War on Porn

[Sasaki Kojiro]

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

October 20, 2005 - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has announced that his office will specifically target "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior" in pursuing new obscenity prosecutions. The Department of Justice began recruiting in late July for a new anti-obscenity squad to pursue obscenity prosecutions, and the FBI announced in September that it was forming an anti-obscenity task force to crack down on pornography.

Any website that has content containing "bestiality, urination,
defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior" should be forewarned that prosecution is possible. Additionally, Federal sentencing guidelines state that any obscenity-related punishment should be "enhanced for sadomasochistic material."

Forty people and businesses have been convicted of obscenity since 2001, and 20 additional indictments are pending according to Andrew Oosterbaan, chief of the Justice Department's child exploitation and obscenity section. There were only four obscenity prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration.

Though adult content is, in theory, protected by the First Amendment, only a jury can determine if a work is obscene or not under the subjective set of standards that vary from one community to the next established in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. California.

Text is not inherently more protected than images when it comes to obscenity charges. The erotic fiction website Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges after federal agents raided the owner's home on October 3rd, taking computer equipment and diskettes that contained all of their files and site information.

The Department of Justice is clearly hoping that websites will self-censor or remove their content entirely. Midori, a fetish model and SM educator who teaches classes on bondage, has removed her website, BeautyBound.com, citing fear of obscenity prosecution. The owner of three SM websites, known as GrandPa eSade, removed his websites from the Internet. SuicideGirls.com also announced they are
self-censoring their materials over concerns about a possible
obscenity crackdown.

Recent prosecutions of obscenity on websites include: A former police officer in Lakeland, Florida, was arrested on October 7th on over 300 obscenity-related charges for the sexual content posted on his website. The same day, webmaster Chris Wilson, owner of amateur website NowThatsF*ckedUp.com, was raided on charges of obscenity by a local Sheriff's office.

"I think it's crucial for us to stand up for consensual sadomasochism and other alternative sexual practices," says Barbara Nitke, fetish photographer. "This is a battle worth fighting, and I hope everyone who can will just censor out the most provocative material from their websites, but keep them up. I also appeal to the lawyers in our community to help us find ways to keep people's websites up."

Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) have proactively challenged federal obscenity laws as applied to the Internet, arguing that obscenity laws based on "local community standards" are too vague and their existence burdens protected speech, resulting in self-censorship due to the fear of prosecution. A district court three-judge panel in New York ruled that while Nitke and the NCSF members were at risk, more proof was needed that
obscenity laws cause otherwise protected speech to be restrained through acts of self-censorship. The case is currently on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

"The effect of silencing alternative lifestyle speech was exactly why we brought the lawsuit," says attorney John Wirenius, lead counsel for NCSF. "The self-censorship we are seeing underscores the importance of supporting our ongoing obscenity challenge."

To contribute to the appeal of the CDA lawsuit, go to:
www.ncsfreedom.org/donations.htm

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom - www.ncsfreedom.org
Barbara Nitke - www.barbaranitke.com "

This has to be one of the most whacked up things I've heard. Notice it isn't going after child porn, but after S&M porn...who the hell thought this one up? At least the FBI has lots of agents and resources to spare, right?

[Steppe Merc]

I saw this in Rolling Stone magazine. This is so dumb. Who cares? We are in the middle of a real war that we are not winning, and we focus on pornography? Thats even stupider than the war on drugs!

[lancelot]

Forty people and businesses have been convicted of obscenity since 2001

Wow, a whole 40 people in 4 years!! Never mind the untold robberies, thefts and shootings every day in the states...

You yankees have the most messed up set of priorities on the planet!

Never mind the fact that a government agency is now trying to tell people what they should and shouldnt find obscene...some people do have a nerve.

[Strike For The South]

GAH I say GAH this money could be spent on aids reasearch

[Kanamori]

IMO, Miller v. California and the other obscenity cases before it have been some of the worst in the Court's history. In Roth, they found that the First Amendment was meant to protect speech which had any value at all -- intent can be a questionable IMO too -- and so that obscenity, which encompassed the idea of being totally w/o value, could be regulated. Then, they totally scrapped that definition of obscenity, but hold that it can still can be regulated because of precedent... talk about BS, from our so-called "constructionalists".


This has to be one of the most whacked up things I've heard. Notice it isn't going after child porn, but after S&M porn...who the hell thought this one up? At least the FBI has lots of agents and resources to spare, right?

Child porn is regulable for other reasons. Under the standards of obscenity in law, the Miller test, there would be depicitions of things like children masturbating or what have you that wouldn't necessarily qualify. In Ferber, they ruled that such depicitions were under the state's "compelling interest" in children's safety, and since it falls under that interest, it is not protected by any stretch of the First Amendment, even though it would not be considered obscenity. Although, I would largely agree that the state's interests are grossly misplaced when it comes to going after porn which may be obscene under the Court's (awful) definition.

I think Douglas summed up obscenity law well: "DOUGLAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

413 U.S. 15
Miller v. California
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
No. 70-73 Argued: January 18-19, 1972 --- Decided: June 21, 1973

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

I

Today we leave open the way for California [n1] to send a man to prison for distributing brochures that advertise books and a movie under freshly written standards defining obscenity which until today is decision were never the part of any law.

The Court has worked hard to define obscenity and concededly has failed. In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476"]354 U.S. 476, it ruled that "[o]bscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id. at 487. Obscenity, it was said, was rejected by the First Amendment because it is "utterly without redeeming [p38] social importance." Id. at 484. The presence of a "prurient interest" was to be determined by "contemporary community standards." Id. at 489. That test, it has been said, could not be determined by one standard here and another standard there, 354 U.S. 476, it ruled that "[o]bscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id. at 487. Obscenity, it was said, was rejected by the First Amendment because it is "utterly without redeeming [p38] social importance." Id. at 484. The presence of a "prurient interest" was to be determined by "contemporary community standards." Id. at 489. That test, it has been said, could not be determined by one standard here and another standard there, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 194, but "on the basis of a national standard." Id. at 195. My Brother STEWART, in Jacobellis, commented that the difficulty of the Court in giving content to obscenity was that it was "faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable." Id. at 197.

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 418, the Roth test was elaborated to read as follows:

[T]hree elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

In Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, a publisher was sent to prison, not for the kind of books and periodicals he sold, but for the manner in which the publications were advertised. The "leer of the sensualist" was said to permeate the advertisements. Id. at 468. The Court said,

Where the purveyor's sole emphasis is on the sexually provocative aspects of his publications, that fact may be decisive in the determination of obscenity.

Id. at 470. As Mr. Justice Black said in dissent,

. . . Ginzburg . . . is now finally and authoritatively condemned to serve five years in prison for distributing printed matter about sex which neither Ginzburg nor anyone else could possibly have known to be criminal.

Id. at 476. That observation by Mr. Justice Black is underlined by the fact that the Ginzburg decision was five to four. [p39]

A further refinement was added by Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 641, where the Court held that "it was not irrational for the legislature to find that exposure to material condemned by the statute is harmful to minors."

But even those members of this Court who had created the new and changing standards of "obscenity" could not agree on their application. And so we adopted a per curiam treatment of so-called obscene publications that seemed to pass constitutional muster under the several constitutional tests which had been formulated. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. Some condemn it if its "dominant tendency might be to ‘deprave or corrupt' a reader." [n2] Others look not to the content of the book, but to whether it is advertised "‘to appeal to the erotic interests of customers.'" [n3] Some condemn only "hard-core pornography," but even then a true definition is lacking. It has indeed been said of that definition, "I could never succeed in [defining it] intelligibly," but "I know it when I see it." [n4]

Today we would add a new three-pronged test:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards," would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Those are the standards we ourselves have written into the Constitution. [n5] Yet how under these vague tests can [p40] we sustain convictions for the sale of an article prior to the time when some court has declared it to be obscene?

