Freedom of speech? The FBI thinks not! [Archive]

Chuplayer

10-10-2005, 07:22 PM

MAKE SURE YOU READ BOTH ARTICLES. THIS IS NOT A PORN DISCUSSION.

It's been in trouble for a while, but two "obscenity" charges brought up against these two news stories scare me.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm6544_20051008.htm

That's the first story. The second one I got from a porn news site. Being an NWS site, I'll copy and paste the text from the article.

Friday, October 7, 2005
By Jayson Romaine
PITTSBURGH — Online erotic stories host Red Rose Stories announced on its site Friday that the FBI had forced it to shut down.
According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

According to Rosie, who runs the site, such topics have opened the door to her prosecution.

“Trust me on this. I found out the hard way. I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Rosie told XBiz via email. “I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room.”

Rosie said officials came to her house when she was not home and seized a number of items.

The men in black took all of my computer equipment and many of my diskettes, and have access to all my files and site information,” she wrote. “I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a dead site.”

Rosie said that chat services on the site, as well as some parts to its forum, would remain open, and suggested subscribers contact the Pittsburgh FBI office if they “want to ask the feds for a refund.”

As of this writing, calls by XBiz to the office were not returned.

News of the site’s closure comes just days after the offices of Max Hardcore’s Max World Entertainment were raided under the authority of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department, and little more than a week after the FBI launched an anti-obscenity squad at the behest of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to increase obscenity prosecutions throughout the country.

What's up with this "obscenity" charge? This seems like just the thing to set a precedent for censoring the internet of other unpolitically correct content. These two things happening within two days... it seems like a new wave of censorship.

On top of being angry at the world about everything, I'm now all sad that freedom of speech is being kicked to the wayside. Ever see Escape from LA? I can see that sort of thing happening now.

Roxie

10-10-2005, 07:55 PM

Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved ....and sex with children.

“I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room.”
Sorta/kinda....it was the sex with children that busted her ass.

What's up with this "obscenity" charge? This seems like just the thing to set a precedent for censoring the internet of other unpolitically correct content. These two things happening within two days... it seems like a new wave of censorship.
Actually, it's completely legal to charge someone with obscenity. It has been for hundreds of years. The only problem is with defining obscenity. However, one of the qualifiers is "who do we want to protect?" and tops on that list is children.

Chuplayer

10-10-2005, 08:07 PM

Sorta/kinda....it was the sex with children that busted her ass.

But then what about that "virtual child porn" case a little while back that ruled that stuff like lolicon hentai was legal? (Of course, the focus of the case wasn't lolicon hentai, but it falls under the case.) On top of that, it's just words.

Actually, it's completely legal to charge someone with obscenity. It has been for hundreds of years. The only problem is with defining obscenity. However, one of the qualifiers is "who do we want to protect?" and tops on that list is children.

But they're just words. There's nothing to protect. Our right to use words has to be protected.

On top of that, it's not just sex with children that's the focus of that site getting shut down. So let's not let this topic drift into pedophilic territory.

Roxie

10-10-2005, 08:13 PM

But then what about that "virtual child porn" case a little while back that ruled that stuff like lolicon hentai was legal? (Of course, the focus of the case wasn't lolicon hentai, but it falls under the case.) On top of that, it's just words.

But they're just words. There's nothing to protect. Our right to use words has to be protected.

On top of that, it's not just sex with children that's the focus of that site getting shut down. So let's not let this topic drift into pedophilic territory.
The freedom of speech is not absolute. Obscenity is one of those exceptions. We wish to protect children, it's that simple.

I know nothing about that previous case.

Chuplayer

10-10-2005, 08:33 PM

The freedom of speech is not absolute. Obscenity is one of those exceptions. We wish to protect children, it's that simple.

There are no children to protect. It's the written word. And for the last time, it's not all about fictional child porn stories! Look at the list of things they're going after the site for! Stories about S&M, scat, watersports (which I actually happen to like), incest, etc.

And if anybody hasn't read the first article that I linked to, please do so. It's as important as the story I posted, and it's not a porn article. It's about pictures of dead people in Iraq.. The only reason I didn't link to the second story was because of the porn ads on that site.

The link also makes some arguments that charging obscenity over the net is unconstitutional. This thread isn't a discussion about the obscenity of porn. This thread is about censoring the net and using "obscenity" as an excuse!

DarkFire168

10-10-2005, 08:41 PM

The only thing to do is to vote for me when I run for president in like 13 years. Here's my slogan:

"Vote for VP! I'll get the sticks out of Congress' and the Fed's Asses!"

Citizen

10-10-2005, 08:44 PM

So the FBI got a little gung-ho. Big deal. It seems to me that every time an American government agency makes even the smallest mistake in terms of people's rights, that it gets jumped on like the coming of Satan and people proclaim that X is finally dead in America or America is X or whatever nonsense they come up with. It'll be taken care of in court, we'll all live, and our rights won't change. We've still got better freedoms than most of the world.

Faumdano

10-10-2005, 08:53 PM

Those of you saying this is "no big deal" are obviously very young and uninformed or merely naive. Just because you don't agree with the material doesn't mean that you should give away your right to freespeach so easily.

American right and freedoms are headed toward troubled times exactly because so many people say "oh think of the children" or "meh doesn't effect me".

Peekaboo

10-10-2005, 08:54 PM

Our right to use words has to be protected.

I'll be the first to play Devil's Advocate here ....

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, their intention behind free speech was to protect individuals from legal persecution for whatever political views said individual might have. They felt that people had the right to voice their opinions about anything in the political arena.

Fast forward several hundred years and we're arguing about obscenity, blue prints for bombs, the legality of writing pedophillic porn, instructions on how to kill someone .... the list goes on. This is a far cry from what our Bill of Rights had orginially intended to protect.

However, our Bill of Rights was also designed so that future generations can add to to, subtract it, and reinterpret it. The makers of the Bill of Rights also realized that laws that were appropriate and for the better of mankind back then may not be best for mankind now.

As a result, many people hide behind the first amendment. It is their right to free speech. Therefore, they have the right to say whatever they want, print whatever they went, and post whatever they want to the internet. Are their claims valid? Do they have the right to spread recipes for bombs and flaunt the first amendment in the faces of all those that oppose? Do people have the right to post pornography any type?

A lot of people might find the examples I mentioned worthy of being prohibited. However, regardless of what a person's view might be, the first amendment protects those examples, as desireable or undesirable as people might perceive them to be.

So here's the a first amendment related question: Just because you can, does it mean you should?

Roxie

10-10-2005, 09:31 PM

There are no children to protect. It's the written word. And for the last time, it's not all about fictional child porn stories! Look at the list of things they're going after the site for! Stories about S&M, scat, watersports (which I actually happen to like), incest, etc.

The link also makes some arguments that charging obscenity over the net is unconstitutional. This thread isn't a discussion about the obscenity of porn. This thread is about censoring the net and using "obscenity" as an excuse!
No children to protect? What, the crumbsnatchers all just up and disappeared? There are no children on the Internet?

I know the site wasn't ONLY about child porn, but it included it. This is most likely where they got the obscenity charge from. Got it?

Obscenity is not just an excuse, it is a time tested and proven legal reason for charges.

Our free speech is not total. This extends to the written word btw, and expressive action.

I don't expect that to make anyone happy, I'm just stating what is and what isn't.

Seriously, do not make me pick up m 30 lbs book on the 1st amendment. I took that class 1.5 times already.

Now, how're they're going to make this stick to the Internet, I have no idea.

Mogymog

10-10-2005, 10:12 PM

There are NO children to protect. Sure there are children online but no child was hurt by that website, no child was beaten, murdered, raped, kidnaped, or any of the above to make any of the alleged 'pedophilic' stories you people are so opposed too..

