|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Free Speech and Porn |
| 51-100 of 132 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 | 3 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-27-09 04:05pm - 5688 days | #51 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
We can now add India on the list of places not visit; at least not to surf porn there. In another misguided attempt to control everyone's desire to look at porn the Indians decided to jump on the bandwagon and go way overboard as many countries seem to do. This law, which hasn't taken effect quite yet, makes it a crime to even look any pornographic webpage punishable by years in jail and monster ass fines. Publish anything pornographic on the web, same punishment. Post a picture or transmit one via your cell phone of some bikini clad Indian babe without her consent, same thing as looking at porn. Committing cyber terrorism or online identity theft in India? The punishment is about the same as looking at porn. So, add another country that the PU staff can't ever go visit without being prosecuted. Don't worry though, pretty much any Indian government agency can monitor online and cell traffic as they chose and investigate without search warrants. All Indian ISP's will have to retain all information on users and sent messages too. Oh yeah, if the "integrity" of the Indian state is threatened, the government can yank webaccess at any time. Once again, here's a law that really serves no purpose other than to notify the public that nothing is private on the net and that the government can do what it wants when it wants if you break the rules. Shouldn't the Indian government really be more worried about population control and actually feeding the people it already has? However the law does create great promise for political intrigue. Worried about being re-elected? Plant some porn on your opponents computer or email inbox or plant some printouts of web porn in their house or car and get them arrested. Unhappy with your boss or coworker? Do the same. Gotta love life lived by the book of dirty tricks. Edited on May 27, 2009, 04:15pm | |
|
||
| 05-27-09 07:49pm - 5688 days | #52 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Damn it WittyGuy, stop putting porn on my computer so I cant be the Mayor of India! :) India of all places can not afford to be particular about what goes on with in the internet. After all practically their entire economy is communication based. Kinda of an oxymoron if you ask me. The guys there can not look at porn to satisfy their craving, so I guess the only other option is the real thing. I would suspect this may feed into their population issues a little. Imagine calling a trouble shooting hotline for a computer issue and the India guy on the other end has to ask you first if you have porn on your computer. Because if there is any he is not allowed to help you! I would be screwed! :) I would if any or our collections among us PUs would be enough to warrant the death penalty over there? "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 05-27-09 07:56pm - 5688 days | #53 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I noticed on one of the newer vids at Disgraced 18 - part of the Porn Pros Network - that they started the vid with an interview with the model where they established the kind of stuff that they were going to be doing in the vid and asked if she had a problem with that - then they established safe words that she could use to stop the action if she felt uncomfortable at any point. I thought this was smart from a legal protection perspective - to state up front that the model knew what was up and was provided with the means to stop it if she wanted. I also thought it was good to promote safe words in case any viewers want to get into rough play in their personal sex life. | |
|
||
| 05-29-09 02:00pm - 5686 days | #54 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
They should have a progressive set of safe words; one for each state, and when a certain act goes over the legally obscene line, the model names a state where it is outlawed. When she gets to California you know you are looking at the Euro version of content -- in other words, the good stuff -- so just don't enjoy it too much, or keep it well hidden in your collection. "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 | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 01:57pm - 5681 days | #55 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Update! Hide your manga (japanese cartoon) collection! As has been alluded to earlier in this thread, the feds passed a law in 2003 .... Upon further reflection, I think I'm going to start a new thread on this subject to let more people know about this (https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thr...ad.html?threadid=750). Please post replies to this topic in that other thread. Edited on Jun 03, 2009, 02:13pm | |
|
||
| 06-12-09 05:05pm - 5672 days | #56 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Once again, in another misguided attempt to get tough on crime and stick it to those nasty child porn pervs another state has passed an enhanced child porn law. If you live in Nevada it is now illegal to view any visual representation of a child, or a person depicting a child, under the age of 16 engaged in any sexual conduct including the display of genitals. Nice idea, however reality will say otherwise. Why, Wittyguy, you might ask? Nothing you haven't heard before if you've read this thread. Once again, stick figures become illegal (draw a stick figure with a dick and label it "Tommy: Age 12" and that's a crime). The only people this is going to catch are the teens sexting images around and the manga artists/websites. Oh yeah, if your boss is a jerk, go on his computer and download some max hardcore video where the actress claims to be a kid and turn him in (promotion comes quickly in some companies). Naturally, the real pervs are far ahead of this game and are unlikely to ever be nabbed. The only people going to get busted are the stupid, the young and the clueless. Exactly the people we should be tossing in jail, right? | |
|
||
| 06-12-09 05:21pm - 5672 days | #57 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I'm no expert, but I was always under the impression that Nevada was one of the loosest states in the union. -legalized many forms of gambling long before most other states did. -prostitution is legal in at least 1 Nevada county. -the first adult bookstore I went into, back in the dark ages (the 1960s) was in Las Vegas, Nevada. I grew up in California, lived there most of my life, but I don't remember if I've ever been in an adult bookstore in California. But on a visit to Las Vegas, back in the 1960s, I went into an adult bookstore, and actually bought an adult book. First time in an adult bookstore, first adult book I bought (not counting Playboy, which is an adult magazine). So if Nevada passed a child porn law, it's more an example of how mish-mash and conflicting the different laws that get passed can be, rather than a litmus test of the moral or ethical code of the state population or its lawmakers. But you're probably right when you say "The only people going to get busted are the stupid, the young and the clueless. Exactly the people we should be tossing in jail, right?" Who else should we be putting in those taxpayer sponsored jails? Certainly not the business leaders who have grabbed billions of dollars in bonus money from mega-corporations that were going bankrupt, or were saved from bankruptcy by billions of dollars in government aid. | |
|
||