Today the Court retreats from the earlier formulations of the constitutional test and undertakes to make new definitions. This effort, like the earlier ones, is earnest and well intentioned. The difficulty is that we do not deal with constitutional terms, since "obscenity" is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And the First Amendment makes no such exception from "the press" which it undertakes to protect nor, as I have said on other occasions, is an exception necessarily implied, for there was no recognized exception to the free press at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted which treated "obscene" publications differently from other types of papers, magazines, and books. So there are no constitutional guidelines for deciding what is and what is not "obscene." The Court is at large because we deal with tastes and standards of literature. What shocks me may [p41] be sustenance for my neighbor. What causes one person to boil up in rage over one pamphlet or movie may reflect only his neurosis, not shared by others. We deal here with a regime of censorship which, if adopted, should be done by constitutional amendment after full debate by the people.

Obscenity cases usually generate tremendous emotional outbursts. They have no business being in the courts. If a constitutional amendment authorized censorship, the censor would probably be an administrative agency. Then criminal prosecutions could follow as, if, and when publishers defied the censor and sold their literature. Under that regime, a publisher would know when he was on dangerous ground. Under the present regime -- whether the old standards or the new ones are used -- the criminal law becomes a trap. A brand new test would put a publisher behind bars under a new law improvised by the courts after the publication. That was done in Ginzburg, and has all the evils of an ex post facto law.

My contention is that, until a civil proceeding has placed a tract beyond the pale, no criminal prosecution should be sustained. For no more vivid illustration of vague and uncertain laws could be designed than those we have fashioned. As Mr. Justice Harlan has said:

The upshot of all this divergence in viewpoint is that anyone who undertakes to examine the Court's decisions since Roth which have held particular material obscene or not obscene would find himself in utter bewilderment.

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 707.

In Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, we upset a conviction for remaining on property after being asked to leave, while the only unlawful act charged by the statute was entering. We held that the defendants had received no "fair warning, at the time of their conduct" [p42] while on the property "that the act for which they now stand convicted was rendered criminal" by the state statute. Id. at 355. The same requirement of "fair warning" is due here, as much as in Bouie. The latter involved racial discrimination; the present case involves rights earnestly urged as being protected by the First Amendment. In any case -- certainly when constitutional rights are concerned -- we should not allow men to go to prison or be fined when they had no "fair warning" that what they did was criminal conduct.

II

If a specific book, play, paper, or motion picture has in a civil proceeding been condemned as obscene and review of that finding has been completed, and thereafter a person publishes, shows, or displays that particular book or film, then a vague law has been made specific. There would remain the underlying question whether the First Amendment allows an implied exception in the case of obscenity. I do not think it does, [n6] and my views [p43] on the issue have been stated over and over again. [n7] But at least a criminal prosecution brought at that juncture would not violate the time-honored "void for vagueness" test. [n8]

No such protective procedure has been designed by California in this case. Obscenity -- which even we cannot define with precision -- is a hodge-podge. To send [p44] men to jail for violating standards they cannot understand, construe, and apply is a monstrous thing to do in a Nation dedicated to fair trials and due process.

III

While the right to know is the corollary of the right to speak or publish, no one can be forced by government to listen to disclosure that he finds offensive. That was the basis of my dissent in Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 467, where I protested against making streetcar passengers a "captive" audience. There is no "captive audience" problem in these obscenity cases. No one is being compelled to look or to listen. Those who enter newsstands or bookstalls may be offended by what they see. But they are not compelled by the State to frequent those places; and it is only state or governmental action against which the First Amendment, applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth, raises a ban.

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are "offensive" to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed "to invite dispute," to induce "a condition of unrest," to "create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are," and even to stir "people to anger." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4. The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are "offensive" to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for [p45] dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to "offensive" as well as to "staid" people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard "offensive" gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. [n9] As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment -- and solely because of it -- speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be "offensive" to some.

The standard "offensive" is unconstitutional in yet another way. In Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, we had before us a municipal ordinance that made it a crime for three or more persons to assemble on a street and conduct themselves "in a manner annoying to persons [p46] passing by." We struck it down, saying:

If three or more people meet together on a sidewalk or street corner, they must conduct themselves so as not to annoy any police officer or other person who should happen to pass by. In our opinion, this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct.

Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others. Thus, the ordinance is vague not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.

Id. at 614.

How we can deny Ohio the convenience of punishing people who "annoy" others and allow California power to punish people who publish materials "offensive" to some people is difficult to square with constitutional requirements.

If there are to be restraints on what is obscene, then a constitutional amendment should be the way of achieving the end. There are societies where religion and mathematics are the only free segments. It would be a dark day for America if that were our destiny. But the people can make it such if they choose to write obscenity into the Constitution and define it.

We deal with highly emotional, not rational, questions. To many, the Song of Solomon is obscene. I do not think we, the judges, were ever given the constitutional power to make definitions of obscenity. If it is to be defined, let the people debate and decide by a constitutional amendment what they want to ban as obscene and what standards they want the legislatures and the courts to apply. Perhaps the people will decide that the path towards a mature, integrated society requires [p47] that all ideas competing for acceptance must have no censor. Perhaps they will decide otherwise. Whatever the choice, the courts will have some guidelines. Now we have none except our own predilections.

1. California defines "obscene matter" as

matter, taken as a whole, the predominant appeal of which to the average person, applying contemporary standards, is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; and is matter which taken as a whole goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters; and is matter which taken as a whole is utterly without redeeming social importance.

Calif. Penal Code § 311(a).

2. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 502 (opinion of Harlan, J.).

3. Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 467.

4. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (STEWART, J., concurring).

5. At the conclusion of a two-year study, the U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography determined that the standards we have written interfere with constitutionally protected materials:

Society's attempts to legislate for adults in the area of obscenity have not been successful. Present laws prohibiting the consensual sale or distribution of explicit sexual materials to adults are extremely unsatisfactory in their practical application. The Constitution permits material to be deemed "obscene" for adults only if, as a whole, it appeals to the "prurient" interest of the average person, is "patently offensive" in light of "community standards," and lacks "redeeming social value." These vague and highly subjective aesthetic, psychological and moral tests do not provide meaningful guidance for law enforcement officials, juries or courts. As a result, law is inconsistently and sometimes erroneously applied, and the distinctions made by courts between prohibited and permissible materials often appear indefensible. Errors in the application of the law and uncertainty about its scope also cause interference with the communication of constitutionally protected materials.

Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography 53 (1970).

6. It is said that "obscene" publications can be banned on authority of restraints on communications incident to decrees restraining unlawful business monopolies or unlawful restraints of trade, Sugar Institute v. United States, 297 U.S. 553, 597, or communications respecting the sale of spurious or fraudulent securities. Hall v. Geier-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 549; Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559, 567; Merrick v. Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568, 584. The First Amendment answer is that, whenever speech and conduct are brigaded -- as they are when one shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater -- speech can be outlawed. Mr. Justice Black, writing for a unanimous Court in Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, stated that labor unions could be restrained from picketing a firm in support of a secondary boycott which a State had validly outlawed. Mr. Justice Black said:

It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now.

Id. at 498.

7. See United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, post, p. 123; United States v. Orito, post, p. 139; Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229; Byrne v. Karalexis, 396 U.S. 976, 977; Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 650; Jacobs v. New York, 388 U.S. 431, 436; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 482; Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 424; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 72; Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 78; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 167; Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684, 697; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508; Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 446; Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 588; Gelling v. Texas, 343 U.S. 60.

8. The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography has advocated such a procedure:

The Commission recommends the enactment, in all jurisdictions which enact or retain provisions prohibiting the dissemination of sexual materials to adults or young persons, of legislation authorizing prosecutors to obtain declaratory judgments as to whether particular materials fall within existing legal prohibitions. . . .

