Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 7:06 AM
26 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 304 (219964)
06-27-2005 8:29 AM


For those not in the know, the Bush administration has been gunning for the adult porn industry from before 911. That was originally going to be part of his package to the ultraright, and was to be announced on 916... 911 gave him something else to work on instead. He has slowly built his war machine back up to full speed and he just got a new weapon which will be devastating.

Both parties have been guilty of conceding Free Speech to the rightwing. Under the motto of "protecting the children" adult content, and anyone making it, has been strapped with bizarre and pointless recordkeeping legislation. Well not totally pointless, it is designed to prevent people from communicating sexually by harassing them even when there is absolutely no chance of children being affected.

USC 2257 was the first law regarding recordkeeping. Last year they added more, and it was just made active a day or so ago. Right now the ONLY people protected against it are those who are members of the Free Speech coalition, and that until a decision is rendered by the court.

The effect of both 2257 and the new legislation is to make it near impossible for independent people to make their own websites, leaving only corporate porn. And of those that can remain the amount of information required is excessive and likely to deter people from participating in or making sexually graphic content. That is not to mention scaring producers away (both corporate and other) for the mere chance that a simple recordkeeping error will land them in jail for years.

Remember this is NOT about protecting anyone, it is about sentencing people to jail for years for minor recordkeeping errors, if they decide to communicate in sexually graphic ways.

Already sites are closing in the US, most likely never to be seen again... except possibly in Europe. Others are trying to make a stand so this is the moment to take your stand. If you have any interest in free sexual communication in the US, besides corporate porn heavily harassed by FBI to get them to close, you have to do something NOW.

Here is a link to a detailed explanation of what the legislation and what has been happening.. and another, and another.

Here is a link to what is going on right this minute.

Please do read the above information so that you are informed on the subject, then use the following link to send a message to your congressmen to get them active on preventing this from moving forward.

This link is to an online congressional directory

Those that don't like sexual content have already contacted their reps and are set to win a pretty big victory over free spreech. This will not be able to be taken back quickly once it is in motion.

In keeping with the spirit of EvC, anyone who thinks these regulations are useful or necessary, or that sexual content should be purged using such backdoor methods are free to respond with their arguments.

AbE: I forgot to mention labelling issues. You may also be thrown in jail for years for not having the correct font size for 2257 labels which will now have to be near dominant on anything with sexual content.

For example something like Last Tango in Paris, or Realm of the Senses (two award winning movies with sexually graphic material) would have to have the 2257 notice on all materials be as large as whatever the second largest font size is. Thus the subtitle or the actors names, or producers. If not... years in jail.

Also the labelling must include the actual physical address of the company or individuals making the sexual content. This has already been a contentious issue as for independents this means letting everyone in the world know in LARGE PRINT your real name and home address. The argument is that despite KNOWING this puts people's lives in danger, or livelihoods for those that are doing this on the side, the FBI and Attorney General say that risk is necessary to "save children".

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-27-2005 08:45 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 10:03 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 3:20 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 42 by Dead Parrot, posted 06-27-2005 6:00 PM Silent H has responded

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 2 of 304 (219983)
06-27-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
06-27-2005 8:29 AM


Represent, represent!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 8:29 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 10:28 AM dsv has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 304 (219986)
06-27-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by dsv
06-27-2005 10:03 AM


Remember that this administration is supposed to be about FREEDOM! Oh yeah, but happens to favor the Taliban-style treatment for sexual expression.

Honestly, when asked about danger posed to people like those girls who do webcam broadcasts from their home and are forced by law to tell potential attackers the exact address (including apartment number), and FBI agent told my lawyer in a disgusted tone:

"Who cares about them?"

Nice to have the FBI on the side of the people.

Its especially ridiculous given the amount of concern regarding identity theft these days. Anyone producing sexual material must reveal enough info for someone to steal their credit identity to the entire world. But I guess all those in sexually explicit media deserve to have their money stolen... not to mention shot dead by religious fanatics.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 10:03 AM dsv has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 06-27-2005 3:15 PM Silent H has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 304 (220101)
06-27-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
06-27-2005 10:28 AM


The problem I'm having with this issue is that the theme of much heterosexual pornography is the degradation of women, which I think very unhealthy, and I wouldn't mind if there was less of it.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-27-2005 02:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 10:28 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2005 3:26 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 7 by CK, posted 06-27-2005 3:29 PM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 4:36 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 304 (220103)
06-27-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
06-27-2005 8:29 AM


Just another case of the noble concept of American freedom being co-opted to an ignoble cause. We're awash in these since the sixties. Wish the Founders would come back and tell you guys a thing or two.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 8:29 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 06-27-2005 3:58 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 14 by mikehager, posted 06-27-2005 4:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 26 by dsv, posted 06-27-2005 4:41 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 4:41 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2005 5:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 6 of 304 (220108)
06-27-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
06-27-2005 3:15 PM


Well, I wouldn't mind it if there was a lot less fundamentalist Christianity around. Since you are concerned with the degradation of women, I suspect that you agree with me here.

However, I hope you also agree with me that placing legal limits on religious freedom would be an abhorrent way to accomplish this.

Even imposing bureaucratic paperwork requirements on certain religious sects would be seen as an odious sneak attack on religious freedom, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 06-27-2005 3:15 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 06-27-2005 3:31 PM Chiroptera has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2301 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 304 (220109)
06-27-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
06-27-2005 3:15 PM


But that's a matter of specific content aimed at a specific (and significant) part of the market.