And so what, why close down this site why not a MAJOR site, or somethign that truly does effect kids. There are a million websites that have pictures of sex that are far worse if a child see's, then some small story webpage that a child probably woudn't care about cause it's all words written in english and not netspeak or something they'd understand.

And as for protecting children. I'd rather have a pedophile man/woman, reading an innocent love story about being intimate with children, then going out there to release their real urges out on a real child. Thats the thing you HAVE to think about. Is it better not to have stories at all, and let people run wild. Or to have these fantasy escapes so people CAN enjoy them and ensure that real rules aren't broken, that real people aren't hurt.

Roxie

10-10-2005, 10:16 PM

If you're taking my posts as my opinion for a defense, you're sorely mistaken.

CNagy

10-10-2005, 10:25 PM

The child issue was decided in court and it was stated that the freedom of speech for adults will not impeded by the possibility that a child will stumble across the material. That is why we can have a sex thread here where 12 and 13 year olds participate.

The Supreme Court ruled that obscene speech -- which is not protected by the First Amendment -- must meet the following three criteria: 1) it must be prurient in nature, 2) it must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational or social value, and 3) it must violate local community standards.

Furthermore, writing stories about having sex with children, as repugnant as it is, is not the same as exploiting children. This is the same as how a person can write a novel about genocide without committing crimes against humanity.

The real sticking point is the third criteria, since there is no local community on the internet and local standards change from place to place.

In short, the FBI did violate free speech, and it will be overturned in court, but I doubt the sites affected will return.

Roxie

10-10-2005, 10:30 PM

Well, they can say (probably will say) that the "local community" is the community in which she lives and it is purient in nature, and it is devoid.

Children do not have to be physically involved in this situation, they just have to be exposed to.

My point is obscenity is a valid charge. Whether or not it'll stick is a seperate issue (I don't see it sticking)

There are NO children to protect. Sure there are children online but no child was hurt by that website, no child was beaten, murdered, raped, kidnaped, or any of the above to make any of the alleged 'pedophilic' stories you people are so opposed too..
It doesn't have to be physical harm, just exposure to the stories.

Basically, they're looking to make this woman an example.

And as for protecting children. I'd rather have a pedophile man/woman, reading an innocent love story about being intimate with children, then going out there to release their real urges out on a real child. Thats the thing you HAVE to think about. Is it better not to have stories at all, and let people run wild. Or to have these fantasy escapes so people CAN enjoy them and ensure that real rules aren't broken, that real people aren't hurt.
This is a horrible arguement.

One could say it these stories might arouse them to persue their true feelings rather than supress them.

And you can't prove it. It's total speculation.

CNagy

10-10-2005, 10:35 PM

Children do have to be physically involved in this situation, they just have to be exposed to.

I'll dig up the case for you if you want, but the courts ruled that the possibility of a child being exposed to something on the internet is not sufficient grounds to curtail the free speech of adults. Thus, just being exposed doesn't cut it, and since the kids are all fictional, there is no way that they could be involved.

Roxie

10-10-2005, 10:37 PM

I'll dig up the case for you if you want, but the courts ruled that the possibility of a child being exposed to something on the internet is not sufficient grounds to curtail the free speech of adults. Thus, just being exposed doesn't cut it, and since the kids are all fictional, there is no way that they could be involved.
Exposed on the internet may not cut it, but it doesn't cut out being exposed in other places.

I agree that them being exposed to this on the internet after the many, many "nanny" programs and the prevelence of such sites is a very weak arguement, but I'll bet they'll use it. Cause the same thing that makes it expemt, makes it dangerous.

Peekaboo

10-10-2005, 10:57 PM

And as for protecting children. I'd rather have a pedophile man/woman, reading an innocent love story about being intimate with children, then going out there to release their real urges out on a real child.

I think what is meant by protecting children is not so much that their eyes need to be shielded. Instead, it's the genuine worry that pedophilic stories often excite pedophiles and encite them to live out the fantasies they read about. Pedophilic stories are not innocent. By reaching certain and in my opinion sick individuals, these stories can, have, and will cause pedophiles to act out on their urges.

This has nothing to do with my argument for or against 1st amendment rights, just saying what I think the "protect the children" issue is about.

Mogymog

10-10-2005, 11:29 PM

Peekaboo

10-10-2005, 11:57 PM

Um.. thats why it's FANTASY for. It does not anymore excite them to go it.. anymore then women who fantasize about being raped, go out there and ask random strangers to rape them.

I look at Lolicon. Yeah I admit. I look at anime kids. But you know what. Doesn't make me some sick twisted bastard. Doesn't mean I'm gonna forget the line between fantasy and reality and go around screwing real children. Thats the whole thing people always seem to forget STORIEs are FICTION, FANTASY, they are NOT REAL. Yet people just assume that people will do something cause they read about it.

So, sure the FBI and all them can claim it's offensive and vulgar, and criminal and arrest people and shut down stuff and this and that. But reading a fantasy story, and then just assuming someone will do what they read.. Is like saying that politicians aren't corrupt and are only interested in the common people.

You're taking what I've said out of context. You'll notice that my post suggests that PEDOPHILES, rather than your average Joe, use these stories to fodder fantasies that they later act out. Mentally ill people due blur the lines of fantasy and reality. Fantasizing is no longer good enough, and then they begin to act out their fantasies in real life. Any criminal psycology couse will teach you this.

I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, or whether or not it's considered obscene. I am just stating the reasoning behind "protecting the children" in terms of the first amendment and why pedophile stories are considered obscene.

Citizen

10-11-2005, 12:28 AM

Those of you saying this is "no big deal" are obviously very young and uninformed or merely naive.

Keep your self-righteousness to yourself, please.

kyaa the catlord

10-11-2005, 09:47 AM

I'd certainly think that loli text is more acceptable than loli hentai and that's legal, although the anime companies like to say stupid shit like "All characters presented in the nude or engaged in sexual activity are age 18 or above." Its great snicker-bait.

Yeah, that middle school uniform is what they wear to college in Japan. Sure. *wink*

Mogymog

10-11-2005, 11:54 AM

I was cruising the new like I do a lot.. and I found this great website, about the kidnaping and murder of Palla Klass.. A 10 yeard old little girl I'm sure some of you know about.. Funny thing it said in the article about some stasticial stuff it said... 'Pedophiles do NOT NEED children or physical touching to act out fantasies.' .. Yes thats right, they can use their mind.. great thign the imagination is.. The people tha tkidnap children and rape them are called CHILD MOLESTORS.. yes you can say that with me, good children.

So see.. Before people start this BS about 'Lets think abotu the children' and 'Lets protect the children' .. America needs to figure out just WHO they are protecting the kids from.. Joe-Bob who lives in his parents basements and enjoys reading harmless erotic stories about cute kids engaged in freakish acts.. or Billy-bob who's stalking your street right now, praying on little Sussie next door... Think about it.

ChronoSphere

10-11-2005, 11:55 AM

The FBI, having solved all other important pending crimes......

Chuplayer

10-11-2005, 11:48 PM

Jon885

10-12-2005, 12:01 AM

What's so obscene about water sports? Or wait..is that some kind of sexual innuendo for something else? I live in Pittsburgh and haven't heard about this. And isn't this a violation of freedom of speech? How can they get around that?

Chuplayer

10-12-2005, 12:07 AM

CNagy

10-12-2005, 12:11 AM

Way to go, assholes. You've turned a good political discussion into a pedophilic wasteland.

I blame Roxie. "It was the child porn that busted their asses." NO IT WASN'T YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! It was a whole host of charges. "Protect the children." THEY'RE STORIES YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! The characters in them aren't real and don't need protecting. And saying real kids need to be protected from reading those stories is a bullshit defense. Way to go, ignoring all the other charges and the other article in general and sending this thread into a downward spiral. FUCK YOU!

I can't believe so many people missed the point of this topic. If it's too much for you to click on a link and read an article before replying, then fuck you, too.