A declaratory judgment procedure . . . would permit prosecutors to proceed civilly, rather than through the criminal process, against suspected violations of obscenity prohibition. If such civil procedures are utilized, penalties would be imposed for violation of the law only with respect to conduct occurring after a civil declaration is obtained. The Commission believes this course of action to be appropriate whenever there is any existing doubt regarding the legal status of materials; where other alternatives are available, the criminal process should not ordinarily be invoked against persons who might have reasonably believed, in good faith, that the books or films they distributed were entitled to constitutional protection, for the threat of criminal sanctions might otherwise deter the free distribution of constitutionally protected material.

Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography 63 (1970).

9. Obscenity law has had a capricious history:

The white slave traffic was first exposed by W. T. Stead in a magazine article, "The Maiden Tribute." The English law did absolutely nothing to the profiteers in vice, but put Stead in prison for a year for writing about an indecent subject. When the law supplies no definite standard of criminality, a judge, in deciding what is indecent or profane, may consciously disregard the sound test of present injury, and proceeding upon an entirely different theory may condemn the defendant because his words express ideas which are thought liable to cause bad future consequences. Thus, musical comedies enjoy almost unbridled license, while a problem play is often forbidden because opposed to our views of marriage. In the same way, the law of blasphemy has been used against Shelley's Queen Mab and the decorous promulgation of pantheistic ideas on the ground that to attack religion is to loosen the bonds of society and endanger the state. This is simply a round-about modern method to make heterodoxy in sex matters and even in religion a crime." LII, courtesy of Pindar how long ago ~:) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZD.html)

[Kanamori]

Oh, and my biggest problem w/ the obscenity definition is that it is almost necessarily ex post facto, because of a lack of fair warning in most cases.

P.S. sorry for the length, but a good read.:bow:

[Byzantine Prince]

"bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior"
You mean those things are considered obscene?!? :stupido:

"Additionally, Federal sentencing guidelines state that any obscenity-related punishment should be "enhanced for sadomasochistic material.""
:laugh4:

[Papewaio]

So how do you punish a S&M performer?

We are going to treat you nice until you beg for mercy?

[ShadesPanther]

"bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior"
You mean those things are considered obscene?!? :stupido:

You see really the thing is what is considered obscene?
Some may think Sodomy is or oral sex or any number of different things.


TBh this really does seem like a total waste of resources. I mean who really cares? If they want to do those sorta things to each other fine by me.

edit:typo

[Kanamori]

You see really the thing is what is considered obscene?

Well, to answer your question.


(a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Oh wait, that doesn't really help does it... nobody knows until the flaming jury comes back; what a disgrace to justice. Whatever it is, it isn't protected speech.~:rolleyes:

[AntiochusIII]

This is so horrible. I can't believe the American government can be this stupid.

It is a disgrace that this nation, throughout history, seems to be struggling to survive as a proper democratic "free" nation against the efforts of its own government.

War on Porn? If it goes like the war on Drugs (which was, no matter what one's opinion is, far more legitimate), we'd expect porn to be utterly "rampant" by this time 20 years later.

I guess one war is not enough; oh wait, two wars, counting the forgotten Afghanistan.

Edit: Gah. Three wars; forgot the War on Terror.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

GAH I say GAH this money could be spent on aids reasearch

Or your buddies war...


You yankees have the most messed up set of priorities on the planet!

That's just Bush and his cronies...

Not everyone is worried about this crap...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's just Bush and his cronies...

Not everyone is worried about this crap...

I find it hard to believe that a politician would initiate this kind of thing...there's no way it will be popular. It would have to be some special interest group, but I don't know which one.

[ShadesPanther]

Yeah but which would have enough influence to start this political suicide war?

[Kanamori]

Churches.

[bmolsson]

So there will be a Patriot act against masturbators ??? ~;)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I saw this in Rolling Stone magazine. This is so dumb. Who cares? We are in the middle of a real war that we are not winning, and we focus on pornography? Thats even stupider than the war on drugs!
1. What war? I can't think of one that we're losing.
2. Yes it is quite stupid.

[GoreBag]

Figures. What nonsense.

[solypsist]

there are few things conservative fundamentalists hate more than consenting adults.

but the bestiality has got to go.

[GoreBag]

there are few things conservative fundamentalists hate more than consenting adults.

but the bestiality has got to go.

What, you hate consenting animals? ~;p

[AntiochusIII]

What, you hate consenting animals? ~;pAh. But we never know whether or not one party, the non-human animal one, consents or is enslaved and forced into such practice, eh?

[Byzantine Prince]

Ah. But we never know whether or not one party, the non-human animal one, consents or is enslaved and forced into such practice, eh?
But the non-human animal cannot make a choice, so it's always enslaved.
Also considering that it's a male animal and female human that usually go at it, it cannot be rape.

[Lemur]

Also considering that it's a male animal and female human that usually go at it, it cannot be rape.
Wha-wha-wha-what?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

But the non-human animal cannot make a choice, so it's always enslaved.
Also considering that it's a male animal and female human that usually go at it, it cannot be rape.
Unless your in scotland
*plays bagpipes*

[Soulforged]

This is so horrible. I can't believe the American government can be this stupid.Stupid? Ha! Far from it. When the government iniciates this kind of cases ex professo, it's all but stupid. It has the single and only purpose of deflecting vigilants, citizens and press (real free press) opinions. It's just another show, in wich the people will do well not to involve.

It is a disgrace that this nation, throughout history, seems to be struggling to survive as a proper democratic "free" nation against the efforts of its own government.As long as there's a government, like state, you'll never be free, nor I.

War on Porn? If it goes like the war on Drugs (which was, no matter what one's opinion is, far more legitimate), we'd expect porn to be utterly "rampant" by this time 20 years later.First, no. Non of those are legitimate, taking by base the same fundamental logic, the free speech. The interpretation of that amendment should be extended to actions and associations. So non of this are legitimate, but the persons tend to beleive that it's, because they confuse moral with rights and with law, and make it a ball of absurdity, that generates only absurds.

Another thing that always intrigues me: Why is that you gringos always think on matters from the expenditure point of view? Do you know that justice and society values are not reduced to economics, right? If it's wrong to persecute a person, it's not because you must waste more money, it's wrong because it's a person...Just a curiosity...

[AntiochusIII]

But the non-human animal cannot make a choice, so it's always enslaved.Thus, if we're to presume as such, then the conclusion is that one party is not and never will be consenting; thus making bestiality a one-sided sexual assault, even rape. Where's the PETA when you need them? ~;)

Also considering that it's a male animal and female human that usually go at it, it cannot be rape.It's the other way around, from what I heard. And that makes more logical sense, considering males' ability to satisfy themselves sexually through "holes", allowing men lunatics to pursue their course easier than women lunatics. ~:joker: While women need the opposite. Unless, of course, you take the old "large as a horse" comment seriously. ~:eek:

Aha! I managed to bring a War on Porn topic towards Bestiality discussion. ~;p

[yesdachi]

I find it hard to believe that a politician would initiate this kind of thing...
They are some of the biggest offenders!~:joker:


This is pretty stupid. There about 100 other people or groups that should be attacked, leave the freaks alone. ~:rolleyes:

[Aurelian]

They're just picking up where the Reagan-Bush White House left off. Ashcroft actually had a huge anti-porn crusade ready to go just before 9/11. So, in a weird way, the terrorists saved our porn. At least for a little while. ~D

It's weird that they have decided that they are going after particular kinks: "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior". I guess they must have taken a poll at the local mega-church and found little public sympathy for those particular practices. Of course, we know that in private some of those churchgoers are probably the ones beating themselves over the head with urinating horse members. Sorry for that image, but we all know that conservative politicians, judges, reverend's daughters, Catholic school girls, priests, televangelists, and the like frequently turn out to be a little freaky deaky... And I, for one, would like to make sure that they have access to the best internet porn that the United States of America (and Amsterdam) can produce.