| 06-24-09 12:41pm - 5660 days | #58 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I give props to Messmer for turning me onto this one which I call the "RCLAP Award" or the "Royal Canadian Lard Ass Patrol" award. This goes out to the fine Canadian legislators who recently proposed a law allowing the warrantless surveillance of all internet activity and the right require ISPs to turn over customer information. Apparently the Mounties (Canadian police) find that chasing bad guys involves work and that it would just be easier to figure out who people are talking to without having to develop a working case, probable cause or even knowing what kind of crime is being committed. Hell, just sit on your butt, watching the internet stream by like Neo on some sort of "Matrix" acid trip and hoping to find the bad guys is the new game in law enforcement. Apparently the law wouldn't allow the police to view the contents of the communication (they would still need a warrant for that) but it would allow real time monitoring of all web and cell communication and require ISP's to turn over customer names and addresses without a warrant, retain all customer communications for some time period (so if they get a warrant they can look at everything) and even allow the police to turn on remote tracking (GPS) systmes in cell phones. All of this is needed to protect our frigid neighbors to the north from child porn perverts and identity theives. Apparently the Canadian police don't like the fact that some ISP's won't turn over information without a warrant and that this hinders law enforcement operations ... apparently missing the point that if you want to build a police state then anything that denies you access to everything when you want it is a hinderance to law enforcement. What I like is that there is no mention of what crimes need to be committed, or are about to be committed, for this oversight to take effect. Is Aunt Lucie conspiring to illegally park her Buick outside the Post Office; is some police officers ex wife talking smack about him and thereby hindering law enforcement operations; is the porn Messmer is downloading about to turn him into a pedophile serial killer? Better yet, suppose you accidentally dial a wrong number and call a suspected child porn hoarder. At that point the government will be tracking everything you do and say for years to come because you're now a suspect just by having contacted this person. Remember "No Boundaries, No Limits, No Doughnuts Left Untouched" is the new motto of the Mounties. | |
|
||
| 06-24-09 01:33pm - 5660 days | #59 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Oh, that we (Canada) had a country full of wittyguys instead of all those polite, naive, passive folks that think that everything their Government does MUST be for their own good! I'm not crazy about unrestrained individualism but when it comes to basic freedoms, like the freedom of speech, we tend to be too complacent. Eh? | |
|
||
| 07-01-09 09:14pm - 5653 days | #60 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
God I love the Aussies for no other reason than they give this thread a reason to live on. If you ever wondered what a power grab looks like, look no further than the Australian Communications Minister. The same guy who came up the Aussie firewall against sites that I ranted about earlier is now taking on the gaming industry. Apparently, Australia doesn't have an R18 or "Mature" ratings system for video games. Any games that have extreme violence or sexual content cannot be sold in stores Down Under. Deciding that if you can't buy it, you shouldn't be able to see it online, the Minister has decided that it's time to block all Aussie internet access to game sites featuring extra violence or sex. So, if you live on that end of the world and dig World of Warcraft you might to have go out and spend a few bucks on software to circumvent the firewall if you want to keep on playing ... of course, you'll be a criminal if you do. And, not to be outdone by other despotic countries, the Ukraine has joined the ranks of nations that now bans the production, possession or distribution of pornography. The catch there is that the law doesn't define what pornography is; it's whatever the police and courts want it to be. That's gotta suck. Living a backwoods former Soviet-bloc country that produces a lot of porn and porn babes and you can't even ogle the goodies while sipping your vodka. | |
|
||
| 07-08-09 12:22pm - 5646 days | #61 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
I wonder how the law will affect ukrainamaterus.com. I thought it was pretty lame when it came with the Dirty D group of sites. I didn't think it had many Ukrainian girls, but some of them were. They cracked me up when they tried to pass off Indian American Gaya Patal as Ukrainian. | |
|
||
| 07-08-09 01:57pm - 5646 days | #62 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Actually, I doubt that much will change. Studios will keep shooting some of their stuff there. If the situation gets a little dicey just through some euros at the local cops and promise them some free porn and I doubt anyone would get arrested. That country, like most, has a lot bigger problems than porn. What would really suck is if the Russians outlawed porn. That wouldn't surprise me since they just shut down their gambling halls which brought in big bucks as a get tough on vice scheme. A lot more porn comes out of there and that would hurt a lot more than the Ukraine. | |
|
||
| 07-08-09 10:41pm - 5645 days | #63 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
What country doesn't have bigger problems than porn (okay, besides the U.S., at least as imagined by those fighting the make believe culture war)? And if porn was a country's biggest problem, wouldn't that make it a pretty nice place to live? No crime, no poverty, no hunger, just lots and lots of porn. :) "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 Jul 09, 2009, 03:35pm | |
|
||
| 07-09-09 04:33am - 5645 days | #64 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I wonder if it's a good or bad sign that Rob Black & his wife pleaded guilty in their obscenity case. It sounds like they did it to protect their money - the prosecutors agreed to no fines - both will do 1 year and 1 day in jail, then 2 years probation. John Stagliano has said that he wants to fight his case all the way to the supreme court, if need be, and bring a troup of women to the steps of the court to spurt milk out of their asses - I'd like to see that. I'd also like to see his case get tossed, though. | |
|
||
| 07-09-09 03:34pm - 5645 days | #65 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I would like to see that too (both the ass milk demo and the case being thrown out), and not just because I haven't seen the allegedly obscene movie in question, but because this is how stupid our government really is. But what would be even more appropriate would be to set up some toilets outside the courthouse and fill them with fake cash, because that is exactly what the government is doing by prosecuting this case -- wasting our money and resources. Real criminals must love this! (And I don't mean just politicians.) "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 | |
|
||
| 07-09-09 06:21pm - 5645 days | #66 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I have seen the movies in question and frankly the Government is going to have hard time with this case. I don't know if they will decide to drop the charges before it goes to court but knowing how Governments usually think. I suspet they won't. If they think that a girl blowing a milk like substance out of her ass is obscene then clearly they have never seen a girl blow a couple of loads of sperm into a bowl and swallow it. I'll take the milk like substance any day. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-06-09 08:03pm - 5617 days | #67 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
