|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Free Speech and Porn |
| 101-132 of 132 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | Page 3 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-28-10 12:15am - 5404 days | #101 | |
|
LeeRoy (0)
Active User  Posts: 5 Registered: Jan 27, '10 Location: Netherlands |
I would never thought porn can be labeled as addiction...Seems governments seriously start recognize it as a real danger. say what you mean, mean what you say | |
|
||
| 01-28-10 06:15pm - 5404 days | #102 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Good luck to the person who tries to get Government help for his/her porn addiction. I just read that Australia is thinking to ban anything depecting women with small breast because it could entice people into thinking it's child pornography. Australia as singlehandedly killed Keira Knightley's career. From now one only large breasted women will be allowed in Australia. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-28-10 07:14pm - 5403 days | #103 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Are you kidding me?! I am a fan of smaller breasts because there is almost zero room for dispute over their authenticity. I am sure a law like that would go over well with the female constituency, especially when they force them to vote by law. I'll bet the plastic surgery lobby is pushing for this nonsense--bastards! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-29-10 07:22am - 5403 days | #104 | |
|
xxxliger (0)
Active User Posts: 5 Registered: Jan 28, '10 |
I think for some people it is really some sort of addiction. I know one guy who watches porn movies for 15-17 hours per day!!!!! ------------------------------------------- VIP member of http://www.pornoxo.com VIP member of http://www.pornoxo.com ) Edited on Feb 03, 2010, 09:28am | |
|
||
| 02-02-10 02:01pm - 5399 days | #105 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Time for a little rant about school district censorship, moronic parens and the problem with teenage sexuality. Seems that a school district in Virginia gave in without a fight and pulled copies of Anne Franks Diary. Seems that the school had copies of the definitive edition which included some diary entries where she talked about problems with her parents and a few less than direct references to her genitalia and puberty. The offending reference in the book was when Anne referred to her vagina as "her little hole" when wondering how women actually give birth. (Here's the article: http://www2.starexponent.com/cse/news/lo...explicit_text/51217/) Sometimes I can relate to school districts avoiding these types of fights. They cost money for lawyers, it creates nasty p.r. and it causes divisiveness in the community. Here, the school just pulled the book without a fight. Apparently the idea of teens reading about the Nazis slaughtering millions of Jews after collectively drinking the "master race" Kool-Aid (Nazi Party name brand) loses out over some indirect reference to human body parts from a 13 year old girl going through puberty. Just like the movies and rating systems, apparently it is too much to show some skin or sex but it's just fine to slaughter as many people as you want. It's pretty obvious that there are many parents who think that by keeping kids clueless about sex and human anatomy that doing so will in turn keep them from ever thinking about sex let along having sex (unless they get married ... at age 17 ... because they got pregnant ... where does Dad keep his shotgun again?). To me, this is sort of like the record companies claiming victory by successfully prosecuting some guy who is selling bootleg recordings out of his van down by the river. Unless you're growing up Amish or orthodox whatever, your kid probably has internet and cell phone access at home, school or at a friends house. If they haven't looked up porn or stumbled across it then it's obvious your kids are retarded because they don't know how to type, spell "sex" or use a search engine. If you have a teenage girl and she doesn't know why blood is coming out "down there" or thought about what sex must be like then you have successfully created offspring who are incapable of critical thought, the ability to problem solve on their own (by looking up why this is happening) and who are pretty darn likely to believing most of the sexual fallacies and urban legends that get passed around at that age. The way the law treats kids with sexting, porn and child porn is that kids are essentially sexless beings until they turn 18. Suddenly on that day, they go from being asexual beings that will be psychologically damaged from seeing any genitalia to suddenly being paid for doing a double anal sex video with no one batting an eye about it. The problem is that most kids today end up having sex or at least seriously making out before age 18 and teens still have the issue of hormone levels that put most of us over the age of 25 to shame. No amount of parental hovering or banning of books or even banning sex ed will stop all kids from doing it and stop them from looking at "bad things" they can find in our cyber connected world. I'm not saying that school libraries should be stocking up on Playboys and skin flicks (though I bet more kids would come to school and find the library much more interesting). I guess I don't understand the need to avoid all controversey, especially when the content at issue is autobiographical, a recognized literary classic, and conveys significant historical and moral values. The My Lai massacre, crucifixtion, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, genocide, war in general, etc. are all part of the human condition and need to be taught to kids so that they understand the fragileness of life, the need to reflect and make good decisions and to learn from mistakes our society and others have made in the past. Most people don't complain the teaching of such violence because it is history and it is every where in our media culture. Through in some reference to sex or anatomy and it suddenly becomes taboo. If a school can't win on the issue of Anne Frank then they might as well just roll over and clean out the libary, ban the internet and sign up a bunch of nuns to teach abstinence only "sexless" education. | |