I just saw the words "Porn Discussion" and I was like "Score!" Now then, take two Xanax, wait for them to kick in, and then carefully remove the stick from your ass.

Roxie

10-12-2005, 12:45 AM

Way to go, assholes. You've turned a good political discussion into a pedophilic wasteland.

I blame Roxie. "It was the child porn that busted their asses." NO IT WASN'T YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! It was a whole host of charges. "Protect the children." THEY'RE STORIES YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! The characters in them aren't real and don't need protecting. And saying real kids need to be protected from reading those stories is a bullshit defense. Way to go, ignoring all the other charges and the other article in general and sending this thread into a downward spiral. FUCK YOU!

I can't believe so many people missed the point of this topic. If it's too much for you to click on a link and read an article before replying, then fuck you, too.

You need to calm the hell down.

Sure, there are a whole host of charges, but with OBSCENITY, that is how it goes. I'm just trying to explain the law to you. It's not my fault if you're too thick to get it. I understand the topic perfectly. Don't get upset if doesn't go the way you'd like it to.

Amazing how you skipped over the parts where I actually expressed my opinion.

Mogymog

10-12-2005, 12:52 AM

My apologies Chuplayer for, helping to rip your topic off course. I certainly didn't mean to intentionaly do it...

As for others, like Roxie.. Obscenity isn't always about children. AS the original thing stated.. Watersports, Scat, BEastiality, whatever. Those are all obscenity too. But most people that claim they are obscenity DO THEM, or read about them, or enjoy the act themselves. Thats the problem. To many damned hypocrites in the US.

Roxie

10-12-2005, 01:03 AM

As for others, like Roxie.. Obscenity isn't always about children. AS the original thing stated.. Watersports, Scat, BEastiality, whatever. Those are all obscenity too. But most people that claim they are obscenity DO THEM, or read about them, or enjoy the act themselves. Thats the problem. To many damned hypocrites in the US.
That is NOT what I said.

It is the law that says this. When it is about obscenity in speech/writting/expressive action, the idea is "whom do we wish to protect?" and No. 1 on that list is children. This is what the ineterpretation of the law says. Get it?!

Chuplayer

10-12-2005, 01:31 AM

That is NOT what I said.

It is the law that says this. When it is about obscenity in speech/writting/expressive action, the idea is "whom do we wish to protect?" and No. 1 on that list is children. This is what the ineterpretation of the law says. Get it?!

You're a moron. Get the fuck off my internets.

Roxie

10-12-2005, 01:37 AM

You're a moron. Get the fuck off my internets.
Wow, are you truly so stupid you don't get the fact I'm trying to explain the law?

Sure, those other things can be considered obscene, but when it comes to the law, it concerns children, not adults.

Not if I like it or not. Not if you like it or not, but how it is. If you don't like the way the law is, then write your congressperson, but do not get your nuts in a twist b/c you don't like the way your thread is going.

Chuplayer

10-12-2005, 02:02 AM

Wow, are you truly so stupid you don't get the fact I'm trying to explain the law?

Sure, those other things can be considered obscene, but when it comes to the law, it concerns children, not adults.

We're running in circles here.

Not if I like it or not. Not if you like it or not, but how it is. If you don't like the way the law is, then write your congressperson, but do not get your nuts in a twist b/c you don't like the way your thread is going.

I'm getting my nuts in a twist (and I know what that's like, just see my hospital story in the creative forum) because you are a fucking moron.

Roxie

10-12-2005, 02:03 AM

No back up, no explination, nothing!

I tell you my proof and explinations and you get personal.
You suck at discussion.

Chuplayer

10-12-2005, 02:09 AM

No back up, no explination, nothing!

I tell you my proof and explinations and you get personal.
You suck at discussion.

No explanation needed! Myself and others have explained already, and you just keep on spouting the same shit. Like I said, you keep going in circles.

Roxie

10-12-2005, 02:13 AM

No explanation needed! Myself and others have explained already, and you just keep on spouting the same shit. Like I said, you keep going in circles.
LOL, What are you really angry about, huh?

I'm not spouting 'shit', I'm spouting the law dumbass!
It's that simple.

And no, others have NOT explained it to me. Actually, there isn't shit to explain really, since I'm talking about the law (and not my personal opinion), which can be largely static

DarkFire168

10-12-2005, 08:21 AM

LOL, What are you really angry about, huh?

I'm not spouting 'shit', I'm spouting the law dumbass!
It's that simple.

And no, others have NOT explained it to me. Actually, there isn't shit to explain really, since I'm talking about the law (and not my personal opinion), which can be largely static

But you're wrong. Cnagy already pointed out that the children aren't going to be "protected" in this instance. The Supreme Court already ruled that due to the low probability of seeing it, the possibility of them doing so should not affect the ability of adults to read the material. It doesn't pass ALL three of the laws therefore, it isn't obsecene material. This is where you are wrong, this is what people keep trying to point out, but you keep bullheading into "It's because of children!" Though the guy who made this topic needs to calm down and actually STATE where you're wrong because he's being as bullheaded as you. :D

Chuplayer

10-12-2005, 07:53 PM

Roxie

10-12-2005, 08:37 PM

But you're wrong. Cnagy already pointed out that the children aren't going to be "protected" in this instance. The Supreme Court already ruled that due to the low probability of seeing it, the possibility of them doing so should not affect the ability of adults to read the material. It doesn't pass ALL three of the laws therefore, it isn't obsecene material. This is where you are wrong, this is what people keep trying to point out, but you keep bullheading into "It's because of children!" Though the guy who made this topic needs to calm down and actually STATE where you're wrong because he's being as bullheaded as you. :D
You're not getting it either.

I'm not talking about whether the charge will be proven valid or not, but as to where it might've come from.

That is one qualifier for obscenity. That is probably where the charge came from. Will the charge stick? IMO, I highly doubt it and this b/c what Cnagy said. I actually agree with him personally, I'm just talking about the law from which the charge may have come.

It is perfectly legal to charge someone with obscenity, but whether is passes all 3 laws or not is for the court to decide.

CNagy

10-12-2005, 09:06 PM

Thus there is a new point to the discussion. Regardless of whether or not the material qualifies as obscene according to the law, the owners have been charged with a mess of obscenity charges.

This becomes a freedom of speech/expression issue because, even though the charges will be thrown out in court, the damage is already done as the site has been removed; given the bad publicity and the sheer, for lack of a better term, fanaticism with which this investigation was carried out there is a chance that the site will stay down.

While I do not mourn the loss of a porn site, there is a very real problem when the FBI can create enough havok to shut down organizations that it doesn't approve of despite the legality of said organization's business. Persecutuing someone that harshly is going to leave a bitter taste in their mouth, even if they are later exonerated.

Kass

10-25-2005, 11:47 AM

A mod related note first: Chuplayer, knock this shit off. I'm tired of PMs about your flaming. No more. got it? None. Zero. Go take a nap if you can't play nice type zero.

Now, on topic.

First off, this bears repeating:

The Supreme Court ruled that obscene speech -- which is not protected by the First Amendment -- must meet the following three criteria: 1) it must be prurient in nature, 2) it must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational or social value, and 3) it must violate local community standards.

On porn, stories without images are also pornography. Pornography is not limited to photographic or video imagery. That has long been established. Just ask Larry Flint or Hugh Hefner.

With that in mind, pornographic stories that involve children are child porn. Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union. That covers the third standard. It violates local community standards. I seriously doubt anyone can make even a prima facie argument that there is political, educational or social value to child pornography.

That leaves the first criteria: it must be prurient in nature. Child pornography, being devoid of artistic, political, educational or social value, appeals solely to the most base sexual instincts of an individual. In other words, it appeals to the most prurient, vile instincts in humanity. It isn't a venial offense. There is little else as base as the willful harming of a child.

