimulate sexual desire?

I'm arguing this point because I dealt with a point just like this once.

I had a phone sex biz before the Net. I had to deal with a right wing religious zealot state attorney general one year who wanted to prosecute the company by saying our phone sex messages were obscenity. I used the same argument like you are here, that these were just sound files and not images. And they were just regular silly porn, mostly simulated moaning groaning and sucking sounds. The prosecutor said it didn't matter, the sounds were stimulating people sexually and those sounds were obscene. We came back with "So moaning is considered obscene in the US?" "The simulated sucking sound created by girl placing her finger in her mouth is obscene?" It was totally ridiculous, yet we had no choice but to comply and shut down because we knew this guy was on a mission against the phone sex industry. The costs to let this guy prosecute and then spend years in court defending ourselves would have gone into the stratosphere.

This is a sample of what they said was obscene.

Sample Mp3 Phone Sex Message

Does that sound obscene to you? It doesn't to me. Its totally lame.

So they gave us the choice of shutting down the phone sex network or be prosecuted on obscenity charges and paying a fine of $75,000 per day for every day we kept our phone lines on past their order to comply.

this country is FUCKED UP

And they were wrong to prosecute you. Don't be the same type of tard they are.

Yes you're missing something... Someone will object to *your business*. Whether you agree or not, the framework is being built up so that the FBI can take you down.

Please post your sites here so we can look them over and see if they are in need of the FBI kicking in your door. BTW, I'll just surf with the images disabled... so no worries on that front.

The law is "fair and balanced", or should be. To have the FBI raiding someone over STORIES is crazy. What's next.. Steven King going to jail for years for the written word?

Who cares what your stance is, or how far you take it in your head.. you should be *against* the FBI going after some stories.

Sure, they should go after kid fuckers but not writers.

In a couple of months, I'll be sure to call the FBI about your sites and have you raided.. Don't let your tears hit this forum because of your previous stance.

That IS what it's about.

They didn't prosecute, just gave us a C & D order with the choice to shut down our phone lines or face an obscenity prosecution and $75k per day fines.

So, the AG was at least reasonable to first say do you want your lives ruined forever or would you like to just comply and turn 'em off and nothing further will happen.

interesting historical note before i get my beauty sleep:

the FBI at one time had an internal watchdog, who confessed to being decades of pedophile rape and was busted with a 6 year old

note:

all he got was 12 years

John H. Conditt Jr., 53, who retired in 2001, was sentenced last Friday to 12 years in prison in Tarrant County court in Fort Worth, Texas, after he admitted he molested the daughter of two FBI agents after he retired. He acknowledged molesting at least two other girls before his law enforcement career, his lawyer said.

This is comparing apples to oranges. There is no way in hell Steve King's stories could be considered obscene.

Come on guys, comparing regular violent movies and books to the case at hand is stretching it.

this made me laugh

i can go to sleep now.

this country acts like it has penalties for pedos. no it doesnt.

From your previous posts, I do think you would usually be a free speech supporter. That's why I think you are responding emotionally on this issue. If you ignore the specific content and really think about allowing the government to ban fictional writing, I think you might reconsider your position.

The supreme court already ruled on "virtual child porn" and they agreed that there is no child porn if there is there is no real child. That is a reasonable position on the issue.

Once you decide that fictional crimes equal real crimes, then most hollywood movies, novels, and video games must be banned.

I guess what made me less of a free speech advocate than I was in the past was becoming a parent. It does change your attitudes and makes you a bit more conservative, no doubt about it.

Probably why i've been trending everything I do more to the mainstream and less to adult each year.

I see your point and respect your point. And if this site was involving older teens it probably wouldn't seem so obscene, but when you start getting into stories about having sex with infants and toddlers, that to me is just really sick and depraved and indicative of the kinds of people that would have a high propensity to actually live out their fantasies with real kids.

im bored just gonna click some sigs and signup

We can always agree to disagree. That's part of the beauty of free speech. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images.../xyxthumbs.gif

Sign up through my bangbros!!!! PLEASE! .............Hey I said please. :)

Being a single parent in the adult business and having gone through a 9 month court case being persecuted for having adult sites, and being a parent, then being found clean as a whistle beyond any reasonable doubt by everyone involved I can honestly tell you the content on this site is fucked up.

I've read EVERY post in this thread (yeah I was bored and couldn't sleep)

Whenever it comes to issues like this I ask myself, would I fight to the death in the defense of this?

So I ask those of you supporting the red rose site... would you fight to the physical death, if necessary, to defend (what you think is) "their right" to create, and distribute this specific content involving the rape of babies, and defend the people who read it?

And don't broaden my question to include all free speech and movies and everything else under the sun.

The question is simple.

Would you fight to the physical death, if necessary, to defend (what you feel is) "their right" to create, and distribute this specific content involving the rape of babies, and defend the people who read it?

:warning check this out guys :warning

That's a rather ridiculous question. There are few things I would fight to the death for. I would not fight to the death to prevent the whole of Africa getting nuked, nor would I fight to the death for your right not to be randomly arrested, tortured and subsequently burned for witchcraft.

The mere fact that I value my life over other people's rights has very little bearing on this discussion, I think.

That's about the most relevant argument in this case. Anyone whom thinks words are obscene and should be banned, should really think about what they are saying.

If these words are obscene then what is next?

Exactly my point.

Your arguments are based on theory, not reality. You wouldn't even fight for your own rights, let alone those of your children, family, or fellow countrymen.

And when it comes time for you to fight for the "freedom of speech" that you value so much, you wouldn't. You have no sense of community, yet spew what the community should accept.

The reality is that, when push comes to shove, you are not willing to defend what you believe in. Your convictions exist only in theory. :pimp

My convictions actually do exist in practice. One of my convictions is that to me, my life is the most important thing in the world. Thus, standing by that conviction, I am forced to value my life over the rights of others.

But apart from that, your argument makes no sense. 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. An idiot of the dangerous type, namely the fundamentalist type, the type that refuses to see the relativity of things and is willing to kill and die for beliefs.
I believe in animal welfare, and thus try to treat animals well and don't eat them. Does the fact that I am not risking my life in animal protection mean that my opinions on animal welfare are invalid?

You don't seem to fully grasp the concepts of individualism, freedom and civil rights too well either. You seem to consider freedom something that communities can give. However, freedom is the natural state. Communities do not grant it, they can only lessen it. If they do so, they have to have very good reason to do so.
The idea that communities can just take away freedoms because the people defending them don't participate in the community in the way you would like borders on totalitarianism.

You know, the more I think about your argument, the less sense it makes. Only suicidal radicals' ethical positions and arguments are valid? What sort of an idiotic position is that anyway?

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

Yes you MORON! one type is created by typing keystrokes on a screen and the other involves ACTUALLY having a naked child in front of you.

Jesus Christ You're dense as hell. You really don't give a shit about anything unless it involves a Cat.

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

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? :1orglaugh

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.

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 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. :pimp

sig placement. sorry, i'm a little late

350........ :)

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" :1orglaugh

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.

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?

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! :1orglaugh

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

yes, ACTUAL CHILDREN not fictional ones.

when no victims are being harmed its acceptable.

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

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.

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.