|
||
| 02-02-10 07:33pm - 5398 days | #106 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Once again another great Wittyguyian post/rant! And once again another apology for my state; sorry we're such close-minded morons. I remember reading about this last week and really not thinking much about because schools ban books all the time and school boards are full of pussies who will jump just at the sound of a concerned parent sneezing. The problem is many of these parents are idiots and their idea of education is essentially government funded (commies!) sheltered daycare where the body is a dirty, sinful thing to never be thought of, much less discussed or read about. And sex is so unspeakably evil that even the mere mention of it possibly being taught will bring on judgment day. Or something like that. Having grown up in America in recent decades I have to say there is a real dearth of rationally thinking parents who are genuinely concerned about their children. Instead almost everyone lives in fear and lives in sin and apparently doesn't want to run the risk of having it any other way. Remember last September's knee jerk reaction to Obama's nationwide speech to schoolchildren? I would tell the parents to look up the definition of "public"--as in "public education"--before they cry brainwashing, but what do I know? It's kind of ironic as Anne Frank and her family were hiding from the Nazis who didn't like a lot of books either, though the Nazis would have just told the school to throw them in a bonfire. But what exactly is worse? Having children read the diary and explain the Holocaust to them, but balk at the idea that a twelve or thirteen year old girl would start to think about sex? Or just never have them learn or read history ever? ---- Read a banned book! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-07-10 02:57pm - 5394 days | #107 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/28/aus...alian-censor-bo.html Here is an article I found about that Australian law on small breasts. So it has gone past the thinking of a law to actually having one. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 02-07-10 06:34pm - 5394 days | #108 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Besides "banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films" they are also banning depictions of female ejaculations as they are considered "abhorrent." This is not only anti-porn but is starting to sound anti-women as well. I know the U.S. has some pretty backwards laws when it comes to women (selling sex toys is illegal in some parts of the country) but at least we haven't gone totally puritanical and banned showing itty bitty titties and squirting...yet. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Feb 07, 2010, 09:55pm | |
|
||
| 02-22-10 11:55am - 5379 days | #109 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Dude! Where'd my porn go?!?!?! It might not be that long before some PUers start saying that to themselves. Why? Well, here's the short story. Several years ago a player in the domain name market tried to get the .xxx (instead of .com or .net, it's literally ".xxx") registry approved by the international body (ICANN) that regulates domain names. They were shot down. Now, ICANN has been ordered to review that decision. While there is no final decision it is likely that the .xxx domains will be legalized at some point in the near future. So, what's the problem you ask. One word: "censorship". How easy would it be for a government or ISP to simply ban access to all .xxx sites as an easy way to appeal to the Puritan mainstream? Most existing companies would not be looking to change their domains and probably have protections in the domain names they have, but governments could require that all future porn sites use the .xxx registry. In countries outside the US, governments could require that porn sites link from their existing url address to a new .xxx host site for their content. Again, this just makes censorship easier by bunching all "offensive" content in one easily blockable package. The outcome is that if porn sites starting getting blocked in other countries several things start to happen. First, consumers in less restrictive nations pay more for porn. Second, as I've alluded numerous times in this thread, people simply go underground by purchasing software/hardware that masks their their user IPO address. The result is that intelligence and law enforcement spends a hell of a lot more money trying to filter out the bad guys from the good guys on the web (aka - consumers and taxpayers pay more). The only good I can see from a .xxx domain is that it makes parental controls easier. However, there's plenty of good software available to today that already accomplishes that task. While the people behind the drive to get the .xxx domains approved see money in their future, I see more problems than what it's worth for the rest of us. | |
|
||