That pretty much throws Red Rose under the bus for hosting pornography involving children. All the rest, I really don't object to as long as the site is limited to adult viewership. I probably have stuff on my PC worse than that site considering most of my prefered porn involves needles, ritual cuttings and S&M. Pardon me if I don't cry a river for the loss of a site run by the terminally stupid.

As for the FBI's no tolerance on even legal pornography, it is moronic and a waste of tax dollars. Pornography involving consenting adults, real or fictional, is legal as long as no one dies. The two key words there are consent and adult. Real rapes being filmed and distributed (which happens, though rarely) does NOT count as legal pornography. Neither does anything with an underage actress or actor. Period.

There are some laws in this country which need to be absolute. This is one. Very few slippery slope arguments hold water, but when dealing with children and the issue of pedophilia, it does. Very few pedophiles confine their behavior to reading and pictures. They can't. It isn't in their nature.

Under this new take on enforcement from the FBI, if I email pictures of me to my boyfriend, I could be arrested for distributing pornography. Legitimate sites with information could be shut down. There's no reason for it other than to boost political standing with the conservative right wing of this country. That's it. In the wake of the Harriet Miers debacle, Bush needed a boost with conservatives and this is an easy, cheap way to get it. This is even a joke within the FBI. You should hear the talk inside the Beltway.

As for Free Speech, it is not unlimited. There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech. You can't threaten to kill someone. You can't use speech to incite violence. You can't use speech to induce a panic that threates public safety. You can't share classified information. You can't distribute obscenity. Those are all supported y Supreme court rulings, which means that speech is NOT constitutionally protected.

As was pointed out earlier, the first amendment was intended to protect political speech. Read the Federalist Papers. That amendment was never intended to cover your desire to view, discuss or distribute pornography. The founding fathers would more than likely be appalled at what that amendment is used to protect now. They'd probably rethink who they wrote it. That isn't to say that the extension of free speech to other areas is wrong, but don'd kid yourself. It was not meant to shelter your perceived "right" to jack off over a story on the internet.

Chuplayer

10-25-2005, 05:06 PM

A mod related note first: Chuplayer, knock this shit off. I'm tired of PMs about your flaming. No more. got it? None. Zero. Go take a nap if you can't play nice type zero.

What shit? It's not my fault somebody's running in circles when they argue and can't admit when they're wrong.

It's not my fault when somebody posts a screamer and I get ticked off about it. It's not fun. It's not a gag. It's bullshit. I once ran into a colorblind testing screamer. Me being colorblind, I was actually serious about the test. Then WHAM! SCREAMER! I was pissed off.

What's this about PMs about flaming? Maybe I was flaming, but I wasn't flaming random people. I can only think of two people who have reason to complain (at least somewhat recently), and they were recipients of finely targeted flaming. Anybody else who complains is just an outside observer who if they don't like what's going on should just ignore it. I hate it when people get up in my business. And if this has anything to do with me calling those morons at Suncoast dumbshit otakus, you might as well just ban me now because I will never see eye to eye with anybody who can't take that particular joke.

And any mod who replaces one personal attack with another personal attack should seriously have his or or abilities as a moderator questioned.

Now on with the discussion...

[qupte]With that in mind, pornographic stories that involve children are child porn. Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union. That covers the third standard. It violates local community standards. I seriously doubt anyone can make even a prima facie argument that there is political, educational or social value to child pornography. [/quote]

There was a ruling a while back. No I don't have sources. I just know it happened. I know it's bullcrap of me, but I'm too lazy to find a source. At least I admit I'm too lazy. But anyway, there was a ruling that said that fantasy involving children in pornographic situations is legal. If a real child wasn't harmed in the creation of it, it's legal. Call it what you want, call it child pornography, but it is legal.

Canada's another story. Ever hear about the dude who got busted for imported lolicon manga? Canada's just as evil and corrupt as America. You just don't hear about it as much because nobody cares about Canada as much as America. I don't mean that as an insult to Canada. It's just the way it is. The world takes notice when something happens in American politics. They don't with Canadian politics.

As was pointed out earlier, the first amendment was intended to protect political speech. Read the Federalist Papers. That amendment was never intended to cover your desire to view, discuss or distribute pornography. The founding fathers would more than likely be appalled at what that amendment is used to protect now. They'd probably rethink who they wrote it. That isn't to say that the extension of free speech to other areas is wrong, but don'd kid yourself. It was not meant to shelter your perceived "right" to jack off over a story on the internet.

Oh, who cares? We Americans want it. We want our freedom of speech. We love our freedom of speech. Even if it is an informal amendment, just reinterpreting the first amendment, it's a part of America now.

People back then were the way they were. Old people are the way they are. When I'm old, I'll be the way I will be the way I will be. It's the way of the world.

MeneerDijk

10-25-2005, 05:58 PM

And any mod who replaces one personal attack with another personal attack should seriously have his or or abilities as a moderator questioned.

You are right when you say i shouldnt have called you a sore loser when i edited your post. At the time i was annoyed with your way of expressing your opinion about the screamer. I made an honest mistake, and i admit that. But that still doesn't give you the right to use profanities when stating your opinion. Not that i'm against swearing, it depends on how they're used.

If you have a personal beef with me, or my functioning as a mod, please PM me or another mod so we can slug it out in an adult manner.

Kass

10-25-2005, 07:19 PM

What shit? It's not my fault somebody's running in circles when they argue and can't admit when they're wrong.

It's not my fault when somebody posts a screamer and I get ticked off about it. It's not fun. It's not a gag. It's bullshit. I once ran into a colorblind testing screamer. Me being colorblind, I was actually serious about the test. Then WHAM! SCREAMER! I was pissed off.

What's this about PMs about flaming? Maybe I was flaming, but I wasn't flaming random people. I can only think of two people who have reason to complain (at least somewhat recently), and they were recipients of finely targeted flaming. Anybody else who complains is just an outside observer who if they don't like what's going on should just ignore it. I hate it when people get up in my business. And if this has anything to do with me calling those morons at Suncoast dumbshit otakus, you might as well just ban me now because I will never see eye to eye with anybody who can't take that particular joke.

I really, truly don't give a rat's ass who you are flaming, how narrowly directed it is or whatever childish justification you feel you have for running around name calling. It's against the rules and if you will notice in the Jessica Alba thread, you are not the only person I told to knock it off. You were however, the most egregious offender.

A perceived lack of an argument is NOT justification to start flaming people. Get over it. Grow up. Your opinion of someone who works at Suncoast isn't my concern. You're calling others who post here is.

And any mod who replaces one personal attack with another personal attack should seriously have his or or abilities as a moderator questioned.

That was poor form and judging by the post above mine, it has been addressed.

Oh, who cares? We Americans want it. We want our freedom of speech. We love our freedom of speech. Even if it is an informal amendment, just reinterpreting the first amendment, it's a part of America now.

I do and so do most Americans, including the Supreme Court. The intent of the Constitution matters or there might as well not be one.

I also want the world peace, winning lottery numbers, legal gay marriage, legal S&M so my boyfriend doesn't risk jail time everytime we're together, a pony, a black lab and lasagna for dinner. Guess what. None of them happening right now.

People back then were the way they were. Old people are the way they are. When I'm old, I'll be the way I will be the way I will be. It's the way of the world.

That doesn't make them wrong.

Chuplayer

10-25-2005, 07:23 PM

You are right when you say i shouldnt have called you a sore loser when i edited your post. At the time i was annoyed with your way of expressing your opinion about the screamer. I made an honest mistake, and i admit that.

Cool.

But that still doesn't give you the right to use profanities when stating your opinion. Not that i'm against swearing, it depends on how they're used.

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. See? It doesn't hurt anybody.

Chuplayer

10-25-2005, 07:32 PM

I really, truly don't give a rat's ass who you are flaming, how narrowly directed it is or whatever childish justification you feel you have for running around name calling. It's against the rules and if you will notice in the Jessica Alba thread, you are not the only person I told to knock it off. You were however, the most egregious offender.

