|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Free Speech and Porn |
| 1-50 of 132 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-06-08 06:08pm - 5890 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Free Speech and Porn This thread is an offshoot of the "Big Brother Comes Knocking in the UK" thread (click here to link back to that thread: https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thr...07&lastPage=true). That thread more or less has turned into a discussion regarding free speech and/or speech laws and how they apply to porn. Since the topic has expanded I figure it deserves it's own thread. So here's the latest. As of Wednesday, the German's have decided that it is now illegal to sell or distribute porn featuring actors who have "a youthful appearance". I don't know exactly what that means exactly but I assume it means under 18. Considering how bizarre German porn can get why the heck is this a problem and why now? Hustler is now suing to overturn the law because it would ban the sale of their "Barely Legal" series. Regarding another matter, John Stagliano and his Evil Angel websites are currently facing obscenity charges in federal court in DC. His "obscene" material consists of some squirting movies and fetish stuff featuring Belladonna. Unlike Max Hardcore's case which involved distribution via the mail, this case involves distribution over the internet. In my mind the defense is playing this smart saying that the "community standards" prong of the Miller test can't be applied to the internet because the website can't control the geographic reach of their sites. They are also arguing that the feds can't focus on whether just individual videos or trailer's are obsence; they are arguing that the "work as a whole" part of the Miller test must include the entire website or network. They are trying to get the whole case tossed. Whether they win or lose, the case will surely go up on appeal and maybe decide if the Miller test even applies to the internet. For those who aren't up to speed on the Miller Test, that is a test devised by the US Supreme Court in 1973 to determine if something is obscene under federal law (state laws don't necessarily apply the same test if they even have obsenity laws) it more or less reads as follows: When deciding if material is obscene the jury must find that: 1. Whether an average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, as a whole, appeals to prurient interests; 2. Whether the work in question depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as defined under State law; and 3. Taken as a whole, the work lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value. Edited on Nov 06, 2008, 07:26pm | |
|
||
| 11-06-08 06:58pm - 5890 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Using that criteria, a jury could find almost anything obscene. I don't think most people realise how restricted American video producers are. 20 years ago they could show almost anything. Nowadays watersports is most definitley out. Fisting is a no no. Spanking scenes can be prosecuted if they are linked in any way to sexual behaviour. Compared to European producers, there is very little allowed in the way of genuine deviation. No wonder the product from mainstream American porn is so bland. But these latest developments are certainly very interesting. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is an organisation that is trying to get across the idea that internet does have, and should have different rules of copyright in order to protect free speech, innovation, and consumer rights. It argues amongst other things, that copyright is far too often used in a negative way. It also seeks to protect civil rights and privacy. The battle for control over the internet is being fought all the time. They are all seemingly little unconnected battles. But porn, and music rights battles amongst other things, are being fought right now by people, against organisations that have their own agenda. As usual, most of it is about control and power - which equals money. Edited on Nov 06, 2008, 07:48pm | |
|
||
| 11-06-08 07:03pm - 5890 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
The great thing with the Germans or a similar law is that it is so ambiguous that any crusading prosecutor who wants to make a name for himself can bring charges against any producer, director, distributor or studio. If we take the Germans law literarily then any porn movie with a performer that looks less than 30 could be charged, because there are a couple of 20yrs old that could pass teenagers. It is quite frightening the kinds of law being passed these days. Whenever a law is unclear then it opens the door to abuse. The US as the Miller Test, Britain has the no violent porn, and Germany has no youthful looking performers. Gee those laws are as clear as can be. There is no way for the Government to go after anyone but true perverts....NOT. Gee those lwas are as cleart as a mu Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-06-08 07:18pm - 5890 days | #4 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Actually, I would say that there are probably more extreme porn sites than ever thanks to the internet. Watersports, caning and fisting can still be seen galore if your tastes run that way (just look at the TBP listings and you'll find a lot). I think the Euro's still hold sway with the bizarre content but there is a lot of nonmainstream stuff still being produced here. Compared with where Europe is heading, the US is probably still more free overall; the government just can't shut down your site or have some bureaucrat censure you. Only the courts can shut you down here so I think we get more press when cases get prosecuted over other nations where censureship can be more covert. The mainstream stuff is somewhat bland but I think that goes with the market; American's overall prefer bland or generic porn I guess. Give the masses what they want. | |
|
||
| 11-06-08 07:36pm - 5890 days | #5 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I agree that for now the internet is still a wild frontier with little if any laws. My fear is that the Government is not going to attack the websites, but the ISP's. In fact that is pretty much what happened to Max Hardcore. He wasn't charged with the content of his movies per say, but the fact that it was sold across State Lines. The same could be done to ISP's. All the Government has to do is bring accusation against the ISP's that they allowed access to certain kinds of material deemed unaceptable to the comunity. The beauty is that even if the charges are false, and that given enough time and lots of money the charges will be dropped. The owner would probably bankrupt himself defending his business, and in so doing have to stop offering internet service. AS well that would put pressure on other ISP to stop offering certain sites in fear that the same thing happens to them. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-06-08 07:38pm - 5890 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yes, I agree, there is definitely more bizarre freaky stuff nowadays because of the internet. The reason there is so much bizarre stuff from America on the internet is because of the laws governing video production. They aren't allowed to show these things on video, but they can get away with it at the moment on the internet. In fact, it is illegal to even make a pornographic video, showing straight sex in some American states. British mainstream TV is allowed to show much more than American TV. Germany was allowed to do just about anything until they just thought up the "young look" thing. Japan can do all sorts of stuff but can't show any genitals. It's certainly all fu**ed up. But maybe that's how governments like it. Enough grey areas and inconsistencies, so they can go after who they want to go after, and use loopholes in the same laws, to protect who they want to protect. I have always believed that is why the law has evolved into being so convoluted and complicated. It is simply so they can apply or use whatever law they want, in whichever way they want it, to suit their own ends. Yes, I also agree that the governments are going after the ISPs. That's what they're doing in the UK too. The governemnt is putting pressure on them all the time to stop people downloading pirate material. | |
|
||
| 11-07-08 03:15pm - 5889 days | #7 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I think going after the ISP's would be difficult. Let's face it, the big ISP's and the search engines (which rely a lot on ISP's as a gateway) are well organized in Congress and have deep pockets for litigation. I note that the new German law does not hold ISP's liable for "young looking" content as I'm sure their lobbyists nipped any idea of that in bud. Under US law, the ISP's have a certain amount of immunity although it is certainly not well defined. For example, some community host sites have been sued and the courts have not held them liable for defamatory content on their sites because they are basically acting as a distributor of information and not actually publishing the information. The ISP's could make the same argument in regards to porn sites; they are just maintaining the road while it is up to you to drive to your destination. When you think about it, if ISP's were liable for content then the government could already be going after them if you could find al-queda sites (promotion of terrorism), child porn, and for people who send threatening emails to the President. Clearly there is already some "natural" idea building that ISP's can't be held liable for everything, just like a newspaper that quotes someone who makes libelous statements isn't automatically liable for publishing those statements. The law is definitely vague and porn is/will be in the foreground of the fight over how much regulation can be imposed on the net. | |