| 02-22-10 04:35pm - 5379 days | #110 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Oh, Wittyguy, your posts are always sure to keep me up at night no matter how much sleep I need! I remember hearing a few years ago about porn sites rejecting the .xxx domain name but I could never remember why, but now I know and knowing is half the battle. This would make it almost effortless to block sites (the good ones anyway!) but the people who aren't laboring to suppress their biology are usually the ones laboring to get hard and pretty good at figuring out ways to do it even within the 'freedom' and 'liberty' (i.e. guns and no taxes) of the U.S. I think one of the reasons AOL thrived in the '90s, the ancient days of Interweb yore, was because a large percentage of its customer base was just perverts looking to find pictures (and I guess low quality videos too) of naked ladies. It's the same old story no matter what the time or circumstance; people get horny and they want their fix! Just like the War on Drugs the War on Sex/Porn is failing miserably too. :) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-22-10 10:12pm - 5378 days | #111 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I did a quick Google search and found a Wired article from August 2005 and it says that the objection to the .xxx domain change is (at the time of the article) from, get this, the prudes who hate porn in the first place, who are worried "that creating a .xxx suffix would legitimize pornographers." Hey, I would love legitimacy even in the illegitimate arts! ;) What I really wish they would do is start giving the different genres there own suffixes, like .dvd for DVD sites, .anl for butt sex, .sft for soft-core, and .shv for shaved (very important suffix in my book/hard drive). Don't just lump all porn into one massive heap but give us more organized fans some guidance. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-22-10 11:11pm - 5378 days | #112 | |
|
FuckingGambler (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 15 Registered: Jan 28, '10 Location: Hungary |
If point of view of the webmaster is of interest: my feeling is that .xxx domain will not significantly change censorship or parental control issues. Most of companies which play by the rules ("good guys", like PornUsers, TheBestPorn or FuckingGamble) already have ICRA / RTA labeling in place, and it is extremely easy for both censoring agencies and for parental control software to filter this kind of content out. What passing a law to enforce adult content to .xxx domain would change, is to give another competitive advantage to so-called "bad guys", who will stay in .com domain despite all the prohibitions, and .com is still superior to any other domain in some countries (notably US), where the common perception is "if it is not on .com, it doesn't exist at all". | |
|
||
| 02-23-10 10:08am - 5378 days | #113 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Just a few remarks on the .xxx thing .... First, one of the main reasons you keep seeing this come up is because there are certain groups that are looking to make LOTS of money with .xxx domain registrations. If you dig enough, you'll usually see one of those groups behind every push to readdress the issue. Also, more than a few WM's who were late to the game would love to see the field leveled so they could have a chance to prime domain names who's dot com version were scooped up in the early days. Finally, in the past, when ICANN takes another look at this they've had a period where they welcome public opinion on the issue. In the past, mostly adult WM's spoke against it as few porn surfers are willing to go on record as defending their right to access porn. So, if it opens up again, consider speaking out against .xxx It's one thing to grumble in the corner but quite another to stand up and speak your piece on record. Oh, one last thing ... What many people don't realize is it's not just the sending and receiving end that can use .xxx to do a blanket ban on porn sites. The way the Internet works, the page you're viewing may pass through any number of servers in route to you. With .xxx in place, it'd be WAY too easy for some of those servers to simply refuse to route adult traffic. You can bet that, if passed, there will be right wing groups lobbying to have any group who receives federal funding (like universities) to block routing of porn related traffic. Just something to help you understand just how ugly things could get with .xxx mandated. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson Edited on Feb 23, 2010, 10:14am (Khan: added one more thing) | |
|
||
| 02-23-10 12:38pm - 5378 days | #114 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
As usual, Khan makes very good points including a few I overlooked in my post on the whole ".xxx" thing. I'm just going to chime in with a few more observations: I think the whole .xxx thing is going to be a "lose - lose" proposition for all parties involved. ICANN could make the .xxx registry legal but they don't have binding enforcement power over which companies use the .xxx domains. It would be up to lawmakers in individual countries countries to require adult sites to use a .xxx domain. However, a lot of western countries with established commercial and trade laws simply won't let the government shut down a domain address without compensating the owner (this is "the takings" clause in the US Constitution). I can't see many politicians voting to compensate the porn industry. So, worst case scenario here in the U.S., is that the government could pass a law requiring all new adult domain addresses to have a .xxx domain. Guess what, that is what's called content based restriction which is illegal in the U.S. Assuming the .xxx domain is approved you can bet that almost immediately some nations will outright ban them. Adult webmasters will see this happening and realize that they have no interest in spending money to brand a new domain that is so easily blocked. The domain registration people hoping to see huge prices for domains like "sex.xxx" are going only going to see moderate sales for the really good domains while the rest are left to rot. Anyone trying to buy up "pixandvideo.xxx" or "videobox.xxx" will probably get their ass sued off for cybersquatting or trademark/copyright infringement so there's no real money there either. End result, the domain registers lose because they don't see the huge profits they had hoped. Websites lose when nations require that while they may claim a .com or .net domain that they must host their wares on a .xxx site which is then banned by the government or by an isp or isp provider (in the case of public wireless networks). Then, we as consumers lose out on the goodies. About the only good thing I could see happening out of all of this is that more companies would create a web presence in the U.S. where we have decent first amendment protections in order to avoid the .xxx label that other nations might impose on them. | |