There should be a rule on the internet that says if you post a screamer everybody else is immune from repurcussions for flaming. If the only civilized response is "yipes you scared me you big meanie" then civilization bites. Oh wait, "you big meanie" is flaming, too. Well, let's all just be ecstatic that we didn't get to see Jessica Alba naked and we instead got the piss scared out of us. Next time somebody tries to hijack a plane we should all give the terrorists big hugs while they stab us with boxcutters.

That doesn't make them wrong. (old people)

Doesn't make them right, either.

Gage

10-26-2005, 12:29 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court is the only legal entity that witholds the right to interpret the Constitution. If the Supreme Court tells you that you can't use obscenity, statements to provoke violence, or death threat then that's what the Constitution says. If they say it only truly applies to Political views, then that is their jurisdiction, not the will of the people.

As individuals, we are intelligent, rational, and may come to terms with the fact that there are laws that enslave man, and laws that set him free. As 'the people', we are emotional, panicky, and neurotic. As well as this, man will never be completely free. The freedom you advocate is called anarchy. The ability to do whatever you wish without any legal or formal consequences is detrimental to the progression of a society.

If we say whatever we wish, we invoke many different reactions. In our society, reactions that include violence and/or defamitorial comments (I.E. Obscenities/racial/religious/etc speech) have legal ramifications. In your anarchistic view (i'm guessing), if you said that to someone, you'd most likely be killed- and who'd care? Most likely no one.

While some americans hide behind the first amendment so that they may utter whatever uncivilized verbage that comes to their minds, there remains a good number of more civilized people who hold themselves to a higher degree than those of the first part. My point is, people who cower behind the first amendment (which, ironically, doesn't protect what they're saying in the first place), have nothing substantial to add to the civilized world.

Chuplayer, there are civil people in this universe who believe that some langauge should not exist.

Oppositely, there are people that say whatever first comes to their minds, regardless of any social qualms about what they are talking about. It is my formal belief that these people, if they remain reluctant to become civilized, should be drawn and quatered. These people, also, have not yet gotten far enough to evolve past the phrase 'me tarzan, you jane.'

Would you rather have a world with a few restrictions that protect our beliefs, children, and way of life, or would you rather have it your way and be able to say/do whatever you want without being scrutinized for what you do in 'private'?

more cheerios

10-26-2005, 01:40 PM

Mogymog

10-27-2005, 07:41 AM

I know this is old.. and I'm coming in late.. and frankly don't give a damn. But even with a mod like Kass makes such assanine comments I have to speak of.. Since she doesn't know how to do simple research. I'll state it.. *cough*

Pedophile = PERSON that enjoys fantasies involving underage people, generaly through imagination or erotic stories. Nothing wrong with that, no one is hurt, a person enjoys themselves, and thats that. Only roughly 5% Of pedophiles have any interaction with children for their own enjoyment...

Child Molester= PERSON that MOLESTS children. Those are the ones you hear about that kidnap kids, that rape them, that kill them, that do all that sort of thing. They are the ones that are bad and hurt people and should be stoped. They have nothing to do with innocent errotic stories or anything. They are simply twisted and messed up..

And yes this is factual information, I read a webpage that had a 10year study on this done, from the mid-80's to mid-90's.. So saying a pedophile wont stop at just reading and instead go out there and take out his perversions on a real child is a load of bull that you have no basis to put on... There, my 4 damned cents, enjoy!

Arctic_Slicer

10-27-2005, 10:05 AM

Vladmir Nabokov, anyone?

Lolita was a work of art. It was well written, but it also had some very racy scenes involving an underaged girl. And look at how the literary world sees it.

(I think lolicon is a bastardization of that novel, but whatever, that's my opinion.)

Anyways, I honestly don't care about 'pr0nmasters' being arrested or not. She knew well enough that that material was questionable and should have known the possible consequences before she uploaded it. When it comes to legal cases like this, we are never fed all of the evidence. She could have very well raped little children and based her stories off of it, for all we know.

That is probabally the most important argument in this whole debate. "Lolita" is considered to be one of the best books ever written but if the FBI has their way this book could suddenly become illegal to possess. While it might seem like a good thing and in many ways might be giving them more power to restrict what is legal sets a frightening precedence. The book in itself is certainally one refer to for any counter arugment to the whole "it provides no social value or merit" argument.

Honestly I think the FBI shouldn't be worrying about what people read in their parents basement and should spend more of their $30 billion annual budget stoping criminals and protecting people from real dangers.

Kass

10-27-2005, 10:14 AM

Yeah, and I went based on the information of someone who has spent the last 20+ years in training and training others, studying and dealing with sex offenders, including pedophiles. While not our primary topic of conversation, we do spend a good deal of time discussing this because it a challenging and interesting discussion in terms of the "what do we do with them once they've been caught" stand point.

Of course, everything you read on the web is true. There are never misleading, manipulated or inaccurate websites out there.

Besides which, the American Psychiatric Association disagrees with your definition of pedophilia. (Link to their diagnostic definition. (http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf))

Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental
disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other nonconsenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner.

They go on to say:

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medications which have been used include anti-androgens and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Relapse prevention is also emphasized. However, the outlook for successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with Pedophilia is guarded.

Even the fantasy is considered WRONG, will continue to be wrong, and is a mental disorder and according to Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Director, American Psychiatric Association’s Division of Research, “there are no plans or processes set up that would lead to the removal of the Paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders.”

Statistically, I can make any study say whatever I want it to say. As I've pointed out on this board before, studies are valid only as far as their research base provides. If, over 10 years they study only 100 admitted pedophiles, that is NOT a representative study. One, you have to question whether or not someone is going to admit to behavior that is criminal (even psychiatrists are required to report to the authorities if someone is likely to cause harm to another). It is also moot if the pedophiles in question have no access to children for whatever reason. Of course they aren't going to act upon it if they can't. So put up a link to their findings and raw data. Oh, and NAMBLA sites don't count. (Please don't link to them either. I'd have to remove the links.)

However, experiential data from people who work with sex offenders on a day-to-day basis over a life time speaks contrary to your study. It is an escalating disorder and pedophiles are not likely over time to confine their behavior to stories or pictures (we'll leave aside that whomever took the pictures in the first place committed a crime and distribution and possession of them furthers that crime).

Mogymog

10-27-2005, 11:00 AM

NO where did anyone mention pictures. I said EROTIC STORIES.. as in NOT REAL, as in fantasy. And if fantasying about young children is a crime and wrong. Then your fantasies are also criminal acts, and most people on this board should be arrested for their sick fantasies. Fantasies are fantasies for a reason, because they are a way to enjoy something without dangers or risks.

There was a this big sex study taken a few years back, and they asked over a 1000 random their fantasies. Over half of them admited to having fantasies abouit being raped. So does that mean they are mentaly screwed up and should be locked away for their own health? No it doesnt.

So a person who bothers no one, doesn't hurt anyone, has nothing wrong with anyone.. It's no ones business what they do in private with themselves, and it's not mentaly screwed up no matter what they do. Long as they enjoy themselves and dont bother/hurt anyone else.

misterb

10-27-2005, 11:01 AM

Since when is internet = america?

Internet should be free of any restrains when it comes to information exchange. Instead, in each respective country, make the ISPs follow the law by having proper filters for their users if they so desperately need to censor things. That is most likely the only way to "limit" exposure of what in each country could be considered "illegal".

Actively trying to stop/remove websites within the country will take a while and will only result in people ending up getting a dozen free accounts 'a 25mbs or something on an unknown island in the atlantic or pacific to host their shit.

Since I'm not an american, I won't discuss the local stuff, but concerning how to handle webpages... that's my suggestion (and if it has been mentioned before, I dun care. I'm too lazy to read that much text)

Kass

10-27-2005, 11:14 AM

Kass

10-27-2005, 11:25 AM

Mogymog

10-27-2005, 11:25 AM

I'm sorry Kass.. but I don't keep links on sexual surverys that are years old, just so I can link them for a mod years after I've found them, who can't believe anything I say and refuses to believe anything I say in a matter I know much details about.