With a lot of not so advanced countries jumping on the "ban all porn" bandwagon, I've noted a few times above that it's just a manner of time before these laws are used merely for political oppression or retribution. Well, the bandwagon has finally pulled into town in the highly enlightened country of Zambia. Seems that newspaper publisher is being prosecuted for emailing obscene photos to a government official. The obscene pics in question? Two shots of women giving birth without medical assistance ... scenes that I must confess aren't at the top of my porn collection viewing list. It seems the publisher has advocated the end of nurses strike in that country by having the government actually pay the nurses living wages. Thus, the only real reason for the trial is to put the clamps down on the political opposition. The only amusing chapter in this sad case is that the minister had, to her embarrassment, phantom up some sort of explanation of how these pictures were arousing to her in open court. Obviously the only criminal here is the govenment minister who needs serious psychological help for her extreme case of pedophiliac attraction or "all natural" s+m addiction. I'm just waiting for some of these countries to start prosecuting birth control and AIDS activists under porn/obscenity laws. Remember your country is only truly safe when everyone is ignorant and the government is always right. | |
|
||
| 08-06-09 11:22pm - 5616 days | #68 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
That is a long stretch when it comes to being thought of as porn. I do not think I have anything like that in my collection, but I will have to check to be sure...see you all next year. I was always under the impression that the AK-47 was the only law in these countries. Was the infants the whole way out yet? If they where, or close to, they might even be able to press for child porn! Dont these placed have better things to be worrying about? Little things such as food, security, medical care, and maybe making it so that people do not need $18 billion Zambia dollars to buy a spoon. Hell that country could probably double its national income if it sold those picture online. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 08-07-09 11:49pm - 5615 days | #69 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I would say the same thing about the U.S. every time some Constitution-hating asshole starts making a fuss about porn. Yes, we are all perverts, but politicians' collective perversion for wasting resources, time, and not too mention our money, on prosecuting consensual porn is truly obscene. "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 | |
|
||
| 08-08-09 12:34am - 5615 days | #70 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
I can not argue a single point there, but obviously we are preaching to the choir here. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 08-08-09 07:32am - 5615 days | #71 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Not too mention all the money is wasted in getting their collectives asses out of the media or jail every time they get caught with their mistress, prostitute, young man and quite a few others. How many of these pillar of morality have been caught with their pants down in the last few years?? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-03-09 03:26pm - 5589 days | #72 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
A Brief Lesson in Rhetoric: Considering that the Aussie nation grew up on a steady diet of English rejects and subsequently adopted the concepts of individual freedom and democracy from the Brits as well, it's almost humorous watching themselves try and copy Chinese authoritarian rule when it comes to the internet. Under the guise of power hungry Communications Minister who seems to have cut his political chops reading old Moral Majority newsletters the Aussies first came up with the idea that the government needed to impose a "firewall" on all Aussies so as to eliminate child porn. Then, they decided that violent video game websites should not be accessed. Now, the Communications Ministry is proposing that all Aussie ISP providers must track all internet useage, users and isp addresses; subject to turning this data over to the government upon request or private companies as part of civil lawsuits. The reason for the proposed law is to crack down on file sharing porn pirates. While all of these absurd Aussie ideas (thinking "Down Under" instead of "upstairs" seems to be the theme here) probably won't become law they do teach us a few lessons about issues that are going to be arising in the US over the next few years. Currently, there are two major voices calling for more US based internet monitoring. On one side are the well intentioned but ignorant moralists who want the government to block "offensive" sites to preserve the purity of nation (remember, Jesus likes us best ... even though the nation states didn't exist 2,000 years ago) and to prevent child porn from spreading. On the other side are the policy wonks in the Pentagon and CIA who worry about tracking national security threats and cyberattacks aimed at crippling an internet based nation. The Australian government has adopted the tone laid out by the moralists. All their claims for monitoring web activity are based upon protecting the public from offensive content, protecting children and preserving law and order by upholding copyright protections (aka - law and order ... only this crime doesn't get solved in one hour). While most of the sheep who inhabit society probably don't care, the effect of going this route causes the few who don't follow the flock to note that government is telling adults what it can and can't see on the net and leads to claims about the creation of a "nanny state" and "Orwellian society" which tend to ring home with a lot of people who believe in free will and a free society even if they don't really care in practice. By taking the moral high ground, the government faces an ever growing chorus of people who are firing back with strong rhetoric of their own. In other words, the language of the debate in a professed freedom loving country quickly shifts over to the group claiming to defend the pillars of freedom when the reasons for internet monitoring are couched in moral words. In the US, the argument which is just beginning is currently being couched in the form of national security. It's a lot easier to shout down the opposition and call them "unpatriotic" when the perceived security of the nation is at stake (mmmm, where have we heard that before). By taking cues from the Boneheads Down Under, the US cyber monitors would take care to express that the government would need a search warrant or, even more likely, that monitoring for national security purposes would be done by the secret court that currently approves spy operations in the US. The result, is that the debate gets muted and effects of any government nosing around is largely hidden from view. If the moralists (frequently represented by the Republicans) start edging in then the argument could become too much of a political hot potato to go very far. If they stay out, meaning Obama pushes something through (and he supports greater web security), it will probably be more palatable but the end result will be a Bigger Big Brother. While the Aussies are having a public debate centered around law and morals, our debate will likely be short and terse with the subsequent enforcement of any monitoring laws shoved under the carpet where hopefully no one will notice. Of course, as I noted in an earlier post, the net effect of the passage of any mandatory ISP tracking laws or enhanced government monitoring will be negligible. The big meanies are already off the radar in that they use heavy encryption and surrogate hosts to hide their tracks. If people think they're being watched their likely to start using surrogate host sites that make tracking difficult. That only causes the cost of the government surveillance program to escalate faster trying to keep up with the off road crowd. The Everyday Joe gets watched for and busted over file sharing while the real asses (the child porn pervs and terrorists) go about their business as usual. Edited on Sep 03, 2009, 04:24pm | |
|
||
| 09-03-09 11:12pm - 5588 days | #73 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