At this point, I was going to include a list of the practices that the Attorney General has decided not to target (just so we all know what is safe); but I'll refrain from that and just point out that the Ralph Reeds of the world would like to ban "Playboy" and similar tame fare. They're just starting with the minority kinks to drum up business.

~:cheers:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
As a moderate consumer of porn myself :hide: all those piss/scat/bestiality bullshit really disturbs me. So, that's good news. But I'm afraid it turns out counterproductive. This part added ten minutes after the original post: In fact, war against such nonsense is war for porn. Thinking twice, it may not be what the crusaders are intending at all. ~:handball:
.

[JAG]

Porn is the root of all evil and is clearly immoral, think of all those terrible things they teach people to do. I applaud this brilliant moral crusade for God and country.

[GoreBag]

As a moderate consumer of porn myself :hide: all those piss/scat/bestiality bullshit really disturbs me.

Actually, I find that the piss sub-genre is becoming rather mainstream. I don't find it that disturbing, either; just silly.

And, uh, I was joking about the 'consenting animals' line up there. The face with the tongue was supposed to convey that. Horses actually have to be given drugs in order to, ahem, 'perform'. Interesting story: that's how Debbie from Debbie Does Dallas died - the horse was given the wrong drugs, got worked up and kicked her in the head.

[PanzerJaeger]

"bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior".

Why is it bad they are trying to get rid of this stuff? Its just nasty. :fainting:

[Kanamori]

feck, ive messed it up fore ven when i am right in teh head`:( tre el nin~o key , lol, doesn'tr work. crap again, isnt' there a ctrl-z for the .org????

[Kanamori]

gawd, i've violated my posting rule again haven't i?
sorry for whoever reads it before its edited, i just mean what i say (besides the liking bestiality part; only BP would dig that s**t.~;)
:bow:

[Ronin]

what total bollocks....

who cares what people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes?....children have to be protected sure...but other than that....

the US government as just picked itself into a fight it can´t win....like a caracter said in one of my favourite tv shows..."I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn."


hell....the best stuff nowadays is made in europe anyway ~D ....not that i´d know anything about that :hide: ~;)

[monkian]

We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "flip" on their airplanes because it's obscene!


Kurtz, Apocalypse Now

[Kanamori]

oh, and i do really respect our british .org member w/ unwritten constitutions, u have made it work, but i don't think it can work here~:cheers:
:bow:

[ShadesPanther]

"bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior".

I think ti is totally sick too but as long as no children are involved and the people in it are consenting I don't really see waht the problem about it is.

I duess it is like banning a certain ice cream that only a small number of people love, You don't like it but should you impose what you dont like or find horrible on people who enjoy that ice cream?

[Byzantine Prince]

who cares what people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes?....children have to be protected sure...but other than that....
LOL, where were they when this corrupted youth was only 15? ~:eek:


hell....the best stuff nowadays is made in europe anyway ~D ....not that i´d know anything about that :hide: ~;)
Japan is not bad either, they are big on defecation. Sweden is big on bestiality, also Germany. Germany has a lot of domination productions that are pretty desent. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that so you wouldn't be interested right? ~:joker:

[Just A Girl]

I didnt really Read ANY of this thread,

kind of glanced at the 1st sentance.....

Any way. From what i understand,

A girl Was murderd and raped By a guy who had been Watching/Viewing these sort of porn clips/pictures. "S&M, Rape, Exetera" on the internet.
Which Her mother, claims Provoked him to commit the offence.
"Personally i think hed have done it any way (after all he did do it)"

So as far as i know the uk goverment is trying Or will be trying to enforce Rules that prevent Materials of this nature being displayed on the internet,

And as for The "It Dosent mention child porn"
Why would it? Its not like child porn is legal or ever will be.

As i said i didnt read ANY of the topic so Exquse me if im way off the mark.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/misc/ht_hide.gif

[Ronin]

LOL, where were they when this corrupted youth was only 15? ~:eek:


Japan is not bad either, they are big on defecation. Sweden is big on bestiality, also Germany. Germany has a lot of domination productions that are pretty desent. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that so you wouldn't be interested right? ~:joker:


loool...had an interesting childhood did we? ~:joker:


bestiality and defecation doesn´t do anything for me......S&M can be interesting in small doses ~D

[yesdachi]

I wonder where cigars, interns and oral sex fit into their definition of “obsecen”?~;)

[lancelot]

Porn is the root of all evil and is clearly immoral, think of all those terrible things they teach people to do. I applaud this brilliant moral crusade for God and country.

JAG is back and he's sassy! Been a while JAG, nice to see you again...~:cheers:

[Goofball]

**Well, as long as they don't outlaw sexual practices involving Little Bo Peep outfits, midgets, and Crisco, I don't care what they do...**

:thinking2:

Oh crap. Using your "inside voice" in text format doesn't really keep the thought to yourself does it...

[The Stranger]

bleugh

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Due to the fact that Peter North and Rocco Siffredi are two of my heros, declaring war on good old old porn, not the real weird stuff, would be sacrilege~D

[Alexanderofmacedon]

This is a stupid waste of money. Why not throw the money away in a more import money pit, like the war in Iraq?

Way to go!!!~:pissed:

[Leet Eriksson]

haha war on porn..

I thought he'd be better than ahscroft, but this guy is just as nutty.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1. What war? I can't think of one that we're losing.


He said "not winning", not "losing". Iraq seems to be a stalemate now.

[ichi]

I wonder if the end result will be the prosecution of the NY Times for publishing the Abu Ghraib photos, which are clearly sadomasochistic. I guess we all have to make sacrifices in time of war.

ichi~:cheers:

[Soulforged]

This is a stupid waste of money. Why not throw the money away in a more import money pit, like the war in Iraq?

Way to go!!!~:pissed:This is what I'm talking about. Always money, this american society is founded over the basis of extreme neoliberal ideals, impregnated on the heads of many memebers, as I see.
This is not just because it contradits the custom and the law. Period. Why always keep money in on the subject?~:confused:

[QwertyMIDX]

Why is it bad they are trying to get rid of this stuff? Its just nasty. :fainting:


And you have some special authority to make these decisions for everyone else?

[bmolsson]

And you have some special authority to make these decisions for everyone else?

Don't we all...... ~:joker:

[DojoRat]

Porn isn't going anywhere but straight to the bank. It is a huge money maker and is a driving force behind advancements in video/internet.

As an adult I have no problems with it (except when I forget my password) and i'm against any attempt to legislate morality.

But as a Dad I find this explosion of porn disturbing. It's impossible to totally keep my fifteen yr old boy from being exposed to it. I mean I knew where my dad hid his "keys" so I'm sure he's seen his share of stuff on his and his friends computers. I don't worry about him becoming a rapist and in fact i don't worry too much about him at all, but I do worry about how much this focus on sex, and primarily male gratification, his skewing his perception of women and intimate relationships. I just don't know.

As far as my daughter goes, oh my god, what a world she will grow up into. Teenage boys are crazed enough, now they're fed images of surgically enhanced women either being dominated by men or aching to please them. It's just has to have some effect on their attitudes. I feel a young girl today has to grow up in what any union would define as a hostile work place.

I don't know, I'll be there for my kids, as for the others, time will tell.

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually I think kids should watch porn much more then they already do. Even the really sick stuff. It's all good. Take BP's word for it.

For more information about my opinion look at my signature.

[Soulforged]

Actually I think kids should watch porn much more then they already do. Even the really sick stuff. It's all good. Take BP's word for it.

For more information about my opinion look at my signature.Yes I imagine it....The new family televesion ladies and gentleman...With Jenna Jameson and P. Anderson...And the father instructing the son on how to do yoga and acrobatics possitions...~D ~:joker:

[AntiochusIII]

Actually I think kids should watch porn much more then they already do. Even the really sick stuff. It's all good. Take BP's word for it.