|
||
| 02-23-10 03:51pm - 5378 days | #115 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
I'll be pleasantly surprised if a .xxx mandate doesn't eventually get passed. It seems that everywhere you turn, governments, the U.S. in particular, are increasing the abrogations of freedom while simultaneously catering to the wants of big business. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 02-23-10 05:42pm - 5378 days | #116 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
It would be nice if it never happens, and if American universal health care were a reality, and if Sarah Palin never spoke another word for the rest of her life...but I digress. The recent Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission case highlights the direction this has been, is, and will be going in the future. 'Freedom' of speech has reached its apparent limit for individual citizens and now corporations--newly defined as individuals by the geniuses in the Supreme Court--have to get back their rights that have been suppressed for so long under the tyrannical boot of democracy and civil rights. If there were a few big media corporations comparable to the three or four conglomerates who run, well, most of the media on the planet I would feel better about the decision, but there aren't. Instead everything that can be considered even remotely objectionable to a powerful few (usually with the unquestionable defense that their religion says such things are no-nos) is labeled 'obscene' and made illegal for the 'common good'--i.e. their own interests. :( "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-23-10 07:27pm - 5377 days | #117 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I agree with what has been said, but have an addition. Khan touched on something I have always thought would happen. We may get to the point where Governments treat ISP companies as they would TV companies, broadcasters, magazines, and newspapers. They will be made responsible for any material that can be accessed through them. There have already been talks from the British government about fining or banning ISP companies who allow too much downloading of pirate material. We will come to the point where ISP's will be responsible for adult material, or anything else considered unacceptable, for that matter. If governments don't like what they allow, they will fine ISP companies, put them out of business or even prosecute those in charge. Therefore adult and unacceptable sites will end up being blocked. We will end up in the same situation that we have now for TV companies. They can be prosecuted and lose their license if anything considered unacceptable is broadcast. As we know, reasons for banning or censorship is usually on grounds of safety, for the public's own good, racism, sexism, any reason they choose really. It's all for our own good of course. Can't have people coming out and criticising some government department for allowing 150 terrorists into the country while Bob was on a tea break. Should anyone break that sort of news, they and any TV company would be prosecuted on grounds of security. The country would be much safer if we all have no idea why Bob, our sole armed forces or secret services representative, was on a tea break, or why he was the only one covering the entire South Coast while the rest of the armed forces and police forces are in Great Yarmouth beating the shit out of peace protesters. The answer is the protesters are a hell of a lot more of a threat to government than any bunch of terrorists. At least terrorists just blow up normal people, not government officials. So everything has to be controlled. The very nature of censorship suggests we are inferior while those who censor are superior. How much they spend on controlling the internet is irrelevant to them. It's the most important thing of all, in them maintaining their control over us, therefore the internet has to be controlled. It's a doubly whammy. They censor to show us who is superior and who is boss, and they get to control and censor any crticism against them. The rich owns most of the media, so there is no free speech. If you own it you don't need to control it. The internet is the last frontier for genuine free speech being accessed. That has to be changed. As always those with a personal hotline to god know exactly that they are right, because they know exactly what god wants, and have to control our bad habits. Those sort, along with big business will always be great allies of government. The perfect axis of evil. Well it would be if I actually believed in the concept of evil or hell or god. Just in case I'm wrong - burn in hell you bastards. Okay the above scenario is a little heavy handed, but makes my point in a heavy handed way. The internet is too free. In order for big business and government to control us they need to own or control the media. They own most of the media therefore they don't need to control it. The internet is not only a thorn in their side, it is worth a lot of money to those in power. They will gain control eventually. They may use terrorism, murder, rape, sexism, racism, fear of violence or any other argument as a cover for gaining control. They have never cared much for people, just the opposite. A government is a people's worst enemy. The internet is the enemy of government and those in power, therefore the internet is our friend and ally. Edited on Feb 24, 2010, 05:43am | |
|
||