I'm not keen on degradation either but I'm not sure how it impacts on the basic issue of freedom under discussion here. This bill impacts two elderly homosexual gentlemen who like to urinate on each other* (and their audience) as it does anyone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 06-27-2005 3:15 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 304 (220112)
06-27-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
06-27-2005 3:26 PM


I guess what bothers me is a notion I have that some of this participation by women in this stuff may not be all that "voluntary."

I read this book by Linda Lovelace one time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2005 3:26 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2005 3:34 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 304 (220113)
06-27-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
06-27-2005 3:31 PM


I think that you must be responding to the wrong person. This message certainly has no relevance to my post.

Edited to fix a typo.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Jun-2005 07:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 06-27-2005 3:31 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3850 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 10 of 304 (220118)
06-27-2005 3:55 PM


"The whole family just panicked on me. I worked pretty quick," he said. "I strangled Mrs. Otero. She passed out. I thought she was dead. I strangled Josephine. She passed out. I thought she was dead. Then I went over and put a bag on Junior's head."

He later said about Mrs. Otero: "I went back and strangled her again."

When questioned by the judge about the motivation for the Otero slayings, Rader said: "That was part of what you call my fantasy."

Pressed further, Rader said, "Sexual fantasy, sir."

Rader has not been accused of sexually assaulting his victims, but he admitted masturbating over some of them.

...He said he told Nancy Fox he had "sexual problems," forced her to strip, then handcuffed her and strangled her with a belt. After she was dead, he said, he removed the handcuffs from her body and masturbated over her.

BTK Killer

"My experience with pornography ... is once you become addicted to it, (and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of addiction), I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it."

Ted Bundy

What do we need to protect our kids from?

This message has been edited by Tal, 06-27-2005 04:01 PM


"Some say freedom is free...but I beg to disagree. Some say freedom is won, through the barrel of a gun..."
-Army Cadence

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr

www.1st-vets.us


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2005 4:05 PM Tal has responded
 Message 13 by CK, posted 06-27-2005 4:07 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 06-27-2005 4:17 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 20 by mikehager, posted 06-27-2005 4:22 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2005 4:45 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 06-28-2005 7:10 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Taqless, posted 06-28-2005 11:35 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2301 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 304 (220119)
06-27-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
06-27-2005 3:20 PM


That's a bit of a myth - hardcore pornography has been available for 100s of years and the in regards to the movie industry - silent porns were a big business.

Things did happen before the 1960s - we are just more media aware now and the technology now allows the consumer far great control over their viewing pleasure.

Frankly, from a technology point of view, pornography is very interesting stuff - it has driven many of the innovations that we take for granted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 3:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 12 of 304 (220121)
06-27-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tal
06-27-2005 3:55 PM


quote:
What do we need to protect our kids from?

From simple-minded ideologues who draw unsubstantiated connections in order to legislate an enforced code of morality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tal, posted 06-27-2005 3:55 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 06-27-2005 4:14 PM Chiroptera has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2301 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 13 of 304 (220124)
06-27-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tal
06-27-2005 3:55 PM


The first - I don't see the connection and as for the second ? so what?

quote:
People who have studied the case are aware that Ryan was obsessed with commando figures, war games, and the fantasy ideas from action films involving military heroes. He may have viewed himself as someone who could escape into a wilderness and survive off the land, as absurd as that idea actually was there in the small country of England.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/michael_ryan/11.html?sect=8


So you want to ban guns as well - because people become obsessed with them?

One of my neighbours was a man obsessed with women's underwear and used to steal them off washing lines in every increasing numbers. I guess you want outlaw panties as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tal, posted 06-27-2005 3:55 PM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2005 4:12 PM CK has not yet responded

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 14 of 304 (220125)
06-27-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
06-27-2005 3:20 PM


Here we go again.
Faith, it seems your position is that protecting the freedom of expression of people who make pornography is a bad thing. If I am wrong, disregard the rest of this message. If I am right, please continue.

What you are failing to understand is that your opinion or your religion's opinion of the content of speech is absolutely unimportant. People get to say what they like and the government doesn't get to stop them and you damn sure don't, both with good reason.

The very concept that makes American freedom noble is that it is for everyone, including pervy types who like watching extremely dirty movies. The thing that is wonderful about the bill of rights is that it doesn't (or shouldn't in it's original intent) just protect the popular thing.

You say that freedom of speech for those who are saying things or showing things that you don't like is ignoble? I say that one of the most ignoble acts an American can engage in is trying to limit the freedom of their countrymen because they don't like the way those freedoms are being used.

If negative effects of pornography made by adults for adults could be demonstrated, then it would be a different story. No such negative effects have ever been shown to the best of my knowledge, and if you think there are such effects, I invite you to start a thread and provide evidence.

In closing, I find it ironic that you would invoke the founding fathers in support of violating the right of free expression. I am nearly certain that, should they suddenly show up in the here and now, they would have much bigger concerns that some pictures of naked people, such as the violations of personal liberty engaged in by conservatives and driven by the religious right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 3:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 06-27-2005 4:17 PM mikehager has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 304 (220126)
06-27-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by CK
06-27-2005 4:07 PM


No, I think that Tal is saying that we should outlaw war movies. Or at least the ones that show soldiers as heros. Or we should at least restrict their viewing to adults, and require zoning laws that restrict their sales to certain neighborhoods. And maybe impose some sort of bureaucratic record-keeping nonsense so the FBI may crack down of distributers for minor, red tape violations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 06-27-2005 4:07 PM CK has not yet responded

1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019