For more information about my opinion look at my signature.That doesn't make any sense to me. ~:confused:

Why would you expose someone who hasn't even developed halfway through his/her physical sexuality (and, therefore, emotional sexuality) the "ugly" things? [Those roughly around 12--we already have enough retarded 133t kids dominating the internet from too much indiscriminate information (and porn, and propaganda, and popups) into an underdeveloped individual; any attempt to degenerate their utterly ruined intelligence furthur is criminal] That could cause irreparable damage on his/her views of sexuality. It's no difference to a 12 years old kid being exposed to an act of rape. A regular fifteen years old (around that) could handle any porn, no matter the personal taste, but certainly not a 13 years old. After all, all 13 years old are idiots; we all were.

But as a Dad I find this explosion of porn disturbing. It's impossible to totally keep my fifteen yr old boy from being exposed to it. I mean I knew where my dad hid his "keys" so I'm sure he's seen his share of stuff on his and his friends computers. I don't worry about him becoming a rapist and in fact i don't worry too much about him at all, but I do worry about how much this focus on sex, and primarily male gratification, his skewing his perception of women and intimate relationships. I just don't know.

As far as my daughter goes, oh my god, what a world she will grow up into. Teenage boys are crazed enough, now they're fed images of surgically enhanced women either being dominated by men or aching to please them. It's just has to have some effect on their attitudes. I feel a young girl today has to grow up in what any union would define as a hostile work place.Hmm. I haven't thought of this before. Your perspective is most interesting.

Though this "overexposition" to porn is not unlike the other kinds of mass media. All those pop/rap idols (especially the gangsta rap) cause a change of perspective of what constitutes a healthy relationship. In an adult (or late teen), this flood of mass media could be handled well by the individual, but in a younger person (especially early teen), these influences have much stronger effect and might as well destroy one's individuality or possibility of a healthy relationship.

Indeed, all the "girls must be like this to attract guys" mass media-induced phenomenon is, arguably, a change from women's involuntary traditional submission (physical oppression, one could say) into voluntary submission to men in terms of sexuality.

Nonetheless, an outright ban is something only fundamentalist moralists (a.k.a. nutjobs) would advocate. We might as well look at the current Japanese culture (they're always ahead in everything, aren't they? Including problems that come with modernism...) and try to come up with a hypothetical solution in which could be applied.

For me? I like porn. ~D But I'm more moderate and conservative than most when it comes to what kind of porn I like. ~:joker:

[Samurai Waki]

I'd rather see two people going at it, than seeing some innocent person get shot in the head. 'nuff said.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This is what I'm talking about. Always money, this american society is founded over the basis of extreme neoliberal ideals, impregnated on the heads of many memebers, as I see.
This is not just because it contradits the custom and the law. Period. Why always keep money in on the subject?~:confused:

Yeah that's a good point...I get the impression people don't approve of the crackdown but don't approve of the porn either so they focus on the money. Unless you people who only said something about the money would support this if it didn't cost anything?

[Arcanum]

Whoever took JAG's and PanzerJaeger's post serious, must be kidding. ~;)
In this matter there is only one opinion a rational thinking human can have, who is not influenced by whatever religion he belongs to, to not have it.

If these people like 'whatever they do' (Sex? What is that? ~D) let 'em go their way, if one side is not agreeing with 'whatever they do' then it's bad.

A crusade against porn is the dumbest thing I have heard for years (except the re-election of 'you know who'), and now I have to agree with some others to say that the money is not worth it...

I also have to get to the point: IF they really want to do this crap, why not start a crusade against child porn? Bah, this makes me sick.

[bmolsson]

would support this if it didn't cost anything?

I think there are laws against that. If you show your personals in public without payment, you will get prosecuted...... ~;)

[Soulforged]

Yeah that's a good point...I get the impression people don't approve of the crackdown but don't approve of the porn either so they focus on the money. Unless you people who only said something about the money would support this if it didn't cost anything?
That's exactly what I meant. If you keep money outside the function, does your opinion changes....
I'm truly amazed on this effect of long aged capitalism in a big economy, it can do amazing things on the ideology and ideocincracies of the people who habitate them. You never, repeat, NEVER can reduce justice to economy, it's a part, but it's not a big part nor the only one.

[yesdachi]

Yeah that's a good point...I get the impression people don't approve of the crackdown but don't approve of the porn either so they focus on the money. Unless you people who only said something about the money would support this if it didn't cost anything?
To me it is not about money but freedom and censorship. I may not approve of the "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior" but it is clearly not hurting anyone (that doesn’t want to be hurt~;) ) so leave them alone, don’t censor. Going after them is clearly a form of censorship and an injustice in a country where “freedom” is the decree:charge: . Consenting adults have every right to do whatever they want within the limits of the law.


I would suggest that any “war” being waged be put to a vote before being started. Or if excess money is available (ha ha~:joker: ) that perhaps a multiple-choice question be given to the citizens so that they can choose what war should be fought.
A) War against special interest groups trying to influence government officials
B) War against government officials who take money from special interest groups
C) War against porn

If a special interest group wants to encourage self-censorship or wage a war against porn, fine, that’s another “freedom” we have, but it shouldn’t be the government. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

[Lazul]

lets face it people... porn's fun :knuddel:

ok, wetsex or what ever, thats just weird, so is humping animals (wich is sick).
S&M on the other hand, I cant see how its a problem... I mean if some people want to tie each other up and well, punish each other for varius reasons... I dont see how that hurts anyone, if they are all in on it.

Im not saying all porn is good ofcourse... much is, even my female friends agree on that.

... i love my friends... :jumping:

[Soulforged]

lets face it people... porn's fun Nobody is saying that... It's just that for the moralist fun is inmoral.~;)

[Byzantine Prince]

ok, wetsex or what ever, thats just weird, so is humping animals (wich is sick).
Coming from a Swede? ~:rolleyes:

[bmolsson]

Consenting adults have every right to do whatever they want within the limits of the law.


Well, this is the key to the whole discussion. What should the law allow ?? ~;)

[yesdachi]

Well, this is the key to the whole discussion. What should the law allow ?? ~;)
Good point.~:) Perhaps the special interest groups and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should operate within the system and push to have the obscenity laws reformed or clarified if “local community standards” are too vague for them.

Aside from pressure from special interest groups (no one is going to run for re-election with “I stopped people from having sex with animals” on their ticket~D ) there is really no reason to form a task force and go after someone for doing something that may or may not be illegal and that mainstream America probably doesn’t even know exists except from what they have seen on Law and Order: SVU. I say, Make it illegal then go after them, or, if they cant make it illegal leave them alone to ____ allover each other and upload it to as many adult websites as they wish. Or perhaps it would be too difficult to make it illegal (IMO it would thanks to the First Amendment) so they choose to circumnavigate the law, pound their chests, wave a banner and create a hollow war against porn hoping that all the noise will scare some of the deviants into hiding and fill their pockets with money from special interest groups.:bow:

[Lazul]

Coming from a Swede? ~:rolleyes:

are you suggesting swedes f**k animals?....

... dont make me generalise on north-american habbits. :boxing:

[ShadesPanther]

are you suggesting swedes f**k animals?....

... dont make me generalise on north-american habbits. :boxing:

Yeah, We know what really happened to the Buffalo

[Kanamori]

Good point. ~:)Perhaps the special interest groups and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should operate within the system and push to have the obscenity laws reformed or clarified if “local community standards” are too vague for them.