|
||
| 11-07-08 06:17pm - 5889 days | #8 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I agree that going after ISP is likely doomed to failure for all the reasons you've mentioned, but then again would anyone of us have said that Max Hardcore would be going to jail, That John Stagliano/Evil Angel would be charged with distributing obscenity, that a major network would be fined 50,000$ for brodcasting Janet Jacksons breast on TV? Don't forget that Governments don't have to be right. All they need is a person with the desire and enough backing to do it. The prosecutor doesn't care if his/her crusade will cost tax payers millions of dollars because they aren't flipping the bill. It's people like you and me that pay for them. The same can't be said of the person or corporation being charged. At the moment US laws aren't targeting ISP's but that's today. What will happen tomorrow is not yet decided. All I'm saying is that it's easier to stop porn by controlling access to it then going after porn sites. There are so many porn sites today that I'm sure they can't be easily counted, and new ones are popping up each day. How many ISP are there in America at the moment? I'm sure it's not a thousand. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-14-08 06:21pm - 5882 days | #9 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
True, it would be easiest to chase the ISP's but if you go after one you'll be going after them all (either class action or the big players will jump in, voluntarily or otherwise) and everyone will spend big coin. With the Dem's in charge and the economy tanking here the "culture war" issues like porn will be sitting on the back burner for years to come. One issue where the government could certainly clamp down (and they may already be starting this in parts of Europe) would be to require age verification through a 3rd party website provider. Let's face it, how many teens have debit card or credit cards today. So long as you got the magic 16 digits you're in porn world. A state prosecution for sex with a minor recently got dismissed because the underage girl appeared on one of those adult dating sites and represented she was 20 to the guy and his defense was that he relied on the site and her for age verification. This is one area where the government could legitimately start requiring more regulation. How such a system would work exactly I don't know but you can bet it wouldn't take long for someone or some government agency to start subpoenaing records from the age verification site. | |
|
||
| 11-14-08 07:46pm - 5882 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I believe that any attempt by the Government to control the content available through different ISP is doomed to failure. It doesn't mean that some insane crusader wouldn't try to do it. I agree with you that most Governments are going to have far more important thing to worry about in the next few years than porn in general. I'm not sure how we could prevent minors from accessing adult websites if their parents don't do anything about it. I don't know but can a minor have a credit card without a parent signing the contract? If no, then as a parent you should monitor what your underage children use it for. I'm all for society finding solutions to problems, but how can we find a solution to stupid parents. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-15-08 12:40pm - 5881 days | #11 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Actually, all you need is a bank account with a debit card and those are easy enough to get for minors. You do need a parents consent to get a c-card but how much do parents really dive into their kids bills unless they're getting out of hand. I suppose the kids could also just lie about their age and financial status on credit card applications and get one that way too. I think parents need to be involved in monitoring what their kids see to a point. However, I'm thinking the age verification system will probably come about at some point ... or maybe not ;) | |
|
||
| 11-15-08 07:43pm - 5881 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
If you give a minor a credit card and don't keep track of where they spend the money then I'm sorry to say but you are a bad parent. I've heard a few stories of parents getting cellphones bills in the thousands because their kids has been taking photos left and right and sending it to his friends. Minors don't have the experience of what can happen when you misuse a tool like a credit card or a cellphone, and afterall is said and done aren't considered responsible since they are minors. One way to prevent a minor from accessing adult site would be to assign special digit cards to minors. This way if they try to get amemebership to an adult site then the transaction would be denied. Of course if they use mom or dad then that won't work, but I go back to parents and their responsabilities. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-18-08 04:44pm - 5878 days | #13 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I am amused/disgusted by the way governments and authorities always use the "think of the damage done to the child" argument when wanting to pass a law they want to pass. But when it comes to letting companies relocate to some country, making thousands unemployed, so the company can make huge profits out of cheap foreign labour, no one seems to think about the effect on the children of the unemployed then. Same goes for helping the poor, sick or injured. Governments always seem to get this social awareness about children in a selective way. But where big bucks are involved it's a case of f**k em. | |
|
||
| 11-18-08 06:18pm - 5878 days | #14 | |
|
williamj (0)
Active User Posts: 102 Registered: Sep 29, '07 Location: usa |
Obama and the AG got better things to think about. An Obama vistory is good for porn. Will | |
|
||
| 11-28-08 03:02pm - 5868 days | #15 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Time for another rambling first amendment soabox post here so put on your chin strap here folks. Last year a US teen girl committed suicide after getting into a conversation with a Myspace friend who was actually the mom of a past friend of this girl. The posts basically told the girl the world would be better off without her and ultimately this girl offed herself. Fast forward to today and earlier this week the mother was convicted of several federal misdemeanor computer fraud counts. This was a political prosecution and she was charged with more serious charges related to the death but was found not guilty on those. What is bothersome is that the convictions came about because the mother misprepresented herself on Myspace as a teenager. Apparently Myspace requires people to be "truthful and accurate" in their profiles. Based upon the prosecution's theory, by signing up a phony account this woman committed computer fraud under a federal law aimed at hackers and spammers by "fraudulently" logging into Myspace. Obviously this case is ripe for all sorts of appeals and the trial level motions are not yet complete so some of these convictions may also be tossed. This is bothersome in two aspects. First, this was a small time contract between the person signing up with the website and the website itself. Since when does the breach of a private contract arise to federal criminal fraud? If it does, how many PU members are also guilty of this crime? Who the heck even reads the terms and conditions, especially when all you have to do is click the "I Agree" icon as opposed to reading pages of legalese? Second, this verdict represents in part an issue of public safety trumping anonymity on the net. I can think of boatloads of reasons why people want to be anonymous on the web, especially on teen oriented web sites like Myspace. Just because someone turns out to not really be who they say they are shouldn't be a crime (not that I endorse cyberbullying by any means). This leads back to my earlier posts about age verification systems being the next big thing in the cyber world. If Myspace adopts this you can bet the calls for porn sites to adopt it won't be far behind. This is one change that will impact pu'ers and remove some of our ability to navigate anonimously in the adult web world. Edited on Nov 28, 2008, 05:48pm | |
|
||
| 11-28-08 05:44pm - 5868 days | #16 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
As most of you are no doubt aware, I am a soap boxer myself. So in answer to Wittyguy.... Yes I do think they may do something like make you register your credit card with them. Companies love getting those credit card details. The excuse is, it's a way of proving you're 18 or 21. But there are wider implications. More and more governments want to trace us, file us, and keep tabs on us. They will use any excuse to do this in the name of public safety. I think it depends on how you look at government and those in control. Do you regard them as A. Decent people who only sought election to office in order to make the world a safer and fairer place with equality for all? or B. Complete bastards who lie and cheat their way to office, who represent the few rich and powerful liars and cheats, that spent plenty of money to get them there? For those of you who put A, I would like to ask you a question - would you like to buy a second hand car from me, sucker? Okay, if your answer is B, then you have to take the view that these people regard us as the enemy. I think you will all realise that I go for B. I think they always have and always will use any chance they can to pass laws that will try and restrict freedom of speech and freedom in general. So yes, I think they are always looking to what is going on, in order to take advantage of any chance to push forward an oportunity. If they can persuade the public that what they are doing is really in their interest, they will use that window of opportunity to do something to control and curb freedom of expression and freedom of cheap media. All that is being said at the moment is moving along the lines of the internet being strongly restricted, monitored, and held accountable. They want control. They will get it. Soap box over. Edited on Nov 28, 2008, 06:08pm | |
