If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~Lenny Bruce

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Salman RUSHDIE

Lock that bitch up!

Kimmy, because of the way the US constitution is written (and interpreted) the adult industry finds itself standing in support of some very weird things to protect that concrete line. It is a concept of bizarre absolutes that makes me shake my head. It creates a horrible situation of having to support shit that most humans would find deeply offensive, revolting, and unacceptable to retain certain rights and freedoms. For me, that is a no win situation. To say I support stories of raping babies to protect free speech makes me ill. Something is wrong with a system that can't even draw that proper concrete line.

Until you can seperate the content from the implied freedom, we will always end up standing next to some of the most disgusting and revolting people and thoughts. That just isn't a very palatable situation.

Tony, nice pile of quotes... would you feel the same if someone wrote a story about raping your child? Would you feel the same if someone drew pictures and explained how they would do it?

Why are images (especially computer generated, cartoons, or other art forms where no actual act occurred) illegal but the written word that describes them not?

Double standards that all the slick as sound bites in the world can't cure.

What? What about the person that got their pictures taken without permission? Their picture forever on digitized on the web, downloading on god knows how many computers. What if someone "getting off" to those pictures saw that person one day and decided to take action? Of course it can hurt someone! Text stories about fake people or fake individuals can't hurt ANYONE jesus fucking christ I don't see how you can even begin to try to compare the two, it is mind boggling. ALSO, I am talking about simulated scenes of kids. As for simulated rape scenes of CONSENTING ADULTS, that is fine imo.

That would be illegal if they used specific names and exact likeness, it could be considered conspiracy in many states/countries, so I imagine he could do what is appropriate and contact various law agencies to get it resolved.

notabook, so let's make the story about "child of tony403". Would that suddenly make it all better? That seems to be a fine line that doesn't cover what the content really is.

Alex

Again, getting into specific names/details could be considered the same thing as the drawings and as such could be considered conspiracy. If the story is using Plain Jane or John Doe names without any identifiable specific mentionables, then there should be nothing wrong with it.

If you dont protect it you lose it. What are you going to do if next they come after something you wrote in a blog or on one of your sites? Then say they come after unpopular political speech. This has nothing to do with me being in porn, I have said people arrested in nonporn friendly places that they caused their own pain so Im not blinded by my work. Free speech is what makes this country great and its not protecting only the nice pretty speech or the stuff you agree about. Its the stuff that makes you angry or makes you want to throw up or turns your stomach. Once they start creating a bar its easy to lower it. Please wake up and realize that.

Very well stated, all walks of life can easily be affected by just this one precedent if it comes to it.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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.

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


Mr. Romance

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

well said.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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