Kass

10-27-2005, 11:29 AM

I believe you read and are repeating the results written by the researchers. I want to see their raw data, otherwise based on the information you provided, it is not a representative sampling to base a judgment on. I'm sorry, but in a country of hundreds of millions adult men, 1,000 is not representative sampling.

I looked for it but based on what little info you provided, the google search produced more than 40,000 results and none of them seem to be the study you reference. Let me rephrase... None of the first 20 or so I looked at. I don't have time to go through 40,000 websites.

kyaa the catlord

10-27-2005, 11:29 AM

Am I reading that wrong or does it not state that the suspected pedophile needs to either act on the urges and/or show marked distress or interpersonal difficulty?

That's a big leap from having a fantasy about a child to being a pedophile... a very important leap, imho.

Kass

10-27-2005, 11:34 AM

They are criteria that stand alone. Any one of the three constitutes pedophilia. If you read the definition, it says fantasies OR behaviors, not fantasies AND behaviors.

Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental
disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other nonconsenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner.

Emphasis mine. I split up the paragraphs in my quote, however they are together in the article. The criteria re reflective of the definition, which states that behavior is not required to be a pedophile and that even the fantasies constitute pedophilia, the specific paraphilia.

Mogymog

10-27-2005, 11:34 AM

First off, there are not hundreds of millions of men in this country. There are not even 300million people in the US. So roughly there are 150-170million men if that. Second of all, I said women, not men. So if you are basing a search on the question of 1000 men no wonder you can't find anything. I said 1000 women, which are very different then men.

And yes Kyaa.. to be a 'pedophile' yo uhave to act upon impulses, or do something to that effect. People that look at anime lolicon are not pedophiles, for the same reason that someone that holds their child is not one. It all is in the way it is used, and acted upon.

kyaa the catlord

10-27-2005, 11:48 AM

They are criteria that stand alone. Any one of the three constitutes pedophilia. If you read the definition, it says fantasies OR behaviors, not fantasies AND behaviors.

Emphasis mine. I split up the paragraphs in my quote, however they are together in the article. The criteria re reflective of the definition, which states that behavior is not required to be a pedophile and that even the fantasies constitute pedophilia, the specific paraphilia.

Yes, the disorder has those features, but in order to be clinically diagnosed, one has to meet the criteria which is the threefold section below. It requires action or marked distress/difficulty to be clinically diagnosed. You can label someone all you want, but to be diagnosed with the disorder, you have to do more than have fantasies.

kiev33

10-27-2005, 10:17 PM

And as for protecting children. I'd rather have a pedophile man/woman, reading an innocent love story about being intimate with children, then going out there to release their real urges out on a real child. Thats the thing you HAVE to think about. Is it better not to have stories at all, and let people run wild. Or to have these fantasy escapes so people CAN enjoy them and ensure that real rules aren't broken, that real people aren't hurt.

But see, that's the biggest fallacy of your argument. I beleive in free speech, and stuff like this usually gets slapped down by the court, but there are studies done that show that people who do it usually spend much more time reading about it or looking at pictures of it first.

I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean you will do anything if you look at that stuff, I believe the crime rate statistics and numbers of people online looking at porno would bear that out, but in almost every case of a child molester who had access to that stuff, it was there. The facts seem to suggest a correlation between child pornography and acting out fantasies.

That is the main reason why I think it is dangerous and probably not needed. I mean, holding a match next to a gas station won't nece3ssarily cause an explosion, but it could. Why play with fire for something that is completely unnecessary, and I think that the people who need that kind of material probably do have soem way that their way of looking at society is skewered.

Child porno is not needed and I am leery of it and people who "enjoy" it.

misterb

10-27-2005, 11:34 PM

So having fantasies about childporno or writing about such is pedophilia (I don't believe so, but for argument's sake, let's assume it to be so)..

That means anything you think but do not act upon, defines you. Right?

An analogy that comes to mind is murder. Many people have thought about killing someone or written about such, so they must be murderers. We have writers that write horror stories, so they must be terrorists...

We have hiphop/rap artists who sing about coke, so they must be drug users... wait... they are.

Mogymog

10-28-2005, 06:23 AM

As per what misterb said, is true.. As for Kiev.. that doesn't mean anything. If you have 1 million 'pedophiles' reacting errotic art, and only 1 ever goes out and hurts a child, you can't say that makes all pedophiles bad, or they're monsters or this and that..

Thats the same BS debate they use for violent video games. You got 2 kids that go on a shooting spree RL killing tons of people cause they played a violent game. Well there are millions of kids/adults playing violent games and they don't commit crimes..

Someone thinking, or fantasiging, or whatever, does not make them a bad person, it does not label them all of these things. It's only when they do them, that they then become that bad person, that monster..

I've imagined walking up to an annoying woman and back-handing her upside the head to shut her up cause she is rambling stupid BS. But doesn't mean I'd ever actually do it. Thats the whole thing. Something in your mind is fantasy, fake, and it harms no one.

Kass

10-28-2005, 10:12 AM

Scarletdeath

10-28-2005, 10:24 AM

Everyone has different opinions. Even if they've worked 20 years for it, the determination is most probably led by some trauma or prejudice that the person experienced. Prejudiced thoughts would eventually lead to a one sided hypothesis and conclusion. Think outside the box and you should realize that this would eventually cause hypocritical reaction by people.

Don't try to change someone's mind that would eventually lead to a meaningless fight.

Gage

10-28-2005, 12:49 PM

Kass, you just brought up the DSM-IV-TR, and wrote that the manual states that pedophilia is a mental disorder. That definition is used for diagnosing an individual from a psychological standpoint. Socially, pedophilia means Michael Jackson (which we will NEVER know for certain is true, regardless of the media and court cases. we weren't there). Psychologically, however, it's a debilitating mental disorder that causes the individual to partake in actions that are not completely socially acceptable.
Regardless that their mental disorder involves sex, let's think about this. They have a mental disorder. Most mental disorders can be treated with certain therapies, prescription drugs, etc. So why not find a new way to deal with these people instead of labelling them? Why not put them under surveillance and give them drugs/therapy. If that doesn't work, find something else. The role of a psychologist is not to brand someone an outcast of society. The role of a psychologist is to assist the individual in getting the help they need and deserve.
As for the book, fiction is fiction. You can do whatever the hell you want in fiction. Fictional stories are the only forms of communication in which you can legally threaten the president, cause it's not real. You could blow up the United States,and no one would care. So why are the feds acting up on this now? Even a child being ABUSED in fictional stories is perfectly okay. The book Lolita, in this regard, is legally protected. It's not harming anyone, it's not threatening anyone. It's a form of entertainment.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 01:26 PM

You also have to realize that someone who has worked for 20 years in the field is going to be biased. It's good to know that from a moral standpoint, you even think that the thoughts of doing something this horrible to a child should be reprimanded (trust me, I feel the same way) but the fact of the matter is that you cannot advocate the arrest of a woman who has not done anything to anyone. She may have these fantasies in her mind, but she's found a better outlet. I may think that her thoughts are disgusting and never want to be associated with her, but I commend her on finding a way to keep control.

And I think only one person read my Lolita argument on the last page. But thanks, Gage, for bringing it up again.

It's a freedom of speech thing. What will happen to literature if suddenly the cops can go around arresting people who own/write it? I own a copy of Lolita, will I be thrown in jail for having it? The sad thing is, I see this passing. And I only see it passing on account of angry mothers protesting until their deaths. But for now, her stories are not illegal. If they were, Lolita and any other piece of literature with an account of pedophilia would've been ripped off the shelves by now.

Jai

10-28-2005, 01:48 PM

Erotic stories about sex with children isnt free speech. Arrested? Burn her.