A major issue with ISP tracking is that we, the users, pay for it. To track that much traffic would be a huge undertaking for the ISPs. While I do not have much to hide when it comes to my internet browsing I really do not want people recoding what I do. I can see it now. I go to a job interview and have to explain why my website list on CCBill is four pages long and that just because I have seen a woman screwing a dog in a video I will not try to screw a client's pet. Better not let friends use your internet anymore either. As far as I know those records would not know who the actual user was....unless of course you had a web camera.... ;) So many people say "well I have nothing to hide," but ask them if they would mind if we put a few hidden cameras in the home and see if their tone changes. Everything that starts out as "for special use only" ends up not being so. This data would start out as being very secret and safe and only used for high importance investigations, which is great. My issue is how long would it take for something to realize that other people might pay a lot of money to be able to sift through that data. The point is I do not want my privacy invaded, and I sure as hell do not want to pay for it! "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-03-09 11:17pm - 5588 days | #74 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
It's all about control, as the Internet represents a great threat to those in power. Even if it is 99% conspiracy theory, porn, and social networking, the 1% of truth is still incredibly dangerous. The web is arguably the last frontier in independent media and communication. Yes, it depends on large corporations to supply software, hardware, and a certain level of access, but it still offers a great deal of freedom, even in supposedly already free places such as the U.S. and much of western Europe. Compare this to film, television, radio, and print. They are either under tight self or government imposed regulation. Even if it is not directly related to the content, there is considerable control over technology, distribution, formats, etc. (just try starting your own independent TV or radio station). The Internet still represents a danger to government and the few who hold most of the power and money. The post-9/11 world has offered unprecedented opportunities for fewer civil liberties and more government control, all in the vague name of 'security'. Former head of the Department of Homeland Security Tom Ridge recently revealed that terror alerts were artificially increased for political purposes during the Bush years, so what does this say about our government when it does something for allegedly security and patriotism purposes? Worse still the 'Global War on Terrorism' was started under the most abstract of terms and goals, with no apparent end or victory -- just what any ruler would want in order to strengthen a state's control over its people, all with a legal justification for doing so. President Obama is really not as socialist or liberal as his enemies would have us believe. He has yet to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, expanded military forces in Afghanistan, and yes, supports greater online security, at least for the government, at the expense of the people's freedom. It's a murky business, as the web has required us to rewrite the laws for a technological future. We all like porn, that's why we are here, but it can actually be one way to measure free speech in the digital age. Remember: with freedom comes excess, and to what extent that excess is tolerated will determine our freedom. Something may not be to our liking or tastes, but how far are we willing to let the few in power impose their personal tastes on others? "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 | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 12:28am - 5588 days | #75 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
You simply can not allow others to impose their tastes on us. That would be like me saying only blondes can make porn now. Many of you would not like that and there is no reason for me to do it. Or for that matter, gay porn. It is not something I want to see, but that does not mean that others should not be able to see it if they choose. We discussed in another thread a country not allowing porn to include surgically altered people. In other words breast implant are illegal in porn. Why? Because the lawmaker only likes natural tits? "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 12:41am - 5588 days | #76 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
On another note, I just seen an article on Yahoo that said Obama is giving a speech directed towards school kids about the important of education. Some people are actually pissed about this!?!?! So if there are any parents on here can they please explain why they would be so pissed about the president addressing our nation's youth about the importance of not being stupid! In fact isn't it a nice thing to see that they are not forgotten about. These people are crying about brainwashing, I guess they have already forgotten about all the political ads that are beaten into our heads before election time. Lets see now, which is brainwashing, speaking about the importance of education or "he is an asshole, vote for ME!"??? That is a close one! These parents are effectively teaching their children that ignoring the president is a good thing. I was always under the impression that when the president came on TV is was usually something pretty important to most people. It seems they are saying "ignore current nation affairs, they are of no concern to you." Just walk around blind and uneducated, like the obedient sheep that you are. Education is such an important thing now. People need to be able to do more than simple labor. We have machines that can perform simple repetitive tasks much for efficiently than people, and cheaper. We need people to design the machine that performs the task, or to come up with the product the machine is making. We need people to look for natural resources to exploit. We do not need more 35 year olds working at Burger King. But I guess none of this is important to some people... "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 10:21am - 5588 days | #77 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I got a laugh when I saw that the governor of Texas (a Republican, duh) said that he would not be encouraging parents to send their kids to school on Tuesday if their local school showed the presidential address. Who's brainwashing who here? Apparently the Republicans, in an effort to keep their base from shrinking further, need more ignorant, uninformed and uneducated minions for their cause. I'm sort of surprised that no one's one upped this pointless hysteria by calling Republicans racist for wanting deprive minority children of seeing their potential role model. Shows what modern American politics has become - words over deeds, form over substance, and exploitation over reality. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 11:06am - 5588 days | #78 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