Aside from pressure from special interest groups (no one is going to run for re-election with “I stopped people from having sex with animals” on their ticket~D ) there is really no reason to form a task force and go after someone for doing something that may or may not be illegal and that mainstream America probably doesn’t even know exists except from what they have seen on Law and Order: SVU. I say, Make it illegal then go after them, or, if they cant make it illegal leave them alone to ____ allover each other and upload it to as many adult websites as they wish. Or perhaps it would be too difficult to make it illegal (IMO it would thanks to the First Amendment) so they choose to circumnavigate the law, pound their chests, wave a banner and create a hollow war against porn hoping that all the noise will scare some of the deviants into hiding and fill their pockets with money from special interest groups.:bow:

There are federal laws regulating distribution and transportation, many states also have obscenity laws outright banning it. Right now, it is perfectly legal to ban obscenity, and that's what I was ranting about, because it is quite unconstitutional and a case in point of conservatives reading into the constitution for their own ends. Federal obscenity prosecution never happened in the Clinton era, because Reno suggested that they had limited funds and that they should not throw money at it when they should be prosecuting murder cases and what not.

[Byzantine Prince]

are you suggesting swedes f**k animals?....

... dont make me generalise on north-american habbits. :boxing:
No, I'm saying you make the most animal porn out of any country, and may I add, the best. ~D

[Lazul]

No, I'm saying you make the most animal porn out of any country, and may I add, the best. ~D

.... ok.... :gah:

[Mongoose]

That's exactly what I meant. If you keep money outside the function, does your opinion changes....
I'm truly amazed on this effect of long aged capitalism in a big economy, it can do amazing things on the ideology and ideocincracies of the people who habitate them. You never, repeat, NEVER can reduce justice to economy, it's a part, but it's not a big part nor the only one.

hmm...I think i agree with soulforged here. How ever, money and time need to play some role in justice in our inperfect world. There are only so many dollars and hours, is there a better way to spend them?

honestly, i don't really care if they ban it. it's, IMHO, disgusting.

[Soulforged]

hmm...I think i agree with soulforged here. How ever, money and time need to play some role in justice in our inperfect world. There are only so many dollars and hours, is there a better way to spend them?I didn't said it plays no part, but it's not reduced to it. Being a materialist money plays a big part in my life, but I try not to reduce justice to that, like some very wise man did with his teory (Marx), and some other liberal scum~;) .


honestly, i don't really care if they ban it. it's, IMHO, disgusting.You should care. Let the government ban it, and they will take it like a yes to the social contract. In a few months from there you'll see another of your freedoms banned. Wasn't the government up there trying to ban smoking? Or that's what I heard...
In this imperfect society we live (~:confused: ) we should always protest when the society gets slapped by the state.

[Major Robert Dump]

Funny thing about obscenity "convictions" is they are often the convenience store clerk who was selling the magazine who also had no idea that said magazine showed penetration/defecation/pee pee/sado or whatever because the magazine was wrapped in plastic and the clerk was just selling what his store stocked.. Way to go, guys, you're really tackling the problem that way.

[bmolsson]

are you suggesting swedes f**k animals?....

... dont make me generalise on north-american habbits. :boxing:

It happens. I had a girlfriend from Hollywood once and she was an ANIMAL in bed..... ~:cheers:

[Mongoose]

I didn't said it plays no part, but it's not reduced to it. Being a materialist money plays a big part in my life, but I try not to reduce justice to that, like some very wise man did with his teory (Marx), and some other liberal scum~;) .

You should care. Let the government ban it, and they will take it like a yes to the social contract. In a few months from there you'll see another of your freedoms banned. Wasn't the government up there trying to ban smoking? Or that's what I heard...
In this imperfect society we live (~:confused: ) we should always protest when the society gets slapped by the state.


Well, thats a good point. What i said in that last comment wasn't a really intended as part of the thread, just saying that i wouldn't really care. Probably shouldn't have posted that...


And i also agree that the government needs to stop expanding. If it isn't a major risk to the public, then leave it alone. just because you dislike something personally doesn't mean it should be banned.

I wonder why the go after this and smoking but not alchoal? Answer:Even though it is a larger health risk, it is too well liked to be removed.

[GoreBag]

I wonder why the go after this and smoking but not alchoal? Answer:Even though it is a larger health risk, it is too well liked to be removed.

Or because the government makes too much from its sale. The same issue comes with cigarettes up here. There are anti-smoking ads everywhere: the TV, the radio, the bus, billboards; and the cost of cigarettes has been climbing steadily for years.

[Soulforged]

I wonder why the go after this and smoking but not alchoal? Answer:Even though it is a larger health risk, it is too well liked to be removed.
Well I second Neongod, telling you that your country already tried it my friend. Remember the "Untouchables", and their righteous campaing in the midst of blindess provoked by some moralist or either convenient state.
I should say that they may try, but the reality punches on your face more often that you might want. Don't worry with all the smokers in your country and with all the guarantees you've that will hopefully never happen.

[bmolsson]

So if we tax drugs high enough, they could be legalized ?? :huh:

[Mongoose]

Or because the government makes too much from its sale. The same issue comes with cigarettes up here. There are anti-smoking ads everywhere: the TV, the radio, the bus, billboards; and the cost of cigarettes has been climbing steadily for years.


LOL! what i find ironic is that the government runs constant add campaigns saying things like "Big cigarette comapines make billions of of the suffering of others", while the government takes more then half of the "suffering money"....



Well I second Neongod, telling you that your country already tried it my friend. Remember the "Untouchables", and their righteous campaing in the midst of blindess provoked by some moralist or either convenient state.
I should say that they may try, but the reality punches on your face more often that you might want. Don't worry with all the smokers in your country and with all the guarantees you've that will hopefully never happen.


Maybe in the U.S, but the U.K is further down that road then you might think.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56232


My insane theory is that the government will continue to tax the cigarette campiness until the taxes reach 100%, at which point they just take over. and then the adds will have to stop because they will be too ironic~;p



So if we tax drugs high enough, they could be legalized ??

Depends. If the government STOPED trying to explain why the were evil, and STARTED running add campaings to encourage it, then it just might work... assuming there was also a brisk tax increase.

[GoreBag]

So if we tax drugs high enough, they could be legalized ?? :huh:

Yep. Some people think we might as well sell pot in speciality stores and let the government take the tax money from it. The price should stay the same (your typical volume discount might not survive the transition, though) and we'd get a nice little boost to our economy instead of paying the lowlifes (generalisation) who make their money with it on the black market.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

ok, wetsex or what ever, thats just weird, so is humping animals (wich is sick).
S&M on the other hand, I cant see how its a problem... I mean if some people want to tie each other up and well, punish each other for varius reasons... I dont see how that hurts anyone, if they are all in on it.


The funny thing is, S&M is illegal in Massachusetts...not just the porn, actually participating in it. While scat and watersports are not, as far as I know.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

surely noone of a healthy mind would want to watch all this animal sex and s&m stuff, it makes you wonder about the sort of people interested in these things, it seems to me that it controls people by seperateing them from everyone else and distorting their view on the world.
If you think that s&m porn is worth defending, i defy you to come up with one real benifit it provides to anyone.
personnally i think that it is a step to far.

[Soulforged]

If you think that s&m porn is worth defending, i defy you to come up with one real benifit it provides to anyone.
personnally i think that it is a step to far.Sorry but I never understand this way of thinking...Could it be the benefit of the doubt? Or could it be the benefit of the choice? The premise is (for 10000th time) you can do with your body what you want. You can do also other things outside yourself as long as they don't damage other people's rights. Is that simple enough to understand?

[Kanamori]

Sorry but I never understand this way of thinking...Could it be the benefit of the doubt? Or could it be the benefit of the choice? The premise is (for 10000th time) you can do with your body what you want. You can do also other things outside yourself as long as they don't damage other people's rights.

The feminist critique of pornography is that certain forms of porn are harmful to women, viz. that some types are subordination or discrimination. Since it is a harm to the woman in the acting, it furthers that harm when the videos are distributed. MacKinnon details this line of reasoning better than I can, mainly because I don't agree w/ it or care to summarize her book well enough to do it justice. But it is an interesting view point, and once you get past the strong, and even vulgar, language, Only Words is an engaging read. I recommend it to you. Central to her argument are a few cases, one of which is Ferber (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=New%20York%20v.%20Ferber&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html), which is another interesting read anyways.