|
||
| 12-07-08 03:11pm - 5859 days | #17 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Yes, I know everyone is sick of the Miller test but it's going to rear it's head again in court in either a very ugly way or a very good way for U.S. pervs by early 2009. The 'Evil Angel' criminal obscenity case recently had pre-trial arguments regarding how Miller relates to internet porn (see the first post in this thread). Judging by the caliber of attorneys and arguments, regardless of how the trial judge rules on this matter it is probably headed for the Supreme Court for ulitmate clarification. I wanted to flush out some nuances from the arguments because I think it's important for consumers to understand how this case might impact what they can see in the future and see how the feds, at least the Bush era feds, perceive porn on the net. First up concerns the issue of what constitutes the "work, as a whole" idea. Evil Angel ("EA") is being prosecuted in part because they displayed a 4 minute "obscene" video trailer on their site preview. The government says you only need to consider the trailer, not the whole website. EA says you have to look at the whole website other wise it's like saying the academy awards are handed out on the basis of movie trailers alone. If the government prevails this could have a proverbial "chilling effect" on even mainstream porn sites, causing them to shy away from any scenes that might "edgy". Another chilling effect position taken by the gov. is this: like the woman who was prosecuted in Penn. for writing "obscene" child porn fantasy stories, the gov. takes the position that EA couldn't give a written description of the movie without violating obscenity standards unless the description was so watered down as not really describe anything. If that's true, good-bye blogosphere and good-bye PU. Second, there is the whole "community standards" test. This issue has been discussed a lot here and in courts with the government taking the position it only means the jurisdiction where the trial court is situated while the producers say it should include the whole country because of the internet's breadth. EA correctly pointed out that the courts have never limited "community" to a single jurisdiction. In this case, the gov. took the audacious position that producers should just put softcore on the net. This is a stupid position considering that unless you know what the "community" is, even softcore could be deemed obscene is some jurisdictions so there is still no resolution to the problem, forgetting even to try and determine what "softcore" really means. Lastly, there is whole issue of how "substantive due process" affects one's "zone of privacy". Most of us are familiar with procedural due process (Miranda rights, right to a jury trial, right to an attorney in criminal cases, no ex post facto laws, etc. -- rules that define how to "play the game" when it comes to gov. trying to impact our liberties). Substantive due process concerns an individual's rights to exercise their constitutional liberties in a manner free from excessive gov. interference. The "zone of privacy" is court created right where individuals have the right to be free from excessive government intrusion in their home or private personal surroundings. In the EA case, the gov. went to a public cybercafe to look at the EA website. The gov. claims that this is public display and therefore EA has no defense of privacy in that their consumers view this stuff in their own homes. EA takes the position that the internet is not a brick and mortar store or has a physical presence in the world; that just because the internet can be publicly accessed doesn't mean that you lose any protections when you move the viewing into your home. EA says that it's like being stuck on a plane with the guy next to view viewing offensive material on his lap top -- you don't prosecute the publisher of the material, you tell the guy to take it some where private. This substanstive due process issue gets more complex because in other more recent cases the courts have moved away from the idea that just because something is obscene that doesn't mean it's automatically illegal if it happens in a person's home or privacy zone (the Supreme Ct. used this idea in striking down Georgia's law against homosexual sodomy by saying what people do in consent behind close doors isn't the government's business). EA argues that even if their material is deemed obscene that it doesn't mean they have to be shut down because they intend that consumers only view their stuff in privacy and that if the consumer takes it's public it's the consumer's problem, not theirs. EA also notes that if producers want to copyright their materials (obviously a must in the web world and done by filing out gov. issued forms and sending a copy of your "work" to DC), in a sense that means making it public by filing it with the feds so that means producers could be on the hook for just trying to conduct ordinary business activities. The substantive due process argument is an interesting take in my book, arguing that distributing obscene material is not a crime because people have the right to use obscene material so long as it's intended for private use only. If the courts take EA's position, then pretty much obscenity dies out and an everything goes (so long as it's consentual and not involving minors or beasties) attitude will take effect. Or, the courts could ultimately ditch the Miller test and give us a new can of worms to play with. Even if the court keeps the Miller test but expands "community" to the whole US, it's going to make porn obscenity cases mostly disappear. So, there you have it sport's fans ... a first amendment porn primer for you to chew on. Given that this case is sure to go up, up, up and (maybe) away on appeal it ensure's this threads existence for a long time to come and making you wince at the thought of reading more about this stuff ;) Edited on Dec 07, 2008, 03:27pm | |
|
||
| 12-07-08 03:58pm - 5859 days | #18 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I believe there is a reason law has evolved in the way it has. No conspiracy. It's just that if you have a set of convoluted laws, they can be successfully manipulated in order for the rich and powerful to get what they want. For instance look at planning permission. Some little guy wants to develop a piece of land to build a house. But the land has been used in the past 50 years to graze cattle. If that is the case planning permission can be denied. If you get the same piece of land with a rich and powerful "friend" wanting to develop it he gets the planning permission. This is because planning permission "can" be denied but not always. It's just how the law is interpreted. These Miller tests and anything else around "public decency" and what poses a "threat to morality" are deliberately open. Law is vague because the people who pass it intend it to be that way. Also because governments use the opinions of the public in order to structure the law the way they want it. They use media in order to do this successfully. That's why changing the law becomes such a long process. Once a law is passed that becomes evidently bad for Joe Public, it takea a ponderously long process to change it. As long as law remains open for interpretation it helps those who can profit from manipulating those laws. I believe governments actually need public outrage surrounding porn, paedophilia, terrorism, poverty, immigration, rape, murder. They want it and need it. They can use it as their raison d'etre. They don't want to get rid of it. These things are their friend. | |
|
||
| 12-08-08 01:25pm - 5858 days | #19 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Wait Squirrel! You forgot to add homosexuality to your list. I only bring this up becasue my favorite group of fringe "Christian" (I use the word loosely) conservative wack jobs is on the loose again: the Westboro Baptist Church ("WBC") of Kansas. They were recently spotted in Oregon protesting the election of a small town mayor who is a transvestite (news flash: small farming/logging town actually votes on the issues). I loved the picture I saw of the 16 year old girl holding the signs "Obama = Antichrist" and "God Hates You" (apparently her home school GED final only covered slogans and sign painting). It was good to see the WBC outnumbered by counter-protestors by a ratio of, ohhh, 50:1. The WBC is a real piece of work. Their take on the world (aka: "America" ... I guess the Bible talking about Israel as the choosen land was simply a misprint) is that our country is in deep doo-doo because we are too tolerant of homosexuals. Any one who supports anything resembling a homo agenda is going to hell. They take their message across the country via small protests, most notably protesting at military funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (America woudl not be at war and the soldiers would not have died if the US had just taken a tougher stand against gays). They have a wonderful website (www.godhatesfags.com) where you can learn all about your sins. In a further display of their deep intellectualism, they have their website copyrighted with the following phrase: "You may use any of our material free of charge for any reason". In case you do not live in the blessed kingdom of America, you can go to www.godhatestheworld.com and learn why your nation is also damned forever. I bring all this up subject (mostly referring to the WBC's hatred of Democrats) to point out that politicians not only want controversey, that they exploit it as a means for advancing their own agendas. In the excellent book "Whats the Matter with Kansas", the author laid out the example of how the Republican party was able to use the culture wars to tap into low income America while delivering virutally nothing legislatively to their base. In fact, many Republican policies (aka- tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and free trade) actually economically harm much of their core base. I guess my point is that for the masses not affiliated with PU, the "porn wars" are more about defining a position to be exploited in an election than about defending the Bill of Rights. Perhaps we should all climb aboard Toadsith's PU Zepellin of Porn Love (the "Airplane" sequal that was never made) and spread the word, knowing that we're all just poster children anyways for someone's next campaign. Edited on Dec 08, 2008, 01:36pm | |
