War on Porn??

[CannibalCrow]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570_pf.html

A bunch of porn sites depicting consentual "bondage" were forced to take down their images because of this new law? A few people have been sent to jail for having these images on their sites??

I did a quick search before posting this, and didn't find anything about it on here. So I apologize if I am re-posting something.. if I have, My bad.

Any thoughts on censoring consentual "obscene" sexual acts? I don't mean the obviously wrong ones.( Beastiality, child porn, the things that need to be banned because of them being immoral and sick) I mean images with fake blood, or bondage.

A site that had non-pornographic images ( Suicidegirls. They show T&A but nothing vulgar ) had to take down bondage pics because of this law.
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Everything SG/81705/page1/

 

[2-0-Sixx]

The War on Porn? Fucking ridiculous.

Obviously this is yet another attempt by the Bush Admin to appeal to the Right Wing Christian Wacko’s of Amerikkka and to say thanks for helping them win (steal) the elections.

Besides, only LiberalHippyFagCommieTerroristCockSuckingTraders look at porn.

 

[jayoyayo]

yea fuck the bush administration. on some real shit, thank fucking GOD that clinton was in power when the internet started getting popular or else there would be no american porn. but then also thank the fact that the internet is global, so if you want whatever the FBI takes down (in this case bondage) theres thousands of sites out there in other countries that you can fuck with.

 

[Talus]

oh hellz no that aint even cool

 

[CannibalCrow]

It's got scary implications. Looking past the porn issue, I see worse things he is capable of placing a ban on. However, he doesn't have a *lot* of time to do *that* many horrible things in, does he..? I'm trying to be positive here. I don't see a reason for banning pornographic, consentual acts from the internet. It confuses me because personal, moral opinions shouldn't be the basis for laws. It should be out of the common good. Like, Do not kill people. That's a pretty good rule to stick by. " Hey! No pictures of people doing stuff I don't condone!"<-- Not such a good law. How did that even get passed??

 

[mustynutz]

yeah they wanna have all porn sites under a ".xxx" extension such as

www.hotfuckingsluts.xxx

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Handcuffs huh? Maybe they should start attacking the US military

It's got scary implications. Looking past the porn issue, I see worse things he is capable of placing a ban on. However, he doesn't have a *lot* of time to do *that* many horrible things in, does he..? I'm trying to be positive here.

Bush himself may not have much more time in office but I doubt these sort of attacks will end any time soon. If the Republican party is reelected, expect much of the same. If the Democratic party is elected into office, expect much of the same. The Dems strategy, since loosing the last election, is to shift dramatically to the right and try and to appeal to more right-wing religious people of amerika (which is stupid, all they need to fucking do is try and appeal to the working class and the poor people of Amerika!).

 

[JoMoDo]

Bush himself may not have much more time in office

Oh how I wish that were true, ecept, he hasn't even completed ONE YEAR of this term though....

The ball has just began to start rolling. He never cease's to amaze me, just when you think, how can such an absurd policy be enacted, BushCo distracts you from the issue at hand by coming up with some even crazier off brand rightwing agenda...

 

[Jae iLL]

The definition of "obscenity" comes from the 1973 case of Miller v. California. The three requirments of obscenity are, 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests.
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or federal) law, and
3. The work taken as a whole, lacks serious, artistic, political or scientific value.
It's always been kind of hard to enforce this rule of "obscenity" because it's hard to determine what the average person would think. Generally, the Supreme Court has left this to the lower courts.
However, a case to look into is Lawrence v. Texas. The Court ruled that the government cannot prosecute gay lovers for perfroming sodomy in the privacy of their bedroom. This has been a landmark ruling in the case of gay marriage and privacy activists. In fact, earlier this year a porn company that sells obscene videos had a ruling in their favor with a reference to Lawrence. The Supreme Court has set a precedent, and through stare decisis, they MUST follow this precedent.

As long as the companies get the right lawyers, and read the case files, the common law is really on their side. That is, until some higher courts come thru with the power of judicial review...

 

[jm_91688]

i dont even see what the big deal is i love porn lol

 

[jayoyayo]

there was a really good episode of PBS frontline on the porn industry, ill see if i can find the link

 

[Jonny Mosley]

What happend to the eye-candy forum?

 

[28g w/o the bag]

What happend to the eye-candy forum?

who the hell are you?

 

[Talus]

the xxx thing aint that bad its kinda good so lil kids dont wind up going on the wrong sites....
like the whole www.whitehouse.com is a porn site

 

[Jae iLL]

the xxx thing aint that bad its kinda good so lil kids dont wind up going on the wrong sites....
like the whole www.whitehouse.com is a porn site

looks like a public records site to me......





nah, i heard about that a while ago, but I just clicked it now and it's some public records website.. I remember back in middle school, I think, www.zelda.com was a porn site. I think that .xxx wouldn't be such a bad thing.

 

[Jonny Mosley]

Old school member.. used to go by High The Whole Way.

been gone for a while.. No more eye candy and free passwords?

 

[hobgoblin]

Only part of it I read that they felt needed to be taken action against, was the "porn" that had people peeing and shitting on other people. I feel that shit is super disgusting and should have action taken against it. Other than that... porn is fine.

"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.

 

[jayoyayo]

Only part of it I read that they felt needed to be taken action against, was the "porn" that had people peeing and shitting on other people. I feel that shit is super disgusting and should have action taken against it. Other than that... porn is fine.

but the point is, thats the shit YOU think is disgusting, and theres shit you think is fine, like regular fucking, that many other people think is disgusting. so basically, where is the line drawn? beacuse it doesnt stop at just the shit you think is nasty, the people enforcing this shit are gonna take it further than that, and they already have, shutting down bondage. bondage, which brings up images of ropes and shit, but really, they take shit down that only has handcuffs.