| 02-24-10 02:41pm - 5377 days | #118 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I hope it never comes to where the Internet is treated like TV. I hate TV because it is so micromanaged and heavily censored. I mean I really don't understand why you can watch something on TV with bleeped audio but watch it on the web 24 hours a day and it will be uncensored. Stupid, hypocritical bullshit. It's not just restrictions on the words and body parts that make baby Jesus cry but the restrictions on content and tone. If it doesn't sit well with sponsors--or heaven forfend, the all-powerful FCC--then it's not getting renewed, advertised, or will just be taken off the air. Beyond HBO (which is pay cable, by the way) I can't think of anything on TV that's really groundbreaking or totally comfortable with its content. I love the Internet because, despite its flaws, it is the last vast frontier for unrestricted to lightly restricted content that is truly determined by users' tastes, not by some unseen eye of 'good' taste. Squirrel, I think you have called this age the Wild West of the Internet in that what we look at online is still largely out of reach of the authorities and therefore so much more powerful and open, but I hope you're wrong. I hope the puritanical fascists who have wet dreams about greater censorship are too busy waving their 'values' and 'morals' around to ever figure out how to actually get anything restricted. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-24-10 04:25pm - 5377 days | #119 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I really hope I'm wrong. I still think we are in a golden age, which is soon going to end. I am old enough to remember a time where you could get two years in prison for selling a hardcore video, which would cost £60. It's why I think a lot of sites are great value for money, and people don't know how lucky they are. Sadly it will end. I still have the opinion that piracy, porn, free speech, and a free internet are worth protecting as they are inter dependant. | |
|
||
| 02-25-10 01:53pm - 5376 days | #120 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
When Good Searches Go Bad - aka Politics and the Net By now, most of you have probably heard about Google's Italy problem. Last year, some teens posted a video of themselves bullying a Down's Syndrome kid on Google. Italian prosecuters, applying Italian law, charged Google executives with violating privacy laws and were convicted in abstentia of those charges (apparently it's a crime there to depict any abuse of developmentally challenged people). The basis for the conviction was that Google only took down the video after receiving an official complaint two months after it was posted and because Google used the video for profit because Google makes money from advertising on pages showing uploaded content. By "handling the video" ( by placing advertising with it and by using marketing algorithems on it) prosecutors contend that Google was just not a host site but, instead, a media content producer like a newspaper or commercial website. The justification for this censorship is that the Italian government has a vested interest in protecting human dignity. Part of the reason for this conviction is politics. The prime minister also happens to run the largest tv and publishing conglomerate in Italy. By forcing companies like Google, You-Tube, and Facebook to get media licenses and police their content, it helps level the field for the "old school" media players. The Italians make one tiny valid point. Google uses it's computing forces to make money (a little at least) from uploaded content. So, it's not like some retired dude simply putting up a bulletin board for people who like to talk about model train sets and makes no money from it. In that sense, Google and Facebook are not 100% shielded by the service provider protections. However, as we all know, unless companies can make some money at some point you'll never have robust online communities with nifty functions and easy search capability. Facebook wouldn't exist if the owners were liable for everything someone might say on there. Let's face it, these companies are a hell of lot closer to a true bulletin board system than, say, a porn site that sells memberships and produces all of its own content. The Italians also argue that, like it did in China, Google can filter content. Nice try, morons. We of the porn world who have some understanding of the perils of a legal system where "obscenity" is defined after the fact can see through that. What the hell exactly is "protecting human dignity". Once again, a minority of one has the ability to censor the entire web. Unless Italy changes it's laws or this case gets flipped on appeal, Italy will simply slumber through it's own self imposed internet "Dark Ages" as all social networking companies simply block access to Italian users. Italians aren't necessarily the brightest when it comes to embracing modernity but this, I think, is more of a blip on the radar than a thunderbolt from above when looking at the long term implications. Lastly, and unrelated, Microsoft has now decided that it's the new spam sheriff in town. A US court has permitted Microsoft to tell ISP's to shut down certain web addresses that they believe are spreading malicious botnets. Since when does a private corporation get the right to shut down websites without prior notice (like an ISP, especially a small one, is going to thumb it's nose at MS). Is the FBI too lazy or too stupid to do this? Of course, MS would never do anything bad, right? I guess that Italy doesn't have the market cornered on stupid legal decisions after all. | |
|
||