|
||
| 12-08-08 05:14pm - 5858 days | #20 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yeah, they did a documenary on those people over here. Frightening. Originally I would have said these people aren't that scary because they are so fringe they don't really matter, but after seeing the book burning, censoring, and return to Creationism, I have changed my mind. I have always thought that sort of madness is no danger and easy to fight, but when I look at the madness of some religions and how popular they are, once again, I'm not so sure. It seems some people are almost literally stuck in the middle ages. I really don't think you can educate that sort of ignorance. | |
|
||
| 12-11-08 12:19pm - 5855 days | #21 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
On my continuing quest to expose government interference with our porn collections, Australia has now taken an early lead. In an attempt to keep up with the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries, the Aussie's are now rolling out their new government "cybersafety plan" which is an internet filter they hope to impose on all ISP's doing business in Australia. The government spokesperson claims that "there is nothing sacrosanct" about the internet and likens peoples concerns about people trying to evade the law by claiming that like speeding laws, you need to have those laws even if people don't always follow them. Apparently they are about to start running trials with several programs and that depending on the type of filter internet downloads will be slowed from 2% to about 75%. The idea is to stop child porn (even though the filter will not cover "peer to peer" connections or file sharing networks where most of the nasty stuff is found) and other bad sites that are kept in a secret government registry. Obviously, if the filtering becomes mandatory the list of banned sites will probably grow exponentially. I have no problem with keeping kids from porn sites and stopping the trafficking of child porn but there has to be some level of personal responsibility. Apparently the Aussie government has decided that risk is too great to allow people to set up filters or monitor their kids on-line activities without government intervention. Here's a link to the full article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/techno...nternet/12cyber.html. | |
|
||
| 12-11-08 01:20pm - 5855 days | #22 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I don't think they give a shit about the kids. It sounds to me like the thin end of the wedge, where they use the kids as an excuse. After this is accepted by the public, they continue the tightening of the net, and banning of sites, including the ones that have "dangerous attitudes" or are "dangerous to the public's well being," until they have the control that they want. | |
|
||
| 12-30-08 02:35pm - 5836 days | #23 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Here we go again folks. I just took a look at a comment fom Doug62 concerning sites called Hentai Key and Adult Empire. It seems some guy has been sentenced to 20 years for depicting children being forced to have sex with men. Now here's the important bit - "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists." From this we can deduce that anything now illustrated can mean a prison sentence, and therefore any fiction can result in a prison sentence. He was also convicted for sending and receiving emails surrounding sexual molestation of children. He was also convicted for photos of real children, but the important point is not whether he is an upstanding citizen or not. Part of the conviction came from being found guilty of illustrations of children and emails about children. Taking this to a logical conclusion will send shock waves around the Bible Belt surely. For instance, what about that nutter in the Bible who wants to sacrifice his kid to god? A real upstanding citizen that one. Whether he really existed or not or whether the Bible is total fabrication about as realistic as "Noddy In Toyland" is beside the point. It doesn't matter whether it happened or not. A book where someone is described as about to burn his own kid is available in book stores now. You bring the rope I'll bring the screaming mob. Of course we all know the implications of this. I don't know why they just don't pass a law with the very honest guidelines as follows - "if we don't like you, or don't like what you stand for, or what you think, or what you read, or what you believe, we can find you guilty of something." Seems a bit more honest than the law they have at the moment, anyway. Edited on Dec 30, 2008, 03:17pm | |
|
||
| 12-30-08 05:41pm - 5836 days | #24 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Yup, welcome to 'da law'. Actually, this guy was convicted, in part, for possessing actual child porn and he had prior child porn convictions which probably ramped up his sentence. But, the appeals court did let stand the idea, as stated in the law, that the actual minor does not have to exist. The law under which makes illegal the possession of "animae" child porn was passed by Congress in direct reaction to a Supreme Ct decision that struck down a prior law banning artistic renderings of child porn. As I mentioned in a previous post somewhere in the forum a woman actually was convicted, she took a plea, for writing about child porn acts and posting it on the net. This anti-child porn law this guy got hammered with was also the backdrop for the woman's conviction. This guy was also convicted of possessing emails that described sex acts with kids under this law. You're probably OK looking at the young adult / teen hentai stuff but the little kid stuff I guess can land you in deep doo-doo. The final word on "imaginary" kiddie porn is still out on this law but it ain't looking good at the moment. This dude probably should have had a better lawyer for his trial too. I do agree that this is troublesome because it is fantasy to an extent (fantasy that draws pedophiles like flies to shit). It is also damaging because it means that a 17 year old rape victim couldn't describe her attack on line without fear of prosecution; some junior high kid could probably be held liable for showing people a stick figure cartoon of two people going at it with the words "Billy" and "Sally" (two teen friends) printed on it; a person might face prosecution for taking pictures of minors kissing and fondling (fully clothed) in a park and putting them on the net; and, a parent might face prosecution for putting up a photo of their naked baby on the net (not in good taste or smart but still probably done). This law is not good because it really starts intruding on the more mundane aspects of life and punishes, or can punish, artistic expression unlike any other law. If a jury decides something is obscene or child porn that's all it takes for this law. Edited on Dec 30, 2008, 05:48pm | |
|
||
| 12-30-08 06:55pm - 5836 days | #25 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I could be wrong on this one, but if I'm correct the man that was sentenced to 20yrs in prison did indeed have drawn images of children having sex with adults, but he also had a large collection of photos and maybe even videos of real children having sex with adults. To find someone guitly and sentence him to 20yrs is rather extreme for the drawn images, but frankly 20yrs is not nearly enough for someone who has the real thing. I'm all for free speech and the like, but once you mess with children then you forgo your right to live among society. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-31-08 11:02am - 5835 days | #26 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