http://www.xbiz.com/news/112351 The latest on the Stagliano case - this one could get very interesting because a) They didn't pick an easy target - they didn't go after someone doing pedo-phelia-themed abusive stuff and they didn't go after someone that's doing rape-themed stuff like Max Hardcore or Rob Black - they went after someone that's doing clearly consensual sex involving adults and b) They went after someone intelligent enough and clear-headed enough and charismatic enough to expose the essence of what's wrong with obscenity laws - I love this: Stagliano, in the interview, questioned enforcement of obscenity laws. "Do you want to live in a kind of country where the government can just say I don't like you, I don't like your ideas and what you are doing and let's just put you in jail?" he asked. Later in a July 3, 2008, interview in the Los Angeles Times, Stagliano pointed out that he had "no idea" when he would be breaking any federal obscenity laws. "Aren't we already at the point where a government official can get you on some law somewhere if he doesn't like you?" Stagliano told the Times. "Isn't that what an obscenity law really is?" Go John! | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 02:27pm - 5588 days | #79 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Staliano's claims are a bit true and a bit self serving in regards to Pinkpanther's posted link. On it's face, the government is in effect trying to silence him by not allowing his statements given in interviews since the obscenity charges were filed against him to be admissable in his trial, should this case make it to trial. That's sort of stupid because no judge will ever order that Stagliano can't bitch to the media about his case if wants to. However, I'll bet you a ton of money that Stagliano only gave these interviews after long talks with his legal counsel. In criminal cases defense lawyers never want to put their client on the stand during a trial if at all possible. While his statements may in fact be true (no Monday morning quarterbacking in other words), I'll bet you more money that his defense attorneys might have considered using his interviews during the trial as a way of getting around putting their client on the stand and, thus, opening him up to cross examination. However, when push comes to shove, his case will not be won or lost based upon what Stagliano thinks about obscenity, it's more a question of the legal nuances that have been discussed earlier in this thread (Miller Test, universal standard of obscenity, what is the "community" for the internet, etc). Frankly, the prosecutors can't silence him prior to trial as no judge would order that in this type of case. Any statements he made in interviews after the indictment would probably be considered self serving by a jury anyways and his statements are of limited value as evidence in this type of case. It's mostly Stagliano blowing his own horn here over stupid move by the prosecution rather than an issue of free speech. I don't blame him for making an issue over it, it's just that the issue is overblown. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 02:44pm - 5588 days | #80 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Frankly, I don't think that the issue that Stagliano is making is "blown" enough. It's exactly correct - and he'd be stupid not to be considering his legal strategy when making any statements regarding the case. I HOPE he's being self-serving. The government has filed a legal case against him! | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 02:57pm - 5588 days | #81 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
To the extent that he is pointing out government abuse and the stupidity of our current obscenity laws, I agree. To the extent that he's trying to use this as marketing for himself I don't agree. Where the truth lies is probably somewhere in the middle ... but hopefully more towards the principled side rather than the business side. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 06:40pm - 5588 days | #82 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I hope that Stagliano wins his case because I can guarantee you that if he loses then you will see a drop in American porn of such a magnitude that frankly American Porn will a thing of the past. The movies that are being used as evidence againsst Evil Angel are not like the ones that were used for Max Hardcore or Rob Black. Another thing that is likely to happen if he loses this case is that all of the other studios will know that, if the Goverment can go against Evil Angel, then it's only a question of time before their number is up. How many studios do you think have the millions of dollars it's going to cost Stagliano in legals fees to defend his rights? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 07:56pm - 5588 days | #83 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Yes, Rick Perry is always good for a laugh as he may be the dumbest governor in recent history. He has even hinted, at least since Obama took office, that Texas could secede (hey, no objection on my part). It's pretty easy to figure out why some parents are opposed to the president giving a speech directed towards school kids: ignorance and paranoia. I wouldn't be surprised if there are parents out there that oppose vaccinations required by school districts before students can begin attending. It's currently happening with the HPV vaccine, and that's just one vaccination. If I were a parent I would be more worried about what individual teachers and schools are doing with my kid rather than a televised address by the president. The Republican group mentioned in the article says the speech "obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates." Right -- one speech by the president and suddenly it's Village of the Damned, or they just turn into Obama-directed zombies (zobamamies?). "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 | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 09:17pm - 5588 days | #84 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
No one ever said that he was going to be telling kids exactly what to do. It is not like he will be on the air saying "Hey kids, tell your parents to vote me because that will make you cool!" Wittyguy is exactly right. Some want nothing more than to keep others uneducated so that they do not know any better. Educated people have the ability to govern themselves and to know when it is time a current regime has outlived its usefulness. I hope Obama tells these kids that they are not bound by their parent's life path. There is no reason that they cannot break away from the lifestyle they have been raised into. Flipping burgers is not good enough for Obama so why should it be good enough for them. How many of the people on COPS being arrested have college degrees? How many of those people are skilled tradesmen? Likely an extremely small minority. Because education teaches people to think about what it is they are about to do and that working for often more rewarding than stealing it. Unfortunately there are those who want people to live pay check to pay check and barely get by. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-05-09 07:59pm - 5587 days | #85 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
You could construe any comments he's makes as being marketing for himself since he's the head of Evil Angel - so he's supposed to keep his mouth shut in order to avoid giving that impression? He'd be a moron to do so. Luckily he isn't one. | |
|
||
| 09-05-09 08:35pm - 5587 days | #86 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Who needed brainwashing when the "No Child Left Behind" bill required that military recruiters be allowed into public schools in order for those schools to receive federal funding? That is, why stop at the mind when you can have body and soul as well? I thought it was outrageous, but I never noticed any public outcry covered in the press. This country, the US, has always had and always will have a sizable population of deluded nitwits. We had the "Communist conspiracy" over tap water fluoridation. We had McCarthyism. And things really haven't fundamentally changed. We've had people tell their little kids that they couldn't watch Barney the purple dinosaur because he was encouraging them to use their imagination. These are the same people who say that everything you ever really need to know is in the Bible. And do they ever exercise their imaginations! Whew! It's a small wonder that about a third of kids in public schools do not graduate from high school. It's a shocking figure, but that's what TIME reported about 2 years ago. America has always had a strong anti-intellectual, anti-science, AND ANTI-AMERICAN CONSTITUTION constituency that makes but one exception: the 2nd Amendment. Really, I see that there are two countries here, not one. The bad, idiotic one dominated for 8 years and made a fine mess of things. Now that they've lost their edge on the popular imagination (or lack thereof), however temporarily, they're mad as hell. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 09-05-09 11:47pm - 5586 days | #87 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