| 02-26-10 11:30am - 5375 days | #121 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I've made several references in this thread to people using software or ISP services to circumvent censorship in their country. In case anyone wants to know more about these types of services and which ones really work here's a link to a long and somewhat scholarly article about what works. The good stuff (names of services tested and results) starts at page 21 on the downloadable document. Here's the link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publication...ion_Landscape_Report. | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 12:32pm - 5328 days | #122 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Making Money and Destroying Copyrights in Obscenity Cases Just to note, John Stagliano goes to trial in early July in his obscenity case. A good chunk of the prosecution focuses on a downloadable trailer of a Bella Donna video available from his site. All the usual stuff about what constitutes "the community" under the Miller test in the internet age, whether the full video should or should not be shown to the jury, and what makes something obscene will be vigorously litigated and then his fate will be decided by 12 members of some Northern Virginia jury who weren't smart enough to figure out how to avoid getting stuck on a multi-week trial and then years of appeals will follow. There some interesting tidbits at issue that often get overlooked. First, there is the idea that Stagliano was targeted in part because his company won a large judgment against a video pirate and because his company has some good assets. Through an arcane and tortuous history, it became the law that if something is found obscene, then the government can seek forfeiture of all "instrumentalities" underlying the offense. "Instrumentalities" includes the building where the obscene video was made, the building it was shipped from, the materials used to produce the video, the business assets used, business bank accounts, etc. In other words, if you've been shooting porn for decades and then a jury finds one video obscene then you're whole enterprise can be seized by the government. While law enforcement and prosecutors don't get paid extra from any forfeited assets you can sure as hell bet that it looks damn good come promotion time to be able to say you were responsible for generating millions of dollars of income for your nation. It appears that there is at least some evidence that the government targeted Stagliano for the potential money and then forum shopped (looked for a good conservative pro-prosecution jurisdiction to have the questionable videos shipped to and viewed from) to better their chances for a conviction. It remains to be seen how much of this will make it to the jury but it is a bit disconcerting that this might be happening. Criminal RICO laws (the ones used to take down mafia clans and drug cartels) allow for forfeiture but the government doesn't use those forfeiture laws too often lest they become abused and then Congress takes them away. There's no leash on the obscenity people here apparently and I doubt Congress cares if some porn king loses his McMansion and sports cars. I also wonder how courts could justify taking an entire business when 99.9% of its assets came from completely legal (aka - nonobscene) business. It'd be sort of like someone getting busted for selling a small bag of marijuana and then they lose their house, car, bank account, and retirement investments because of that one illegal sale. The US Supreme Court has already said it doesn't like punitive damages in civil cases much beyond 10 times the original verdict so if a video only generates a few grand in revenue I find it hard to argue that all assets suddenly are up for grabs. Another unanswered question. A second issue at hand includes copyright laws. In order to have a valid copyright, the business or person producing the material must file documentation with the government. If the porn prosecutors decide that getting some big money forfeiture notches in their belt is the way to go, then it makes sense to track the copyright filings. Companies that file lots of copyrights indicate that they are financially healthy and worth pursuing. Without copyright protection, businesses can't legally stop people from selling or pirating their wares. Can you say "chilling effect"? It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out this summer. Edited on Apr 14, 2010, 12:35pm | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 12:45pm - 5328 days | #123 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Isn't the simplest thing not to make porn in Western Virginia?  Or is that likely to be US National Legislation? If it is, that might well have dramatic repercussions for the US porn industry. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 02:21pm - 5328 days | #124 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
That's not technically correct. They own a copyright immediatly upon creation and can enforce that copyright to stop others from using their material. Where the "must file documentation with the government" comes into play is if they wish to sue someone for damages (read: money). In that case, they DO need to have filed their copyright with the gov't. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 02:52pm - 5328 days | #125 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I guess I didn't realize that was the case anymore. However, a quick google search on the issue also reveals that unless you register your copyright within 3 months from the time the work was published you cannot claim certain damages and attorneys fees in enforcing copyright infringement (piracy) claims. Those are two big whammies and without them I don't think as many porn producers would be chasing pirates in court. | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 03:19pm - 5328 days | #126 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Actually WG said "Northern Virginia," not Western Virginia, but I thought the trial would be held in D.C., because that's where the district court that indicted him is located. (You can actually read a PDF copy of the actual indictment here if you interested.) Though considering