The problem I have here, is that part of the crime he was sentenced for, was having illustrations and swapping emails. In other words it was not wholly for abuse of real children, but partly for illustrations and words. This I find very disturbing. That is why I noted my post was not about whether he was an upstanding citizen or not. It was more about the implications of being found guilty for words or drawn pictures. That is why I put in the quote that I did from one of the judges. This is also why I get very worried when the media drums up a bandwagon of horror along the lines of "let's get the evil paedophiles." Every time you see something like this there are usually other implications and ulterior motives involved. This judgement will be used to prosecute people for words and illustrations that do not feature paedophilia at all. It will be used in the end to prosecute whoever the powers that be wish, once the benchmark is down for being able to prosecute for words and illustrations. You can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of the stuff online and what is linked to from here, will be considered illegal shortly. This affects TBP, PU and everyone else. What we like is considered just as disgusting as paedophilia. A lot of people regard us as bad as paedophiles because we like porn. They consider us as abusers because we like porn. Before we start getting too morally righteous about things we have to look at the implications of this judgement. As always I look at how paedophilia, terrorism, rape, civil unrest, and murder is being used as an excuse to clamp down on civil freedom. This is already, and will be continually used as an excuse to control the internet. They just need to drum up some support for the really extreme stuff to get laws passed which will eventually be used to control the rest of us. This is not pure chance or coincidence. It is by design and has always been used. The way rich and powerful corporations act as a cartel is an example of how they, through government, can control what we consume, and at what price. The internet has undermined that, and they want control back, so once again they can control what we consume, and at a price that is more suitable to them. Having control of the internet also means fewer negative comments. There will of course always be negative comments, but they will be in the context of a controlled internet, similar to the way they appear in the context of a controlled media as they are at the moment. Negative comments are very important to the powers that control. They need those in order to point to them, so they can tell everyone what wonderful freedom of speech and freedoms we all have, in this wonderful and free society. But in a controlled media for every negative comment, there are a hundred saying "conform" and "behave" and "protest is OF COURSE okay in a civilised society, within certain bounds." The suggestion is always that it is okay to protest, but don't break the law. it's there to protect you from paedophiles and terrorists. No, just protest within the allowances of the law. Rarely do you see the suggestion that it's okay to break the law because it does not represent the people, or it's okay to break the law, because those that make it and those that uphold it are so morally corrupt and evil. Or the suggestion that it is their law, created for the benefit of the ruling minority, not ours, so it's okay to break it. Occasionally you may hear this, but this time it is surrounded by a thousand representations telling you that the law is really okay and you can change things for the better eventually, it just takes time and patience etc. The internet is the most free form of expression that we have probably ever had. They are now working out how to curtail that using terrorism, paedophilia, and sexual torture as an excuse. Before we condone any action, we need to look at the implications. That is why this decision is horrific. They will be quick to react in the way some of you may react - "he's a paedophile, burn him." It's isn't about that, it is about why the guilty verdict based partly on illustrations and on text is so worrying. Edited on Dec 31, 2008, 11:15am | |
|
||
| 01-01-09 09:50pm - 5833 days | #27 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Yes, this wonderful specimen of human society did have actual kiddie porn photos but from what I could gleam from the newsarticles those only accounted for about 1/3 of all the counts he was convicted on. The rest were for "obscene" kiddie porn animae and explicit emails discussing sex with kids. His sentence also got a boost because of prior kiddie porn possession convictions. How much of the sentence he got was for the drawings and emails I can't say but you can bet it's measured in years and not months or days. I'm not quite so ready to buy into Squirrel's grand conspiracy theories about big brother seeking to oppress us all. This law was passed in part because Congress, in the "findings" preamble that gets tacked on to the beginning of each bill that becomes law, didn't like the Supreme Ct finding that drawings of kiddie porn were not illegal in a prior case and so Congress concluded that drawings are essentially a gateway into actual kiddie porn material. This law was also meant to deal with technology that lets you essentially create highly realistic "phantom kids" and make them into porn stars without having to ruin actual kids. This is a situation, in my prior post were I listed examples of normal people running afoul of this law, where good intentions have gone too far. It's also damaging because I think some people, albeit a small percentage, might get some pyschological relief from writing about or drawing this stuff as a means of staying away from the real thing or actual molestation (obviously this is a guess on my part). This is a case where the prosecutor decided that cartoons were bad enough and went for it with a positive outcome from his perspective. I do agree that creating highly realistic imaginery child porn with CGI is disturbing and would only appeal to pedophiles in general. In my opinion that stuff is not good for anyone and should not be in general public circulation. The problem is where to draw the lines. Cartoons and writings are just too far in my book. This is a law that needs to be fine tuned and, if it isn't will either be rejected as constitutionally overbroad or a lot of people, and kids, could find themselves in a lot of hot water some day. | |
|
||
| 01-02-09 11:05am - 5833 days | #28 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Yes, this wonderful specimen of human society did have actual kiddie porn photos but from what I could gleam from the newsarticles those only accounted for about 1/3 of all the counts he was convicted on. That is one of the reasons why I don't like the fact that they use both drawn images and real photos in the ruling. It blurs the line and opens the door for miscaridge of justice. If they had accuse and sentenced him solely on the photos and videos of real children then I think 20yrs is not nearly enough, but now you have created a possible precedence. I'm not quite so ready to buy into Squirrel's grand conspiracy theories about big brother seeking to oppress us all. This law was passed in part because Congress, in the "findings" preamble that gets tacked on to the beginning of each bill that becomes law, didn't like the Supreme Ct finding that drawings of kiddie porn were not illegal in a prior case and so Congress concluded that drawings are essentially a gateway into actual kiddie porn material. I'm also not ready to go that far, but it scares the hell out of me when politicians decide to supersede the law by passing special bills that render laws obsolete. We have a political system and a judicial system. If polticians think a law is not acceptable then let them make a case to the Supreme Court and let them decide. Politician usually have agendas that they are pushing forward. We have spent the last few years seeing exactly what that can mean with Bush and his cronnies. How many district attorneys lost their jobs because they wouldn't go along with certain policies because they knew them to be against the law? It's also damaging because I think some people, albeit a small percentage, might get some pyschological relief from writing about or drawing this stuff as a means of staying away from the real thing or actual molestation I actually think that it can be a release for some people. I'd rather someone with some pedophilic tendecies gets his rocks off by watching the fake stuff compared to him/her paying someone to abuse a child so that they can get the real thing. No offense to anyone, but there is not a single human being being hurt by an artist drawing an adult having sex with a child. We may not agree with it morally, but the reality is just that. I know that this is not the case when a real adult as sexual relations with a child. On the subject of sex bewtween an adult & a child, I do not think there should be a double standard. If a man gets 20yrs for it then a woman who does the same thing should also get the same sentence. We know that it isn't. with all these teachers having sex with their male students. Long live the Brown Coats. Edited on Jan 02, 2009, 11:11am | |
|
||
| 01-22-09 12:21pm - 5813 days | #29 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
New topic: The Death of COPA has arrived. The Supreme Ct. finally ended the long line of cases regarding COPA (child on line protection act) by refusing any more reviews and let stand a lower court decision finding that it was unconsitutional. This law banned on-line speech (aka: porn) that was harmful to minors. The law was a Congressional quick fix to an earlier law (previously found unconstitutional) that made it illegal to publish obscene content on-line that harmed minors. While COPA never took effect the reasoning the courts used is important to understanding the possible future of anti-porn laws. The various appellate courts basically concluded that with the evolution of technology, end user filter systems are the way to go; not banning the original posting or creation of nasty adult stuff. This reasoning helps get ISP's, and ultimately us adult users, off the hook by not requiring the censorship of content from the start. Rather, it is up to parents and those who are easily offended to get some filtering software so they can surf in relative ignorance ... especially from us PU types ;) Edited on Jan 22, 2009, 04:32pm | |
|
||
| 01-22-09 03:55pm - 5813 days | #30 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