The best part of all this is that it seems that the outcry originated from a republican in Florida. If I recall correctly, did they not fix a presidential election a few years back. Not that I can say too much, Ohio fixed the next one. One third of the youth does not graduate high school! I had not heard any figures on that previously. That is an absolute outrage! Should we not be worried more about getting kids through school than bashing the president for trying to reach out to these kids. The US has sent so much money trying to bring education to underdeveloped countries, which is great, but it seems that the current fashion is to cut domestic school funding. We have a problem with stupid people in our nation and unfortunately some of them are in high positions of power and others are responsible for raising the youth. Who ever started this thing needs to be kicked square in the nuts. These so called educators who are claiming they have other objectives for that day also need to be smacked. Do they not have a history or social studies class in school anymore? I would think that a presidential speech directed towards kids in school would be a pretty damn good lesson plan for the day! I guess people have the right to be stupid. It is too bad they take it out on their kids. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-14-09 07:56pm - 5578 days | #88 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
If you ever needed a reason not to go to Walmart, here's another one. Apparently a family in Arizona dropped their memory card off at Walmart to have their vacation pics developed. A couple of the pics showed their young kids naked in the bathtub and lying on a rug (no sexual suggestiveness apparently, just stupid kid pics). You can see where this is going already. Walmart called the police and then police, displaying even higher levels of genius thinking, decided to charge the parents with child pornography and sexual abuse and put the kids into state protective custody (aka foster care). Needless to say the case was dimissed but only after the family hired lawyers and started filing motions. First, why would you drop pictures of your naked kids off at a photo shop; that's just stupid to begin with (how many movies feature pervs and psychos who work at photo shops?). Second, even though people sometimes lack decent judgment, it just seems so wrong that anyone who sees a naked, or partially naked kid, has to assume that it's child porn and call the cops. Is society/business that fearful of anything involving child nudity that it must be assumed criminal? Third, cops won't save your bacon when it comes to kids. Cops are trained to be very sensitive when handling child exploitation / sex abuse. If they see naked picture they'll probably just pass the buck along to someone with a higher pay grade (aka - the district attornyes office) to decide what constitues porn or not. The situation just lead to a big expensive and stupid mess that the tax payers end up covering. If the cops are not going to exercise discretion here, then I'm wondering why they don't take a similar hard line with sexting teens. If the police come across a cell phone pic of some girl flashing her fun bags, clearly she must be living in an inadequate home environment and she's clearly a meanace to herself and society so why not take her into protective custody and order her to get a pscyhological evaluation? The legal calculus at work here seems to read "child nudity = porn = throw the book at them". A big problem here is the ambiguity of child porn laws. Most state and federal laws require that the picture of child be "sexually stimulating" in order for it to be considered child porn. Because of the vaguaries in this definition the lowest common denominator (nudity) is often enough to trigger a legal inquisition. By chucking thought and discretion out the door the taxpayers end up in Dire Straits by paying 'money for nothing' ... even if the naked chicks are free ;. | |
|
||
| 09-14-09 10:17pm - 5578 days | #89 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I don't want to say I told you so...but I told you so:
(Here's where I originally said it in response to you Wittyguy.) Okay, I was joking and didn't think this would actually happen (then again, I didn't think conservatives would let Obama live past his inauguration, so what do I know?). Still this is serious stupid, in a scary what-have-we-become way. "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 | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 06:24pm - 5577 days | #90 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
What is the community (2009 edition)? If you recall, the Miller Test is the 3 part standard used to decide whehter or not something is obscene: 1. Whether an average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, as a whole, appeals to prurient (aka - sexually arousing) 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. In some recent obscenity trials, such as Max Hardcores, defense lawyers have been arguing that in the age of the internet the community standards test really shouldn't apply or that the community should be considered what the internet has to offer, not the local neigbhorhood. This has lead to cases involving lots of statistics about porn useage by adults in a judicial district and talk about the other nasty porn sites out there. Realizing that admitting such evidence doesn't help the government's case, the Feds trying a new tactic in a New Jersey obscenity case. The case involves some rube who mailed hard bondage sex dvds to some undercover suits (and, yes, the government looked this guy up and paid for the dvds, he didn't just mail them out for free). The government is trying to twist the community standards test in a new way according to some recent court filings. Whether than asking the jury to decide for themselves that the sex acts are sexual arousing / prurient, the government wants the jury to speculate if the dvds would appeal some "deviant group" even if the jury panel doesn't find it sexually gross or arousing. In other words, the government wants to limit the "community" to mean those who might like bondage sex. The government wants this definition used so that the jury can just assume that because someone made a bondage sex tape that it must be sexually appealling to someone no matter how bad (or good) it might be because it must appeal to some hypothetical person. Then the government does an about face by wanting to take the "deviant community" out of the equation. The feds are requesting that no comparable S&M videos from local adult stores be allowed and that no expert testimony be allowed. The reasoning there is that the feds want to restrict the definition of "community" to what a local town will accept, not what it will tolerate. In other words, just because you find nastier shit at your local store doesn't mean that the local community has to accept it as being OK; the community in that case just tolerates it. The government's take is that experts and similar videos would just tell the jury what communities tolerate, not what they'll accept. So, apparently the idea is that one hypothetical community (the deviant types) must find the dvds arousing and then the "real" local community, as defined by the jurors, will have to decide if it's acceptable, not just tolerable. All these legal gymnastics are clearly done to make the feds case as simple as pie and to shut down just about all defenses. There a few other gems in this legal