Praetorian

10-28-2005, 05:33 PM

I think Benjamin Franklin once said; "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
security will deserve neither and lose both."

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 07:18 PM

Erotic stories about sex with children isnt free speech. Arrested? Burn her.
While you're at it, I'd like to see you single-handedly take down every person who has expressed feelings for children, raping women and animals. Even if they haven't done it.

Jai

10-28-2005, 07:35 PM

While you're at it, I'd like to see you single-handedly take down every person who has expressed feelings for children, raping women and animals. Even if they haven't done it.

Here here, id like to see that too. Bullets are cheap, time to kill some fucked in the head scum.

/edit "expressed feelings for" into "wanted to screw" btw

Gage

10-28-2005, 08:41 PM

Violence hardly solves anything, and I believe the war in Iraq has proved that.

I actually pity Jai for his closed-mindedness. Closed-minded people are behind every prejudice out there, and Jai is only contributing to yet another. Far be it for me to also add that it is people akin to Jai that also haven't quite evolved yet.

Literature IS PROTECTED. You cannot persecute someone for something that they have written, REGARDLESS of what it is. As I said before, if you went around saying that you were going to kill the president, you'd be arrested. You can write it in a fictional story, though.

I guess this argument all goes down to morality. Do we accept these people as part of the human race, even through all of their faults and issues?

Or do we burn them at the stake? [/Jai]

All the woman has truly done is write a few simple fictional stories for a website. Why the hell should we burn her at the stake for that? Alright, fine, then let's burn Martin Luther King Jr. for standing up for civil rights. Let's burn Az for writing his views on Japanese culture. I'd rather see Jai burn for his lack of a beneficial contribution to society, and his closemindedness.

Why the hell should we be violent to a person that is merely writing something or standing up for they believe in? Do you know what kind of people do that?
The KKK and any other group that advocates that something doesn't belong in our world. Violence does not solve a nation's problems, and neither does persecuting someone for what they've written.

Jai, if anyone should get shot in the head, it is you for your "let's burn her/kill everyone that's fucked in the head" talk. You know what? Everyone has their issues, and it's not their fault that mommy didn't give you enough attention. Grow up and contribute something BENEFICIAL to this discussion.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 09:22 PM

Here here, id like to see that too. Bullets are cheap, time to kill some fucked in the head scum.

/edit "expressed feelings for" into "wanted to screw" btw
Um, yeah. I wasn't being serious.

Jai

10-28-2005, 09:24 PM

Closed minded? Havnt evolved yet?

You arrogant peice of shit ;)

Your specifically comparing a crusader against racism and a really funny guy with child fuckers. Nice one.

So writing about child fucking is "standing up for what you believe in". Tell that to the kid that gets raped after the sociopaths that get off on the same filth decide to make the fantasy "real". What a disgusting thing to defend. I pity your lack of morality and ethics.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 09:27 PM

Closed minded? Havnt evolved yet?

You arrogant peice of shit ;)

Your specifically comparing a crusader against racism and a really funny guy with child fuckers. Nice one.
You are the arrogant piece of shit. You are the one suggesting we execute people who haven't done anything but express their views on a piece of paper. Sure, I highly dislike pedophiles but NOBODY has the divine right to execute them if they haven't even touched a child yet.

Edit: I see you edited your response. You CLEARLY have not read the entire thread. NO child was hurt or raped or touched in an inappropriate way. This thread is about a woman who wrote about sexual fantasies including children. She has never even touched a child.

Praetorian

10-28-2005, 09:33 PM

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 09:40 PM

Can't you be civilized? It's really pathetic you have to result to name calling to get your point across. Do you think that will help get the "enemy" get his head out of his behind?

And no "he started it".
Excuse me? He did start it. And I was hardly name calling, considering nothing went farther than 'you arrogant piece of shit' which I only repeated becuase he had the audacity to throw it out there in the first place.

Jai

10-28-2005, 09:47 PM

Praetorian

10-28-2005, 09:53 PM

Excuse me? He did start it. And I was hardly name calling, considering nothing went farther than 'you arrogant piece of shit' which I only repeated becuase he had the audacity to throw it out there in the first place.

But was it necissary for either party to call each other an "arrogant piece of shit"? I think not. You might say it didn't go far, but I honestly don't think it'd have stopped there (edit- Need proof? Read the last couple of replies). I like reading nice and clean discussions, and don't want threads to derail into flame-fests.

"Who made you moderator of the universe?" you ask?

Nobody, it's pretty much self-proclaimed and widely recognised. I like reading clean discussions, just like everybody else. Sometimes a pre-emptive warning is necissary.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 09:54 PM

You think people that get off on the stories on her website (given that is their entire purpose) arnt affected by what they read? You think none of them ever go out and make the fantasy real?

Thats accessory to rape. Very unfortunate that its nearly impossible to prove.

More Cheerios, that comment was clearly not even directed at you. Dumbass.
First off, I knew that. But ignorance makes me sad, therefore I commented.
Secondly, you need to seriously kill the hostility. Especially since you didn't even read the articles.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 09:58 PM

But was it necissary for either party to call each other an "arrogant piece of shit"? I think not. You might say it didn't go far, but I honestly don't think it'd have stopped there (edit- Need proof? Read the last couple of replies).
Well, you are honestly wrong. I know the boundaries and I wasn't expecting to take it any farther. Do you seriously think he would have stopped, even if I hadn't of made that comment?

Praetorian

10-28-2005, 10:09 PM

Well, you are honestly wrong. I know the boundaries and I wasn't expecting to take it any farther. Do you seriously think he would have stopped, even if I hadn't of made that comment?

You may not have. Others could have taken it farther. Now let's stop this senseless bickering and go back to the original discussion. I hope you don't hold any grudges against me.

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 10:13 PM

You may not have. Others could have taken it farther. Now let's stop this senseless bickering and go back to the original discussion. I hope you don't hold any grudges against me.
Nah. There's no reason to hold a grudge over a simple disagreement. :)

Jai

10-28-2005, 10:13 PM

Ignorant?

This thread is about a woman who wrote about sexual fantasies including children.

I still dont think im missing anything here. "Sexual fantasies (about) children". Nope, still not seeing whats missing.

Sexual relations with a child has got to be the second most heinous crime on the planet - a hair behind killing one instead. Defending it? Your one sick puppy.

Praetorian

10-28-2005, 10:18 PM

But children also get killed in movies and books, though. Granted, usually the plot doesn't revolve around it, but still.

kiev33

10-28-2005, 10:19 PM

Even the fantasy is considered WRONG, will continue to be wrong, and is a mental disorder and

I did want to point out one thing here. Isn't it odd that roughly 60 years ago in our country, especially in rural areas, people were routinely getting married at age much less than the 18 we now considert o be a consenting adult, and many marriages between older individuals and people under 18 were accepted as the natural order of things, and nowadays, we consider that to be much, much to young. Isn't it possible that some of this is just nature doing what nature did all along?

[playing devil's advocate here, and still very disturbed by what people do to young children in our sex-saturated America]

Kevin

kiev33

10-28-2005, 10:22 PM

I'm sorry, but in a country of hundreds of millions adult men, 1,000 is not representative sampling

Actually, there are only about 250 million people in the USA. :D

more cheerios

10-28-2005, 10:24 PM

Ignorant?

I still dont think im missing anything here. "Sexual fantasies (about) children". Nope, still not seeing whats missing.

Sexual relations with a child has got to be the second most heinous crime on the planet - a hair behind killing one instead. Defending it? Your one sick puppy.
I would like to take the time to say I am NOT defending it. I am defending her right to the literature of her choice. In no way am I saying that sexual relations with a child is right so I highly suggest you stop putting words in other people's mouths. 'Perverts' are people to, which is something you have to take into consideration.

kiev33

10-28-2005, 10:37 PM

Tell that to the kid that gets raped after the sociopaths that get off on the same filth decide to make the fantasy "real". What a disgusting thing to defend. I pity your lack of morality and ethics.