No I refuse to believe it. This is awful. This means an almost sane and sensible decision by government. I am now totally disillusioned. The implications are just awful. Surely Mr. and Mrs. Coke-Crazed-Crackhouse-Whore-Alcoholic-Chain-Smoker couldn't possibly be responsible for little Bobby's bad habits, or the fact he didn't make it on to the board at HSBC. That and the fact he's an incompetent bumbling oaf with the IQ of a lemming and the charm of a piranha with tooth ache. Surely society is to blame, and the movies, and the comics. I thought it was Tom and Jerry's fault little Johnny raped and killed those 25 women just before tea time. That, or the Earl Grey was cold. Edited on Jan 22, 2009, 04:04pm | |
|
||
| 01-22-09 06:52pm - 5813 days | #31 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Not to dissagree with your Squirrel, but in all likelyhood Bobby's parents were not crack addict, but 2 well to do people making a shitload of cash by any means possible, all the while finding every possible way to pay the least amount of taxes. You know that kind. These are the same people who had no problem making 20 million in bonus pay, by creating some false numbers so that te company looked like it was making money. These are the same people crying to the Government that they don't know what happened, but they need money, if we want the economy to start again, but more importantly they do not want any Government regulations. Little Bobby has the 2 best role model to become a perfect sociopath....His parents. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-22-09 07:12pm - 5813 days | #32 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Heh heh - good point. All the government, police, corporations and pretty much everyone that controls us, as well as own family and role models, are seen by children to be lying, and then trying to justify it. Then they tell children not to lie. Similar to what I said about UK and America. The nations were built on invading other countries, killing the natives, and exploiting the resources. Then they told their children not to kill or steal. Of course it was the porn movies, tv, and cartoons that made them do it. | |
|
||
| 02-23-09 12:04pm - 5781 days | #33 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Here's one I came across that initially sounds appealling but may have bad consequences. A judge in New Jersey recently ordered some perv who was convicted of possessing child porn to pay $200k in resitution to the woman who was filmed being abused as a child. Obviously, this woman did not consent to being abused and the dude deserves jail time for being a kiddie porn asshole but, as with the growing trend of laws around the world making possession of certain porn illegal, I question the wisdom of making someone who just possesses the stuff liable to the original victim. Normally, if you're caught possessing stolen property, you lose the right to claim the property and you're out the money you may have paid. If you knowingly traffic in stolen property, you can go to jail for being part of crime syndicate but it's pretty rare to have to repay the original crime victim. Not knowing much about this case, I'm guessing that judge imposed the restitution in part to create some type of deterrence in the minds of other kiddie porn jerks; deal in this stuff and you could be facing big $$ payments in addition to jail time. My only concern is that this idea gets adopted by other courts in obscenity cases. In such a situation, the porn consumer or producer generally does not know in advance, at least in the US, if their product is obscene from one jurisdiction to the next. To suddenly get sued for obscenity by some uptight prosecuter and face jail is one thing. I could then see that prosecuter requesting the offender to pay into some community "decency" fund to help preserve the morals of "our great American society" in addition to whatever other legal punishment awaits. The result is a chilling effect on people making and possibly possessing porn. Maybe I'm over-reaching here with my line of thought but sometimes little trends that sound good to begin with can start a far reaching trend with unintended consequences. | |
|
||
| 02-23-09 07:20pm - 5781 days | #34 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
This case was actually decided in Connecticut, but it is pretty much as you described it. Hmm...seems like a possible future way to legally get rid of a legitimate porn company (that is, one that does not deal in underage content) by putting them out of business through a large fine, or making them cut costs so much they eventually do go out of business, simply because they possess something that is "obscene" (don't even know what that means anymore) in a certain district. In this case it was most definitely child porn, but the guy did not make it, he possessed it. Yes, he's a criminal, but not for the crime he actually committed, but what someone else did. Too much of our criminal justice system seems to work by hooking defendants with the serious crimes they actually commit, but then reeling them in with trumped up charges on what should be lesser offenses, or none at all, as in this case. The judge in the case claims "we're are dealing with a frontier here." I am really uneasy with that statement and where this could lead;say, imposing an enormous fine on a company for legally producing content in one state only to have another state declare it "obscene" and then prosecute/persecute. This whole case has the bullshit whiff of the whole reparations movement, but at a much faster pace. Don't charge the guy who actually made the material for making it, but the guy who bought it. At this rate, we will soon all owe someone money because some judge or prosecutor decides that what we do collectively victimizes all women, and therefore we are all guilty. This also kind of reminds me of the Max Hardcore case because it seems people are so hellbent on a conviction they virtually invent a charge with which to prosecute. "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 | |
|
||
| 03-11-09 11:36pm - 5764 days | #35 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Oh yeah, time to dig out your old Queen l.p.'s and fire up the classic hit "Another One Bite's the Dust". The owners of the now defunct Extreme Associates website just plead guily to distributing obscene material through the internet for some of their raunchy web videos. This was the longest running obscenity case in the US, lasting for years with numerous pretrial rulings and appeals which eventually left the defendants broke. Since they weren't getting any support from the adult community (their stuff was really pushing the edge with simulated rape scenes of actors pretending to be minors and the like) and had no moolah, they folded up their tent. Again, they had good issues for their trial such as what the "taken as a whole" standard of the Miller Test really means and if that standard can be applied to web trailers, whether distributers of porn can be held liable for allegedly obscene material. So, for now, there are only a few high profile porn cases in the US winding their way through the system which will ultimately challenge the whole Miller Test (I'm guessing it will still be years before anything definitive comes from the Supreme Ct). To borrow from Monty Pyhton "And now, for something completely different." Seems the Frenchies have conjurred up a brilliant idea. They're currently trying to pass a law that would set up a government system for monitoring web useage. Seems the Frenchies have discovered that a lot of their kids are illegally downloading stuff from the internet. Seeing as those socialist bastards never met a big government they didn't like (OK, maybe not the Nazi's but this is their own doing), the solution apparently is to track web use and if you're caught illegally downloading you'll get a warning and if caught three times you'll face potential criminal charges and lose your internet privileges for at least a year and end up on a government blacklist. Yeah, that'll show those damned kids ... until they spend a few hundred million Euros and find out everyone and their dog has figured out a work around ... but at least the Frenchies will be able to read and monitor all of their grandma's emails. And in case your wondering, New Zealand already passed a similar law and other Euro socialist bastard states are considering doing the same. At least in America we waste our government money in a good way; we just recklessly spend it on pointless wars and tax cuts for the rich and then borrow more from authoritarian countries that criminalize porn. God I love irony. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 06:37am - 5764 days | #36 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Who's paying for all this monitoring? The people of course. There is the usual unholy alliance of the groups who really do think they have a hotline to god and moral righteousnes, with vested interests who stand to make big bucks, if the internet is strictly controlled. I have been saying since I have been on here, that this could well be the golden age of porn, and better make the most of it. It isn't going to last. International laws will become more and more convoluted, which really suits the powers that be anyway. As always they can just interpret these laws in the way that they choose, in order to go after the people they choose to go after. Anyone who thinks something as vast and profitable as the internet, is going to be allowed to run for the benefit of the people, is off their tiny rocker. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 12:52pm - 5764 days | #37 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