Virginia's outright fear and prohibition of sex outside of marriage--literally, it's on the books--I would not be surprised if he was tried there as well. The problem is not really where the 'obscene' material is made, but the community whose standards define it as such. The legal troubles seem to start when things are transported and sold in places that would consider them obscene, sort of like how Americans risk having a lot of European porn seized (and probably watched repeatedly) by customs because it can generally be defined as obscene to the U.S. as a whole. Regardless I always cry a little more inside every time I hear about one of these cases. Obscene? Really? All the problems in this country, not even counting all the things we have to resolve overseas, and some morons get offended enough to bring charges against Stagliano and his company, lest the earth split open and we all get swallowed up in an apocalyptic sinkhole? I can just hear Pat Robertson or some other brainiac spouting the same old bullshit; "This country's tolerance and liberal-led embrace of sodomy and homosexuality is why God is punishing us right now. Now send me some money." The Miller test also disgusts me because community standards can vary so widely within a country, and even within a district. I mean, I would not like a community in the South to dictate anti-discrimination laws and policies for all of the U.S. so why should it be okay for a single community to interpret (usually limit) the 1st Amendment? Few other modern western countries would apply such draconian standards to adult entertainment yet we in the U.S. seem to do it quite easily, and as we continue to hold ourselves up as the freest country on earth. Something's not quite right here and it fucking  ! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on May 18, 2010, 01:59pm | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 03:30pm - 5328 days | #127 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Yes you are quite correct, I mis-quoted, sorry.  The situation must always be tricky with your States making their own laws. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 04-14-10 03:35pm - 5328 days | #128 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You're not kidding--just read about our Civil War (though interestingly enough if you were to listen to the current governor of Virginia you might think it was unrelated to slavery). It's one of the big issues concerning the latest health care reform; that the federal government cannot mandate how individual states 'provide' health care to their citizens. Sigh... "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-18-10 01:08pm - 5294 days | #129 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
How to Not Hide On the Internet: Internet privacy is a big deal at least in this forum thread. It's also becoming bigger deal for the less pervie folks who don't want companies like Google tracking their IP (internet protocol) addresses in order to market to them. It turns out IP addresses are only half the battle. With the advent of browser add-ons and numerous browser configurations, most websites can now identify individual users just from their browser setups. In fact 80% of web users can be tracked in this way. While your physical location (or the location of your computer) isn't known, "you" as a recognizeable individual visitor stand out like LeBron James at a Little People convention. Several companies are now marketing tracking software based upon browser setup fingerprints as opposed to IP tracking in order to avoid the current privacy / tracking issues. Read the longer article on this topic here: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/61355. | |
|
||
| 05-20-10 03:08pm - 5292 days | #130 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Australia ... Again God bless (or "God Damn" ) the aussies for providing a constant source of amusement. Yes, they're fine internet filtering project against porn continues but now they've decided that having porn enter the country by any means is just too much. Should you now go to or re-enter the country, you have to declare to customs officers if you have any pornographic material with you. Of course, doing so will result in a search of your belongings, computer, and person. This puts you in the same category as those who declare they have illicit drugs or weapons with them even though porn is still legal to possess there -- the purpose is to weed out child porn. WTF is the point of this? Did the customs officers negotiate a sweetheart union deal to help relieve the boredom normally associated with the job? Do they just want to know what's new in the land of pervdom? Isn't this really like the old airport questions about if "Someone asked you carry something on board for them or someone else packed your luggage?" and we all know how effective that line of inquiry was at stopping ... well, nothing. Keep up the good work Australia, showing the world how civil servants and pointless questions will save us all from child porn. | |
|
||
| 08-05-10 06:01pm - 5215 days | #133 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