brief (including the fact that government wants to shut down websites that the defendant doesn't own or have an interest in) but you can already smell what's cooking. Using the government's logic here, almost anything could be considered obscene. So long as something is marketed as sex and has sex in it, a jury could find it obscene. Just cause sex (or nudity for that matter) is out there in everyone's home dvd player and web browser doesn't mean that any jury on given day couldn't find it obscene. I doubt that the government's position here will fly too far but it demonstrates two points: First, the government will waste lots of tax money and take just about any position that passes the laugh test to win a case regardless of the large scale idiocy and havoc it might generate should they win. Second, the feds desperately do not want the "community" be identified with what is out there in cyberworld, rather it shouldn't go beyond the neighborhood and the fronts people put on and hold forth to conceal what they're really looking at. Hypocrisy and speculation are not pillars of justice that the founding father's probably had in mind when they started this whole country. | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 06:50pm - 5577 days | #91 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I really hate the concept of a community's "standards" because it applies the supposed moral code of a small group to a much larger one. Consider how this affected the trial of the officers who beat Rodney King -- a nearly all white jury acquitted three of them. Should their standards have really been used to judge another community? I would say, at least based on the subsequent riots, that no, they should not have. But back to porn, when are we (or at least the assholes in charge) going to realize that we cannot pick and choose free speech in such limited ways? With freedom comes excess, and if we are not willing to accept that, then we have to stop labeling ourselves "free" all the time. The Internet has been a double edged sword ever since Al Gore, or whoever, invented it. It has opened up users to the world and to a certain extent connected those with common interests (just browse PU for a few moments), but it seems to have opened up a whole world of intolerance. Now instead of postal inspectors with too much time (and apparently porn) on their hands, we have police officers, federal agents, and even private companies spending vast amounts of time and money -- much of which is ours as taxpayers -- to literally draw out all those they see fit to arrest and convict. Yes, some of these people are genuine dirtbags who are breaking a lot more than some 19th century obscenity law, but Max Hardcore? Evil Angel? The judges, prosecutors, and self-proclaimed crime fighters who devote their careers to locking these people up are not so much policing the community as they are policing our thoughts and feelings. That's obscene. "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 | |
|
||
| 11-03-09 03:19pm - 5528 days | #92 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I usually go through life looking for evidence that denies the existence of God. Things like my inability to win the lottery, those damn clamshell platic packages that everything gets packaged in, when your tv signal cuts out during the most important part of the game ... if there was a benevolent god, he simply would not be doing these to me. However, last week at one bright glimor of hope did appear. A federal appeals court (not the Supreme Court) actually ruled that when it comes to obscenity cases involving the internet or email, national and not local standards should be applied. As noted several times here, in the U.S. the Miller Test is the legal formula for determining if something is obscene. One part of that test requires a jury to determine that an average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, as a whole, appeals to prurient (aka - sexually arousing) interests. Many prosecutors who live in the Bible Belt or similarly conservative areas have been trying obscenity cases using only the local community as the standard, not a nation wide standard. This is a big leap forward for porn people and those who dislike 70 year old Jesus Jumpers who have never seen anything beyond their churches website on the internet telling adult Americans what they can see in the privacy of their own homes. It will probably serve to slow down some of these obscenity trials (most of which are brought to score political / "tough on crime" points). It also opens the door for people accused of obscenity to bring in statistics and comparative websites showing how pervie America really is when it's on-line. This decision only applies to federal courts mostly on the West coast. However, it increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will actually have to address this issue soon and it probably won't be long before courts start adopting this standard. So, I actually have something decent to talk about here for a change as opposed my usual gripe fest. Yeah. | |
|
||
| 11-05-09 02:13pm - 5526 days | #93 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Lol! I have to say, the phrase "70 year old Jesus Jumpers" really makes me laugh. Interestingly this seems to be the same demographic as most of Tuesday's voters -- in other words, a typical election turnout. But c'mon, pull your head out of your ass and get back to your usual gripe fest! :) "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 | |
|
||
| 12-30-09 05:16pm - 5471 days | #94 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
In post number 51 above, I talked about the government of India passing a pretty harsh law that pretty much criminalizes the publishing, transmitting or viewing of porn on the internet. The effects of that law are now starting to occur. Newspapers are reporting that major search engines are blocking searches for items like "sex" from taking place with computer IP addresses coming from India. Yahoo has gone further and banned sex searches in India, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea (even though I don't think Korea has banned internet porn but I'm not sure). All the big search companies are doing this in an effort to avoid potential criminal prosecution and fines. Here's the Wittyguy take on this. I understand why the big boys bowing to Indian pressure to comply with the law since India is one of the fastest growing on-line communities in the world. That's just too much business to walk away from. However, like the Chinese and other repressive governments that call for search engines to censor politically sensitive material, at some point you have to draw the line both from a political perspective (the State of India) and a business ethics line (the search engines). First, as for business ethics, I pretty much take the position that when it comes to international search engine business, the only thing that talks is money. Google and Yahoo already self censor in China in order to keep their foot in the door in that economy. If your nation's economy is big enough, they'll sell out to stay there. The problem is that search engines' start to automatically censor other countries by accident or censor people using questionable IP addresses. At some point, doesn't it just become easier to censor a lot of stuff than to risk being sued? I mean, who's really going to care, right? At that point, big business has turned into big brother and you don't even have any recourse other than to find a new search engine ... if you even know you're searches are being filtered. Also, once companies get used to gaming the sytem as opposed to letting algorithems run the show, it makes it easier to exploit a company through blackmail or bribery (either illegally or legally by passing national interest business laws) to alter it's search patterns. Second, as I've discussed ad naseum before, all these types of laws do is cost the government, and