You're probably right in terms of this being a free access golden age of porn. Eventually, probably decades from now, there will be more uniform rules regarding access to and downloading from porn sites. Will it be more difficult? Probably but it will most likely still be accessable; with over 7 billion people messing up our planet in the next few years the market is just too big to squash it out. What's really going to drive net access is "net neutrality" which is going to be fought on your side of the pond first, not here. In other words, whether or not ISP's can limit access or if they have to allow equal access for all. If ISP's win the right to restrict that means paying more for higher download limits which will dent people's porn budgets and push sites even more towards streaming videos and/or paying extra for the right to download on top of ISP download fees; a bummer for all of us. If net neutrality is upheld then things should continue as they are for now it's just that eventually we'll be dealing with the hassle of age verification and some other minor things. Countries can ban certain types of porn but work arounds are probably easy enough to find -- such as routing your computer through a host company in a country where porn isn't regulated so that your computer's surfing id tag shows up as being from that host country. Encryption will also get easier making it harder for governments to track what your doing so long as they don't have access to the ISP. That's another fight but one that isn't looming as big on the horizon as some of this other stuff. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 12:55pm - 5764 days | #38 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
To me the Internet is like a big wall of a public building with some graffiti on it. Pretty much anyone can see it, some better than others, and no matter how hard people try that damned graffiti will always be there. Of course there will always be people complaining that the graffiti itself is the problem, and they will spend money and time to try and get rid of it, but it will still be there. "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 | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 05:43pm - 5757 days | #39 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Good I just love quoting myself, makes feel damn important ;) Well, the Aussies are up and running with their cyber porn filtering system. The purpose of their new law is to require any ISP doing business Down Under to ban access to websites included on the government blacklist. The emphasis of the blacklist to banish child porn from the Aussie net. I know you'll find this hard to believe, already are screwing it up. Someone either stole or hacked the government blacklist and posted in on Wikileaks (apparently the Norwegian and Danish blacklists go leaked as well last year in case you European PU'ers are feeling smug about open government). What was the Aussie response you ask? Make changes to their cybersecurity and make an anti child porn statement? Hell no! They decided to brand Wikileaks an enemy of the state, ban certain Wikileaks content in Austrailia and threaten anyone who exposes the leaked list with criminal charges and jail time. What gets even better is that according to people who have seen the list, a lot of the sites don't even include internet porn (apparently they included an on-line poker site, fringe religious sites, euthanasia sites and others as part of the blacklist). Apparently the Aussies new found love of censorship with the blacklist has earned their country a place on Reporters Without Borders watchlist (along with North Korea, Iran, etc) as an enemy of internet freedom. Once again proof that if you let government decide what's good for you it doesn't take long for authoritarianism to appear ... in this case a couple of months. Oh yeah, and don't worry about personal accountability and monitoring your kids online activities, the Aussie's will be happy to do that for you. Edited on Mar 19, 2009, 06:45pm | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 06:38pm - 5757 days | #40 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Great post Wittyguy. I always thought of the Australians as a relatively civilised and open country. So much for that. There's nothing more dangerous for your safety than to expose government lies or deceits, so I'm not surprised about the government's reaction. A few of us have been thinking all along that these sort of moves are not about child porn, but about censorship and control of a more dangerous nature. Only thing is, I didn't expect their bullshit to be exposed so quickly. | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 07:41pm - 5757 days | #41 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I thought so too, but "civilized and open" doesn't necessarily mean egalitarian and free. You could probably even argue that China is civilized and open, as long as you look at them from the right angles. Hell, I would argue that the U.S. is not the freest country on earth because of various laws at state level, and just by the existence of the FCC at the federal level, not to mention the activities of any number of government agencies, including the FBI, ATF, etc. The problem is how much freedom people are willing to abandon in exchange for things such as "security," "morality," "decency," (or at least vague promises of such things). But often freedom is simply taken away with no real return to the people, just an allusion of a "better" society. "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 | |
|
||
| 03-26-09 11:37pm - 5749 days | #42 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Sigh, don't you just love America? Oh wait, I forgot, we've got Nazi's in charge of our porn laws. Just a couple of tidbits to push your buttons. One, apparently porn is illegal in Ohio. Apparently they modified their state constitution a few years ago to make it illegal for any person to transmit porn viat the internet to juveniles. Well, nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong! Their little constitutional clause also made it illegal for any mass media distributor to distribute porn if they cannot stop minors from accessing their wares. Well, there is no known technology that stop a minor from viewing any freely distributed website. Thus, internet porn is illegal in Ohio. I won't go into the convuluted case where the State courts are strenuously trying to uphold the legality of this law. All I can say is that Badandy has to public enemy number in Ohio right now ;) Second, and true to form for uptight Pennsylvania, some district attorney is about to file child porn charges against some teenage girls (under 18) who appeared in various states of undress in some cell phone pictures. They're also considering charging some of the boys who passed around the pics. Apparently, the DA is running for re-election and decided this would be a fine way to boost his approval ratings. Basically, if the girls get convicted they'll have to registered as sex offenders, withdraw from school (can't hang around minors and schools as a sex offender) and have a felony record. Remember, should you have children, that they must never, ever do anything stupid otherwise they'll be felons. | |
|
||
| 03-27-09 12:25am - 5749 days | #43 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Hmm...give your children cell phones or they will be abducted by sex offenders, but give them one with a camera and they will be the sex offenders! At what level does the government stop parenting people's kids? -- apparently whenever they have a conviction against a child, specifically as a sex offender. I would suggest that from now on any parent never photograph their children at any age unless they are fully dressed -- this includes the delivery room! -- or risk appearing before a judge. Seriously, are there no real criminals to prosecute anymore? I guess the justice systems has finally won their "war on crime" and is now just tidying up, such as these teens who, frankly, are simply being teens. I would not be too surprised if this just makes more girls do, or at least want to do, the same thing, instead of scaring them straight or turning them into emotionless prudes. "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 | |
|
||
| 05-01-09 12:45pm - 5714 days | #44 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
... and you guys thought I'd be willing to watch this thread die? NOT !!!! I mentioned above the Aussie government's great quest to establish a child porn blacklist that is so far failing miserably. As some of you Euro PU'ers know, several European countries already have some blacklists or block access to some porn sites with the emphasis stopping kiddie porn outlets. I came across a news article today that basically led me to further cement my notion that this is just a colossal waste of government money (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/techno...gy/01filter.html?hpw). The Iranians and Chinese are notorious for actively censoring their web networks. However, capitalists have figured out that this is a mass market ripe for the pickings. Apparently, there is quite an active market for software that lets users automatically avoid government firewalls. The principle is pretty easy in that you access a remote server (outside the censoring country) and that server rapidly changes the IP address so the government computers can't keep up the tracking to determine if blocked sites are being reached. The faster government computers try and speed up detection, the faster the IP addresses change and the more cumbersom it becomes to trace back to the original user. I've known such systems exist but they are now cheap, easy to access, and has no special hardware or system requirements. Governments have to know this stuff exists. They also have to know that, especially in Western governments where the focus is preventing access to porn and not active censorship, any such program is basically fruitless except in stopping the stupid because they're not trying to shut users down in real time. In other words, government policies of blacklists and porn restrictions are nothing more than political granstanding with no measurable result. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I guess I'm wondering why lie to the public and tell them your accomplishing something when all you're doing is flushing $$ down a beaureacratic toilet. Continuing to censor the web also creates bigger problems. Internet security is starting to become a bigger concern given the worlds reliance on networks to operate everything from nuclear weapons to power grids to financial markets. By driving even more people to use programs that hide what they're doing from watching eyes all that does is make the job of finding terrorists, child porn fiends, criminals and hackers even more difficult and expensive because theres so much more "hidden" data to sift through. The political groups that runs many of these web servers circumventing political censorship claim that for every dollar they spend promoting and developing their software, censoring countries have to spend hundreds of dollars to effectively combat them. As a result taxpayers spend even more on government to find the bad guys because we're tossing a bone to some political base. Censorship has its price and it's not just the loss of free expression. Edited on May 01, 2009, 12:50pm | |