[Soulforged]

The feminist critique of pornography is that certain forms of porn are harmful to women, viz. that some types are subordination or discrimination. Since it is a harm to the woman in the acting, it furthers that harm when the videos are distributed. MacKinnon details this line of reasoning better than I can, mainly because I don't agree w/ it or care to summarize her book well enough to do it justice. But it is an interesting view point, and once you get past the strong, and even vulgar, language, Only Words is an engaging read. I recommend it to you. Central to her argument are a few cases, one of which is Ferber (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=New%20York%20v.%20Ferber&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html), which is another interesting read anyways.
Yes I know that possition. However if we're to ban everything because it offends the moral of certain people then we will turn the state, in a vigilant and moralist state. That's not possible, and I certainly don't want that. Besides if other woman live by using their bodies like that then a part of them disagree with this MacKinnon, and I think it's the greater part. Remember that the tired and obsolete moral argument is the same string pushed by the ones that try to ban drugs, it's proper of a facist state.

Readed the sentence (if it was a sentence at all, because I don't know how sentences are written over there), I concurred there with most of it, I disagreed with the opinion that this is outside the protection of free speech (ie 1st amendment), but then again I know little about USA constitutional law, so maybe I'm misinterpreting it in some way. I think that this is a rule only valid to minority, not to adults. The critical difference is the presumption of responsability between the subjects, and I think is the best possible argument to protect the minor's integrity.

[Kanamori]

However if we're to ban everything because it offends the moral of certain people then we will turn the state, in a vigilant and moralist state.

Yet to not reflect the morality of the people, when they want such legislation passed, within Constitutional limits, is to be an autocratic state.

[bmolsson]

So if we catch a woman in a sexy underwear, should she be prosecuted for use or possession ??? ~D

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Sorry but I never understand this way of thinking...Could it be the benefit of the doubt? Or could it be the benefit of the choice? The premise is (for 10000th time) you can do with your body what you want. You can do also other things outside yourself as long as they don't damage other people's rights. Is that simple enough to understand?
It is not as black and white as you portray it, everything that you do affects people around you, no man is an island.
You can't pretend that the choices that we make and the actions that we take do not affect everyone else. You could say that it is autocratic to force the magority to live with the results of s&m porn. I am not trying to argue for setting up an autocratic state or even banning porn, I am merely saying that s&m porn serves no function, helps no one and is forced on the rest of us by a minority.

[Soulforged]

Yet to not reflect the morality of the people, when they want such legislation passed, within Constitutional limits, is to be an autocratic state.Fair enough. But remember this to me when it happens so I flee the country wich allowed it. I'll not live in a country wich limits freedom based on marality.

It is not as black and white as you portray it, everything that you do affects people around you, no man is an island. No it isn't...
You can't pretend that the choices that we make and the actions that we take do not affect everyone else. You could say that it is autocratic to force the magority to live with the results of s&m porn. I am not trying to argue for setting up an autocratic state or even banning porn, I am merely saying that s&m porn serves no function, helps no one and is forced on the rest of us by a minority.And you can't pretend that everything we allow has a benefit. You've to use the contrary formula: "Everything that we forbid causes a damage". Forced to you? I've flash for you, until now I've not seen a single publicity or a crazy evangelist, trying to put some porn in our lives, at least here. Besides you're forgetting this is a matter of choice, is not a desease, you can choose to do it or not to. Even if all you were saying until now was correct, because it isn't, how is that you know that it's the majority that is against s&m porn (because it seems that you're against tha specific only). You should read some interesting works that treat this subject, the happiness of the people habiting a country. Plato tried to ban certain types of songs because he only wanted the ones that appealed to his moral, apart from marality being a subjective conception that cannot be translated to universal rules. The institutions should look after our freedom, not after our happiness, first because it's impossible, and second because everyone has a different idea of what happiness is.

[Hurin_Rules]

This is a real shame.

I recently met Midori, and she's a blast: intelligent, articulate--and of course very hot. I hate to think she might be subject to prosecution for teaching people how to have better sex.

The government should really get a life.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Soulforged]how is that you know that it's the majority that is against s&m porn QUOTE]
because it is contrary to the teachings of all the worlds main religions and there are at least 1 billion muslims and 1.9 billion christians in the world.

[QUOTE=Soulforged]I'll not live in a country wich limits freedom based on marality.
QUOTE]
no one is compleately free, if you take away rules and regulations, than people create them. throughtout human history we have had laws and rules. even when we were just hunter gatherers. many of these morals are laid down in our genome, we obay them without even realise we are doing so.

[QUOTE=Soulforged]Plato tried to ban certain types of songs because he only wanted the ones that appealed to his moral
QUOTE]
Im not talking about outlawing music, as i said in my last post im not talkign about setting up some sort of autocratic society

[QUOTE=Soulforged] "Everything that we forbid causes a damage" QUOTE] this is not true, murder is forbidden but by allowing it you surely cause a damage

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]because it is contrary to the teachings of all the worlds main religions and there are at least 1 billion muslims and 1.9 billion christians in the world.Wrong again trying to reduce all to objectivity, when moral rules are by nature subjective. I'm chrisitian by statistic, however I'm atheist, so the statistic doesn't proove anything. Also many people of those religions don't give a damn about porn.

no one is compleately free, if you take away rules and regulations, than people create them. throughtout human history we have had laws and rules. even when we were just hunter gatherers. many of these morals are laid down in our genome, we obay them without even realise we are doing so.All the laws you've today are product of fiction, none of them are natual laws, except perhaps for the one that forbids homicide. Now about the freedom, I agree we've not sufficient freedom, it should be total, but it's another thing to use this kind of reasoning and go further and ban everything that offends your moral or the other's moral.

Im not talking about outlawing music, as i said in my last post im not talkign about setting up some sort of autocratic society I know, but you still don't get that the state is not there to provide for your happiness (even if the state-man not always comprehend it), it's there to give you autonomy. The best way to do that is to disappear, but as long as I live under it's judgement I'll not let the morals to be impossed over me.

this is not true, murder is forbidden but by allowing it you surely cause a damageYou misunderstood me. I wanted to say it like this (forgive my english): "If we forbid anything, is because it causes a damage".

[Byzantine Mercenary]

"If we forbid anything, is because it causes a damage".
If you mean that we should only forbid that which causes damage then i agree with you.


Also many people of those religions don't give a damn about porn.

I can't speak for muslims but the bible forbids fornication which is involved in most porn, of course im not trying to ban fornication i just think that many areas of porn may incurage behaveure which could lead to crime


I agree we've not sufficient freedom, it should be total,
you can't have total freedom there would be anarchy, of course we need freedom of speech, to go where you wan't etc. but total freedom would involve freedom to steal etc. which would damage society.

are you free to be the president of the US if you want?