therefore the taxpayors, more money. The proverbial line being crossed here is one of political bonus points winning out over hidden costs. Like the savvy people living under repressive regimes, people start to buy IP protocol hiding software and services to surf as they please. Next, the Indian intelligence services are going to find that they can't adequately monitor Pakistani terrorist threats very well because there are all sorts of web communications from India are being coded or hidden. Thus, the Indian's have to start spending more rupee's on more computers and employees to track the people hiding themselves just to look at puntang. Morality has a price tag, only here it just comes in the form of ever growing "black budgets" from intelligence agencies who have to work overtime to sort the porn oglers from the Osama's. Third, passing this law changes nothing and probably accelerate the law of unintended consequences. People will just use secondary search engines to find their virtual booty; they will use virtual credit cards that leave no paper trail for the police to find (thereby getting people used to hiding their assets and money overseas ... how long before they use their knowledge and comfort in doing this to start sheltering money from the Indian tax agency?); they will encrypt their computers (again making law enforcement/intelligence more expensive for the tax payor); they will drive the Indian porn community deeper underground (probably making the industry less safe in terms of HIV testing and ripping off or exploiting performers); and it will deprive young people in the biggest country in the world from learning about sex education on their own (if you can't search for "sex" then I doubt you can search for "sex ed" or "how to use a condom"). Sex is such a basic human motivation that I find it laughable that so much time and effort is spent by nations trying to keep their citizen's from looking at it. Hello, porn has been around since the invention of stick figure drawings a few hundred thousand years ago. Do you think it's going to go away now that you said people can't readily look at it? If people really knew the collateral damage these laws cause in terms of more tax money spent, goverments spying on their citizens and collateral censorship I think the average citizen would be thinking twice. | |
|
||
| 12-30-09 06:31pm - 5471 days | #95 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
The problem is the average citizen doesn't even think once. Good post Wittyguy. Nice to see you keep fighting the good fight. Happy New Year to everyone. | |
|
||
| 12-30-09 11:48pm - 5470 days | #96 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Great post, Wittyguy! One last bitter diatribe before the year closes out? ;) Hate to rain on your pissed-off parade but big business has already pretty much become big brother. After all who do you think runs the world? It's the fewer and fewer large corporations run by a select few who fight for their share of the pie while the rest of us--the 99% or so who do the labor and dirty work--get to split up whatever crumbs are left over. Remember: money talks and bullshit walks! Haven't I said this before somewhere in this forum? How do you think we came up with such wonderful things as slavery, pollution, deadly working conditions, poisonous goods, the list goes on? The pursuit of the almighty dollar! (The real 'god' worshiped in the U.S.) Now it looks as if a little more free speech is dying somewhere in the world, in this case India. If the terrorists get really smart they will just start planting a bunch of pervert cells in India (or wherever sex searches are banned) so that the government is so overwhelmed pursuing horny Internet users that it has no resources left to fight real criminals and terrorists. You end your rant with a great paragraph:
Lol! That goddamn human biology keeps getting in the way of enforcing dumb laws. I mean when are people going to stop thinking about sex and using their computers to watch it?! My message to the lawmakers around the world: just wait until our species goes extinct and then you can solve this whole sex thing. Until then, good luck and fuck off. Seriously though, zero tolerance is zero thinking and India definitely needs people to be able to look up sex, especially sex education. They have 1.1 plus billion people--censorship is not the best solution. "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 Dec 30, 2009, 11:54pm | |
|
||
| 01-14-10 07:02pm - 5456 days | #97 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Here is another crazy story about Cencorship Australia: http://www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=39595 Now Australians will have to share their porn booth with fans of The Hangover. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-20-10 04:08pm - 5450 days | #98 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Yeah, I just don't get the Australians. However, one would think the Republican party will be holding Australia up as a model for the world in about 5 years when after all this censoring takes full effect the Australians will suddenly find and arrest all the child porn pervs, people will realize they've been wasting their time with porn and "R" rated movies and devote their new found leisure time to world peace and economic development. However, I guess since the Aussie's still have legalized prostitution and still allow abortions that we're not going to get enough Repulcians to move there. With the discussion in the "Does Google in/out of China Matter?" thread about how the Chinese are trying internet espionage in order to plant secret trojan horse programs into all sorts of systems (not just computers but anything that relies on computer programming) why are the Aussies stopping with R rated movies and porn. For example, the Chinese have just come out a policy whereby they'll be monitoring all of it's citizens text messages in order to root out pornography. Everyone knows porn isn't the problem in text messages unless the Chinese know how to txt rly hot prn, rather it's about government control and political censortship. In any case, why aren't the Aussie's monitoring the text messages of all people under 18 lest they be exposed to lurid jottings, links to internet porn, and quotes from R rated movies? Once a government gets into running and dictating censorship rules it becomes hard to leave because 1) It's an admission that goverment (aka some important elected officials) made a mistake; and 2) You've created a bureacracy to handle censorship which then strives to justify it's existence and increase it's budget. Admitting you're wrong and curtailing your expenses when you really don't have to are two things most people find hard to do. Expect the Aussies to continue leading the charge into censorship in the near future. | |
|
||
| 01-21-10 12:46pm - 5449 days | #99 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I just watched a documentary last night which suggested that once it could be proven that there was such a thing as porn addiction it would give our various Governments the excuse to ban Porn because it was now a national health issue. So don't even joke about being addicted to Porn!!! :-) | |
|
||
| 01-21-10 02:48pm - 5449 days | #100 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Hmm...good point about the danger of labeling porn an "addiction." It would probably get picked up by the self-help industry which would in turn convince (heavily lobby) governments to recognize and treat it as such. The problem is that American government response to other addictions has frequently been imprisonment, and if that became the case with porn they would have to lock up a lot of their own officials as well as a number of religious leaders. "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 | |
|
||
| 51-100 of 132 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 | 3 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