|
||
| 05-01-09 07:20pm - 5714 days | #45 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
What gets me, Wittyguy, is the indisputable fact that it is impossible to control peoples' vices and those in positions of power know it. Especially since we catch so many of them doing what they officially condemn. Prostitution still flourishes, Prohibition was a flop, so is the War On Drugs, so is the attempt to get rid of pornography. The only effect of these "wars" has been to create succeeding generations of criminals as well as costing all of us billions of dollars that could have been far better spent on more productive matters. The Internet has given me great hope because, for the first time, we are not completely dependent upon the news and the "facts" we are being fed by "official" sources, or being told which sites we can and cannot visit. The moment my government (through my ISP) is starting to tamper with the freedom we now possess I'll get myself some of that Chinese (or Canadian) software. I like the taste of freedom too much to ever give it up without a fight. | |
|
||
| 05-02-09 08:42pm - 5713 days | #46 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
That's an understatement. The War On Drugs is multi-generational flop that has been redeclared by every new administration, including the current one, though it is definitely well off the radar for now. Our country also holds the most prisoners in the world -- we're number one indeed -- mostly because of our excessive and widespread drug laws. I am not a drug user myself, and that includes the strongly lobbied, and therefore legal, tobacco and alcohol, but most of these laws concern not how we treat others, but rather how we treat our own bodies. Talk about intrusive! Of course, much like porn, there are meaningless moral and cause-and-effect arguments that lead nowhere except to more laws. Marijuana is a gateway drug. Really? What about alcohol as a gateway to drunkenness and death? Or what about fatty and sugary foods as gateways to obesity, cavities and more death? If the government is so worried about real criminals, then they should prioritize their efforts, or at least make an attempt to. Porn should not be a crime, but asking a kid for sex should be. Being Muslim should not be crime, but planning to commit a violent crime should be. Deciding what to put into your body should not be a crime, but then deciding to go drive a car or destroy someone's property should be. "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 | |
|
||
| 05-04-09 11:34am - 5711 days | #47 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Couldn't have put it better myself, turboshaft. That's exactly how I feel about the whole matter of controlling personal vices. | |
|
||
| 05-04-09 05:32pm - 5711 days | #48 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Yeah, too many people never make the connection between monetary cost versus the results of these various vice wars. "Let's get tough on crime" is never followed by a chart showing incarceration, law enforcement and prosecution costs. I find it amusing that state's are finally catching on that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to imprison someone for life rather than chase them with the death penalty for years in multiple court appeals. With tight times continuing I'm wondering how much longer that people figure out that our 7+million US inmates are costing us about $21 billion a year to house. The other big problem with the vice wars is that treatment never really becomes much of an option. Stuff is either illegal or legal. Nevermind that when it comes to vice, a lot of otherwise average people get caught up in it. What most of them need is the ability recognize and deal with their problem, not sit in a jail cell for years and then be unhireable afterwards because they're a convicted felon. A lot of studies tend to show that treatment trumps incarceration for long term effectiveness and cost. However, it's just easier to declare something with bad connotations is illegal than it is to try and convince the general public and politicians to find a more balanced approach. | |
|
||
| 05-04-09 06:18pm - 5711 days | #49 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Although I agree with what everyone says, especially Turboshaft's excellent post, I look at it from a slightly different angle. The rulers use our own money to back up laws that are detrimental to us. They use our money to control us. This is not accidental. By enforcing the laws mentioned, in the way that they do, they show us who is boss, and that there is nothing we can do about it. That they use so much money is irrelevant to them, as it is our money, and they would rather use it to uphold laws that control us, than feed or educate the poor, or help the sick. Should we step out of line in any way, they impress on us how bad life is in prison. That some laws are unfair is a positive bonus looking at it from their angle. They need and want unfair laws, and for them to be convoluted and complicated. That way their own can have a chance of buying justice, and the poor will get less justice. The laws are not there to be fair. They are there to control us and protect them from us. The more laws there are and the more control they have, the better for them. Since Roman times detrimental laws have been passed as an excuse to protect the masses. The ruling powers who own and control the media, frighten the masses just enough to enable them to pass laws, which were originally supposed to protect the masses, but are in fact there to control them. Usually religion and morally righteous people will join up with the controllers in an unholy alliance. This will ensure everyone is controlled sufficiently for the ruling powers to be safe from us, while the real criminals get to do their thing. The powers that be need bad guys, whether it be terrorists, murderers, paedophiles, gangsters, genocidal maniacs, foreigners or whatever, so thay can pass restrictive laws. Just keep the fear churning out in the media, which is owned by the very rich. A perfect system. Edited on May 04, 2009, 06:25pm | |
|
||
| 05-05-09 12:40pm - 5710 days | #50 | |
|
runefist (0)
Unverified User Posts: 3 Registered: Jun 16, '08 |
Wow, there are alot of good points and posts here, and it goes to show that most porn consumers are not the "sex-crazed. mindless dirty old molesters" the government and religous nuts would like others who dont watch porn to think we are. I do think there are alot of pros and cons to pornography and we all know what those are. There are just a few "bad apples" that have to ruin it for everybody, sadly governments see the "bad apples" as the norm and not the exception. We need more of the "good apples" to speak out. There are more people watching porn now more than ever and they are not all pedophiliac sex weasels. I do feel the government needs to do somthing about the "bad apples" and when I say that I mean those who post pics and vids of underage people and human-animal relations...that sort of thing. And "bad apples" are alos those who are pedophiles and horse-fuckers that commit such crimes and when they raid thier computers they find porn of all sorts. The govenrment sees that and they say " ah ha!!! porn is the casue of thier deviant behavior...we must stop porn!!" Now I will admit maybe porn can be a "gateway drug" for more illicit, deviant, and illeagal behavior, but for the 95% of the rest of us that watch it with our romantic others or alone...there is no need to punish the rest. I think porn is a good thing for the most part. It keeps me from going to the whorehouse or the strip club AND its more cost effective for me. People NEED porn as a safe sexual release. If the pornograhpy industry did not exist, I think there would be more prostitution, increased sexual assaults and rapes and more rampant std's. I do believe pornographers need to be a bit more responsible becasue pornography kinda defines the "norm" for sexual behavior for society. I remember back in the 80's a facial or anal was suprising in a porn and you were lucky to find someone to do that in real life. NOW those things are EXPECTED in porn becasue it's now kinda common place in most of society..so pornographers have to show its customers more and more extreme behavior to keep the public interested. I do think there needs to be limits but those limits shouldnt be set by religous groups or governments. Nothing stops bad porn more than the consumer not buying it. | |
|
||
| 1-50 of 132 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