See, this is the part that bothers me about this. I don't believe there are any studies that truly link video games to actually causing violence, and I am not sure if there are any that show that reading erotic fiction or looking at pictures "cause" anyone to actually molest children. I am, however, very uncomfortable with the thought that it actually might cause that.

Video games, I love. The rest of pornography, of any type, I can take or leave, depends on what I am interested in, but there is something about child porn that really disturbs me, much more than the general level of disgust I have with myself and humanity for the prurient interest we show in most pron.

Arctic_Slicer

10-29-2005, 09:45 PM

Actually, there are only about 250 million people in the USA. :D

Actually closer to 300 million. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Saying that writing fantasies about sex with children causes people to rape children is as ignorant as saying playing violent video games causes people to attack and kill people. They are the same fricken argument. If you are against one thing you must be against the other notwithstanding the fact that there has yet to be proof that people who play violent video games go out an kill people. In fact the number of people who have killed someone and claimed GTA III made them do it is exactly 2. That is about 1 murderer made for every 4 million copies of GTA III sold. Then we also have to consider the fact that the murderer might have been lying. The real problem is that people are using women like the one this thread is about as a scapegoat instead of solving the real problems.

Mogymog

10-30-2005, 03:23 AM

Well finnaly people are backing me up with the # of people in this country. Second of all. I will defend a persons right to READ, write, draw, do ANYTHING they wish to do, long as it's fantasictical. If it's on paper, or in games or any of that there is nothing wrong...

Or have most of you forgotten the japanese are the #1 producers of all things lolicon, underage, even pedophilic in nature. You coudn't count the number of games, manga, doujinshi, anime, hentai, stories, thoughts, fantasies, and other things that involve children.. Hell the average adult japanese male has more pedohpilic thoughts about loli girls then most american pedophiles do, honestly.

Jai.. if you really hate people.. Ok, lets kill pedophiles, then lets kill jews cause people hate them, then black people cause people hate them, then politicans, then europeans, then every other group out there. All people hate each other, this is why we try to put intelligent people in places of power for, to prevent stupidity.. Though we failed with bush.

I'll defend your fantasies and thoughts to hate everyone, even those that have hurt no one, done no wrong, and aren't intending to do anything bad. But, actions are very different... If you kill 1 person based on what you 'think' or 'believe' you are no different that the 1 child molestor who hurts a child.

So go ahead. Say all you want. Hate all you want, hate me too while your at it, not that I'll care. But if a man, woman, child wishes to sit in their home and enjoy their own fantasies with whatever fills it up, that is their business and you have /no/ right or business to tell them otherwise.

KaffiMann

10-30-2005, 11:06 AM

MAKE SURE YOU READ BOTH ARTICLES. THIS IS NOT A PORN DISCUSSION.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm6544_20051008.htm

Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

Rosie said officials came to her house when she was not home and seized a number of items.

The men in black took all of my computer equipment and many of my diskettes, and have access to all my files and site information,” she wrote. “I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a dead site.”

What's up with this "obscenity" charge? This seems like just the thing to set a precedent for censoring the internet of other unpolitically correct content. These two things happening within two days... it seems like a new wave of censorship.

On top of being angry at the world about everything, I'm now all sad that freedom of speech is being kicked to the wayside. Ever see Escape from LA? I can see that sort of thing happening now.

"Man whose Web site shows pictures of war dead is arrested"

It says on that link. Have any of you read that article?
Even though they accuse the owner of that site to distribute pictures of extreme and horrible sex acts, i think of acts of war. Crimes that some soldiers feel, deserve to be shown. If only to enlighten people of what horrible things can happen in a war that could, by several means, be avoided.

And as for what Chuplayer set for the topic:
"MAKE SURE YOU READ BOTH ARTICLES. THIS IS NOT A PORN DISCUSSION."

Well, that's just what it became as far as i'm concerned.
I agree that child pornography is a bad thing, and i'm not even thinking of getting into that discussion. It's just a *get flamed and die violently* discussion for anyone who try to participate in any manner.

I'd like to focus a bit on the:
"bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies"
part.

I assume i do'nt need to mention how many sites out there, have one, or several of these above mentioned "activities". On a way more horrid, larger and mind-affecting way. Than "Red Rose Stories" ever would have.

As far as i'm concerned; the US government have issues. The main one being that retarded president (who'se name i shall not mention).

I'm not going to say anything more.
But as a sidenote: I really think the FBI could do better than this. And i actually think they are violating some rights a normal citizen in the US might have.

Gage

10-30-2005, 03:50 PM

The president has no say in what the FBI do. Bush was doing great before 9/11, he had a great chance to be a good president. but after 9/11 happened, he had to shift gears based on pressure from both the people and his own cabinet. I agree that he was too radical about it, but he's ONLY HUMAN. And yes, the US Government has many severe issues, especially since 9/11. Our schools have become, in essence, prisons. You can no longer file your nails or clip your nails on a plane because you might kill someone with it. If you wear shoes onto a plane, you'll be checked.

America has become paranoid, and it's sickening me more and more as the days pass. Suspected terrorism is now probable cause for searching a home without a warrant. Our privacy is going down the tubes, and it's not JUST Bush's fault.

And yes, there's a good chance that the FBI are violating personal rights, but they're a government entity, neh? The only way that we as a people can undo something that the government does is by literally taking arms against the country. But, uh oh, then we're radicals/terrorists/illegal militia, ESPECIALLY if we don't win. So really, there isn't much we can do. They say America is a free country, but more and more, it's starting to seem less and less free.

*cues the Empire's Theme from Star Wars*

Kella

11-01-2005, 06:08 PM

What bothers me is that, since I write stories that fall into the "obscenity" category apparently, they consider BDSM to be obscene. I write about bondage, discipline, and sex in the doggy-style position on the frequent occasion...

Sue me.

...you'll get absolutely no money from it, as I have none. But knock yerselves out... lol

Kella(n.) - a polyamorous, lifestyle submissive that takes great joy in writing pornographic stories with t.v. characters, or original BDSM essays and stories, and similarly acting things out of that nature in real life. She enjoys long walks on the beach and beatings in the dark.

[/eyeroll]

Taken to the current level, unless you're a Baptist Surrender Wife, we're all obscene in some form or other. Is it truly up to a government agency to define what the minutia of decenct acts are for the rest of us? It's not the Feebs' jobs to tell me what I can/cannot write about, as long as it doesn't involve minors or things of a strictly illegal nature.

And while BDSM or Dominance/submission may be of a non-mainstream mindset (let alone polyamory, gods forbid...), it's not illegal. Polygamy is in practice, but it's not illegal to write about swinging and other "darker" facets of the various lifestyles we each are part of in some form or other... It's just another case of the "moral majority" picking the FBI by the bootstraps and sending them in to clean up our "unsightly messes".

[/rant]

Roxie

11-01-2005, 08:05 PM

Kella, they wouldn't really care unless it some how involved children.

Arctic_Slicer

11-01-2005, 10:44 PM

Kella, they wouldn't really care unless it some how involved children.

That's not what the article in the original post says. There was a list of things and children was only one of them.

Kella

11-02-2005, 07:15 PM

Exactly!

And if you pay attention to the Yahoo! Groups b.s. that's going on, half of the BDSM/polyamory groups I'm a member of have been closed with little or no notice, the administrators of those groups locked out, and the Yahoo! accounts associated as being moderators closed with no ability to re-open them. My friend, who has been running a submissives' group on Yahoo! since they merged with E-groups, has received an e-mail from the local government office stating that they are waiting on a subpoena for her computer and the ability to cancel her Internet service provider account, etc. It's really gotten crazy.

It's really not ONLY about the children.

Annorax

11-02-2005, 11:04 PM