It's been a while since I updated my pet thread so strap yourselves in: 1. Moron's in Charge (Part 1): I made an earlier post about some Pennsylvania teens who were facing child porn charges for sexting pics among themselves. In case you're wondering, some of them have been charged with felony child porn possession and delivery. The Pennsylvania legislature decided that this was too harsh so what do they do? They're proposing a law (along with about 20 other states) that makes sexting illegal for minors. The idea is to have more lenient charges available for "innocent mistakes" or "lapses in judgment" instead of just having felony child porn charges as a weapon. Is it just me or did someone forget concepts like the 1st Amendment? I wasn't aware that 17 year olds were barred from saying sexy in the U.S. It also doesn't resolve the issue of some minor (say a girl who takes a tittie shot and emails to her boyfriend) being both the victim and criminal; as far as I know that isn't really taken real for any other crime. If nothing else, these laws will keep plenty of lawyers employed for years arguing about it's constitutionality while doing nothing to solve the problem. 2. Moron's in Charge (Part 2): I earlier ranted about how the US government was going to use "national security" as the basis for monitoring our web use as opposed to Austrailia's stupid morality driven reasoning for doing so. Taking a page from his predecessor, Obama wants the FBI to be able to request a persons web internet activity without a warrant so long as it's for a "terrorism or intelligence investigation". Is the FBI so busy looking at internet porn that they don't have time to come up with some rational explanation for a judge to rubber stamp? Are there so many terrorists out there that courts would be flooded with search warrant requests? Is Wittyguy planning on overthrowing the government by proclaiming himself the Emperor of Porn (did I just say that on the internet, oh crap  )? Again, nice idea in principle but bound to lead to abuse sooner rather than later. The Washington Post just ran a highly acclaimed series about how big our intelligence community (oxymoron, I know) has gotten and how no one is in charge, most agencies don't know what the others are doing and how a lot of intelligence is done by private companies and not the government. Where there's a government contract to be had you can be sure that someone's going to find a shitload of terrorist postings that need to be investigated ... on a cost plus basis regardless of the outcome. 3. World Wide Morons: I gave up trying to keep track of the countries banning porn, at least 3 or 4 have in the last few months. Now, at least some Middle Eastern countries are coming somewhat out in the open like Obama/Bush is (see above) and declaring that Blackberries and other proprietary network communications are illegal because those communications can't be adequately screened by their intelligence agencies. Apparently their people are too busy looking at porn to figure out how to write decent encryption filters and deciphering programs. Once again, the bad guys go deeper and begin using technology that's even harder to break (thus greatly raising the cost of intelligence operations) while the average Abdul gets listened in on and eventually his hand cut off for spanking off to his I-Phone download ... the same stuff his intelligence agency is already too busy ogling over. If it were me and I had a business in over there, I'd think twice about being there. Most of these governments aren't exactly big proponents of democracy and forward thinking. In fact, why not just get your government into the corporate espionage business like the Chinese already do and mine what the foreign business people in your country are doing for fun and profit or, even better, sell it to their competitors for a nice profit (oil revenue ain't gonna last forever ya know). 4. A Temporary Victory: A federal court ruled that California's ban on gay marriage is not constitutional  . Round 1 done, now for rounds 2 and maybe 3 before the Supreme Court finds some way to say that gays don't deserve the right to be miserable like everyone else. Perhaps it's comforting for the morality police to know that there are more states allow you to marry your first cousin than there are states that allow gay marriage. Are three legged cross eyed babies with a permanent of IQ of preferable to gays contributing to the multi-billion dollar wedding industry? So much to rant about, so little that could change this debate. I think I'll just go back to my porn collection and hope the FBI likes my latest download .... | |
|
||
| 08-06-10 03:11am - 5214 days | #134 | ||
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
 I love that: the Emperor of Porn. All hail Emperor Wittyguy and his right arm of steel! Maybe with your new title you can restart the escort/happy fun time service Emperors Club VIP so all the assholes and hypocrites in politics are too busy fucking around to be fucking with...
...because you know they will. I mean come on; natural/traditional/correct marriage is under attack and being threatened more and more by the gays and their gay agenda for a gay future in gay America. And once the gays infect their alternative lifestyle into every nook and cranny of real America then the children get mixed messages and then they don't know what's right and wrong anymore. And if the children--America's future!--don't get the right messages then within just a generation we will see this once great nation of ours fall and what's left will be nothing more than a total anarchy of godless heathens out in the streets committing sodomy and other blasphemous acts!  Mark my words--it will happen! Once the institution of marriage goes to the gays then all of the other beloved institutions will fall like dominoes. Mark my words! Or maybe not... In my own opinion, speaking only for myself, there is nothing "natural" about marriage. It's just a social construction created by humans, not some instinctual act set deep within our DNA. Even just the concept of monogamy (without a marriage or ceremony or anything else weighing it down) does not have a great track record within our species. And is it just me or all weddings kind of gay anyway? Everybody dressing well, at a big ceremony, with lots of flowery decorations and festive goings on...doesn't exactly scream blatantly heterosexual to me. Oh and great rant, Wittyguy. I'd get worried if you didn't vent and rant every now and then. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | ||
|
|||
| 101-132 of 132 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | Page 3 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