[bmolsson]

I can't speak for muslims but the bible forbids fornication which is involved in most porn, of course im not trying to ban fornication i just think that many areas of porn may incurage behaveure which could lead to crime


Neither Islam nor Christianity bans fornification. As long as the participants are married that is...... ~;)

[Soulforged]

If you mean that we should only forbid that which causes damage then i agree with you.It doesn't seem like, seeing at your last sentence, or you don't understand what this means, or you don't really agree with it.
I
can't speak for muslims but the bible forbids fornication which is involved in most porn, of course im not trying to ban fornication i just think that many areas of porn may incurage behaveure which could lead to crimeFriend you've an overly moralist vision of what the world is or should be. Over morality, is in fact against one of the most solid principles of morality, freedom. But again I wasn't talking about the Bible, wich has express intructions for immorality (yes for immorality), I was talking about how many people react towards nature, i.e. sexuality, some are totally absurd.

you can't have total freedom there would be anarchy, of course we need freedom of speech, to go where you wan't etc. but total freedom would involve freedom to steal etc. which would damage society.Sorry did I understand it well? Freedom of speech leads to anarchy, it will be good, but even then, what are you talking about? If I say something is just an "idea in the wind", how is that this leads to anarchy? Freedom of speech to go where you want? Shouldn't it be to say what you want? What you're talking about is physic freedom, that's another subject. Total freedom is never possible unless you destroy the state, wich will be a disarable thing to do, but meanwhile, no it has nothing to do. That's what I say that you don't understand the sentence. If stealing causes a damage, always a damage to the other, the proxime (because a social considerable damage caused to the self is a logical imposibility), then it should be banned.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Soulforged]It doesn't seem like, seeing at your last sentence, or you don't understand what this means, or you don't really agree with it[QUOTE]

No i just have a different understanding of damage

I must appologive if i am wrong but i was led to believe that fornication means sex before marriage rather than sex, because i belive that the bible expressly bans fornication

[QUOTE=Soulforged]wich has express intructions for immorality (yes for immorality[QUOTE]

where?

I believe that you have to much faith in mankinds ability to act in a fair and balanced manner in the absence of rules

[AntiochusIII]

I believe that you have to much faith in mankinds ability to act in a fair and balanced manner in the absence of rules [--and other quotes...]Hobbes? ~;) Soulforged is an idealistic anarchist, and I'd welcome a debate with him about this idealism, but that's not what the thread is for...

Humans are not perfect, you say, and I absolutely agree. Jefferson's own idealism is flawed mainly because of that. Not everybody, in fact, no one, wants to be a virtuous yeoman farmer whether or not he can watch porn.

Yet, who should be the Leviathan to tell us what the rules are? Not you; I don't think so.

Not me either.

No man is perfect, you say, therefore, no morality is perfect. Morality is man's work. Man's rule. Man's invention.

I look at those "Holinesses" objectively, and apologize if it offends your faith.

So, which morality are you talking about? What rules? The one that says we can't carry skunks from states to states? Or the Bible? Or its contemporaries, like the Torah, the Qur'an, even the Book of the Dead? Which one is right, if there is one? The main religions...ha! They become mainsteam unto this day only because they're ruthless (in terms of political power game, not rituals) enough to survive. Why is paganism virtually extinct anywhere the Big Three visited in the past? Many pagan religions have their own morality, you know.

Only perfection is absolute, and the dispute over the existence of perfection is never concluded. Therefore, advocating an established rule by a society as absolute (-ly right) is folly.

You argue about genes. Yes, we have genes. Yes, we are the same species. Yes, our instincts are similar. But everyone of us is a different thing to another. Humans, as incredibly similar as we could be, are never utterly alike. Never absolute.

I cannot speak for him, but I believe Soulforge's ideal of "total freedom" excludes freedom to obstruct others' freedom of themselves. Absolute equality, you might say. (And remember, I do not agree with that absolutely. ~;) )

What is the difference between (consented--not rape. Rape is a breach of freedom, rights, life, liberty, and property) porn and music? Why would one be banned over the other? Why would any be banned at all?

And I hate Plato. ~D

Also the old argument of billions of the faithful. I remember an essay by the guy who wrote Lord of the Flies implying that he met that argument when he was young. He simply stated the contradictions of numbers. With all those billions contradicting each other, who is right? In fact, I'd go farther and say, in agreement with many, many philosophers, that the masses are...pardon me for the apparent offense, fools.

Why is porn "bad?" Why must it be banned? Who has the legitimacy to ban it, if it must?

Who can answer all those questions?

This is a totally abstract argument, and I'd offer more realistic arguments from another point of view if you wish.

:bow:

[Soulforged]

No i just have a different understanding of damageSuit yourself.

where?I don't remember the exact place, because it's a big book you know, I'm sure you'll understand. But for example if you look at it carefully you'll see that it sais that it's good to sell your daughter to slavery to save your life or for food, of course this is from another time, but interpretations doesn't excuse things like that.

I believe that you have to much faith in mankinds ability to act in a fair and balanced manner in the absence of rules.If you read the work of Bakunin called "System of anarchism" you'll see that he has one or two things to say about that. I'll not discuss it because it's out of topic.

Hobbes? Soulforged is an idealistic anarchist, and I'd welcome a debate with him about this idealism, but that's not what the thread is for...Definetely Hobbes. But you're acussing me of something that cannot be in my ideology, of course is human nature to be idealistic sometimes, but an anarchist must surf on the matter...You can discuss this at any time if you want.~;)
For the rest a good explanation, but obiter dicta if I may add ~D . The rule of the so called moralists and the rule of the "celestial sword" is over I hope.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Of course humans come up woth imperfect rules, its an imperfect world.

Like i have said many times before i am not against porn per se, People should be free to decide for themselves, however s&m can lead people to more violent behaivure and has been implicated in some of the worst crimes of recent times.
Take as an example the death of Emily Longhurst, her killer had been a regular visitor to these sorts of websites and then went on to kill her in a similar way.
If it costs one life it is not worth it, escpecially if it offers nothing to society in return (ive still not heard any real arguments for its benifit).

As a christian saint once said Love is the only rule that is actually needed. If you do every action in your life with the aim of doing the most loving thing for everyone then the world would be a much better place.

This is not a rule that the pagans came up with (perhaps this is why their social models failed, because many of them were very aggresive about their faith - read about the Sassanid Empire's persecution of the christians if you don't believe me), I belive that that rule came from god but even if it did not it solves most moral questions expediently.

When i say that humans can't behave in a fair and balanced manner without rules i am not argueing like Thomas Hobbes for an authoritarian state, there are rules in even the most supposedly 'tribal' of communitys, indeed there are rules in every community. Are there not rules in even this online community?

[bmolsson]

Why is porn "bad?" Why must it be banned? Who has the legitimacy to ban it, if it must?



The questions of life has now been asked. ~;)

[Muska Burnt]

im not going to read this topic because im 14 so i protest the war on porn you know why?

one hint

multiply browsers

[KafirChobee]

"I guess this means we won the war on terror. We must noy need any more resources for espionage." An unnamed FBI agent, on the burea's diverting eight of its members to a new anti-obscenity squad that will investigate pornographers. A memo described the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (or Gonzo as Bushy calls him). [as reported in Newsweek, Oct. 03, 2005]

Amazing. Nixon ran his witch hunt in the early 70's, accumulating tons of porn to investigate (including the KamaSutra) anf coming to the conclusion that Christians ought to avoid it. The results of his admin's "war on porn" were varied, but for the most part most state porn laws were discovered to be unconstitutional and tossed out. So, the law makers made stuff up like a porn store not being within 4 blocks of a school or church - which sorta worked in some areas, but porn stores simply moved to the outskirts of towns where the density of churches and schools had no effect. Another affect was that hardcore porn became legal. [BTW, did you know that Salt Lake sells more porn than NY City - per capita]

It's the same old thing for the Republicans, just another day and another way to regain their faithful bases baseless support, and divert their attention from real problems that face us. Who'ld a guessed it.

I guess we really did win the war on terrorism, since we can divert manpower and resources away from non-existing threats - like fanatics wanting to kill as many Americans as possible. Wonder why the Bushys forgot to tell us?

[Soulforged]

"I guess this means we won the war on terror. We must noy need any more resources for espionage." An unnamed FBI agent, on the burea's diverting eight of its members to a new anti-obscenity squad that will investigate pornographers. A memo described the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (or Gonzo as Bushy calls him). [as reported in Newsweek, Oct. 03, 2005]Wait, wait, wait...Gonzo is like a porn category isn't it, what's that some kind of sarcasm.~D

It's the same old thing for the Republicans, just another day and another way to regain their faithful bases baseless support, and divert their attention from real problems that face us. Who'ld a guessed it.In the world that I know that story repeats itself over and over too.