huge_cock_have_pic: Isn't the fact general members are not allowed in the Moderator's lounge, censorship?
mindseye: This from an alleged lawyer? Please.
The general public also doesn't have access to your private inbox. The fact that some topics are made private on this board doesn't restrict members from discussing what they want in public.
The general public also doesn't have access to your private inbox. The fact that some topics are made private on this board doesn't restrict members from discussing what they want in public.
huge_cock_have_pic: The central issue in the discussion of censorship is the free exchange of ideas. What has been missing from this whole uproar is imput from Mark. Apparently, he has posted in the Moderator's forum. An open discussion demands that his views concerning this issue and others be presented, not thru others but in his own words. If he wants those thoughts and ideas to remain private, email is a great method of doing that.
mindseye: Perhaps Mark doesn't see censorship as the central issue, as you do. I'd wager money that he sees the central issue as a small cadre of malcontents trying to dictate to him the policy of his own site, and that he's giving them precisely the quantity of attention they deserve.
huge_cock_have_pic: Don't know what Mark thinks, he won't say it himself. But what Mark should also consider is that he owes the members of his site a duty to protect their interests as much as his interest in free speech.
The types of stories at issues are banned throughout the internet because they are types of stories that will damage the interests of site members and the site. The thought of rape, having sex with a child, bestiality, necrophelia--they have no place in society.
If Mark wants to debate that, he should. But to ignore it and go along as none of this is an issue is wrong on his part
The types of stories at issues are banned throughout the internet because they are types of stories that will damage the interests of site members and the site. The thought of rape, having sex with a child, bestiality, necrophelia--they have no place in society.
If Mark wants to debate that, he should. But to ignore it and go along as none of this is an issue is wrong on his part
huge_cock_have_pic: If this were Mark posting and no one else involved, more power to him. But his interest in free speech carries with it the interests of the 3200 some odd people, and more appropriately the whatever number of active members of this site.
Huge_cock_have_pic, the right to free speech is also the right not to speak.
I would suggest to you that if you desire a place to discuss this type of thing in all its aspects that you form your own board where you can set the rules of participation.
Otherwise you have two options:
1. Shutup and leave.
2. Shutup and stay.
Pecker
Spreading joy and goodwill, while annoying the grumpy.
I would suggest to you that if you desire a place to discuss this type of thing in all its aspects that you form your own board where you can set the rules of participation.
Otherwise you have two options:
1. Shutup and leave.
2. Shutup and stay.
Pecker
Spreading joy and goodwill, while annoying the grumpy.
huge_cock_have_pic: Pecker,
These are issues that need to be talked about, like it or not. You can't go blindly down the road of "freedom of speech" without being warned of the consequences.
These are issues that have not been brought up. Instead red herrings like humongous and harassing ims have been presented as though they are the real topic.
Speaking for myself, that is a lie. The issue is there are lines that should be drawn for legal reasons, moral reasons, and in the interests of the members of this site.
These are issues that need to be talked about, like it or not. You can't go blindly down the road of "freedom of speech" without being warned of the consequences.
These are issues that have not been brought up. Instead red herrings like humongous and harassing ims have been presented as though they are the real topic.
Speaking for myself, that is a lie. The issue is there are lines that should be drawn for legal reasons, moral reasons, and in the interests of the members of this site.
My very point, huge_cock, is that if you are uncomfortable with your surroundings, you leave.
You can't very well be caught by the cops in a bank being robbed after hours and successfully have your lawyer defend you on the basis that you were unhappy with the thieves' naughty language.
Your only recourse, if you aren't satisfied with the board's policies (and the fact that you obviously cannot change them), is to distance yourself from it, as others have done.
You can't very well be caught by the cops in a bank being robbed after hours and successfully have your lawyer defend you on the basis that you were unhappy with the thieves' naughty language.
Your only recourse, if you aren't satisfied with the board's policies (and the fact that you obviously cannot change them), is to distance yourself from it, as others have done.
drrionelli: Hey, folks, let's not get invidious, here.
I understand huge_cock's take, but I don't see it as he does. Rather, I look at it this way:
Consider that we are allowed to enter a restaurant, a car dealership, a department store or any of a number of places which have areas to us which are off-limits. Surely, the a public parade through the kitchens or the executive offices of such places would be disruptive, if not counterproductive to operations.
Why, then, should it be different for "establishments" online? Of course, my personal and professional expertise lies not in legal matters, so if, indeed, I'm missing something, please make clear to me my error(s).
I understand huge_cock's take, but I don't see it as he does. Rather, I look at it this way:
Consider that we are allowed to enter a restaurant, a car dealership, a department store or any of a number of places which have areas to us which are off-limits. Surely, the a public parade through the kitchens or the executive offices of such places would be disruptive, if not counterproductive to operations.
Why, then, should it be different for "establishments" online? Of course, my personal and professional expertise lies not in legal matters, so if, indeed, I'm missing something, please make clear to me my error(s).
There's a difference between talking things out and simply butting heads, and for the duration of several different threads
-- Censorship
-- My Farewell
-- Disgruntled Former Posters!
that's all we've been doing. This is getting pointless.
-- Censorship
-- My Farewell
-- Disgruntled Former Posters!
that's all we've been doing. This is getting pointless.
mindseye: huge_cock_have_pic has stated in numerous places on this board that somehow state laws trump federal law with regard to censorship, and that furthermore various "case law" also support his view.
At the expense of even more of my study time, I decided to provide the rest of you with some relevant links as to what the *actual* case law is on this matter.
I'm only focusing on case law over the past ten years -- prior to 1993, the World Wide Web was not in widespread use.
A good summary is available at Cornell University's Legal Information Institute -- although it is slightly out of date; ACLU vs. Reno/Ashcroft has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
Federal law defines child pornography in a way that requires that a child actually be present (and abused) during its creation. This includes video and pictures, but not fantasy text written in the absence of the minor.
In 1996, this law was amended to include so-called "virtual child pornography" -- video or pictures that include computer-generated children, or adult actors that are digitally altered to look more like children. Such pornography 'loopholed' around the former law. In 2002, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, to strike down the provisions of this law on the grounds that the restrictions it imposed were overly broad.
Communications Decency Act (CDA)
Also in 1996, the "Communications Decency Act" was enacted, which criminalized a broad range of online discussion. Under the CDA, anyone who "initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent," or "uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication" would be guilty of a crime and could be fined up to $100000 or imprisoned for two years.
In a rare unanimous[sup]1[/sup] decision, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Reno v. ACLU that the CDA violated the first amendment.
In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote, "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." [italics mine]
Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
In 1998, Congress attempted to rectify the constitutional flaws in the CDA by passing the Child Online Protection Act.
This new act prohibited "any communication [via the World Wide Web] for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors."
In 2000, a federal appeals court struck down the COPA, although the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft vs. ACLU to partially reverse the decision of the appeals court. In doing so, they sent the case back to a lower court for review.
Following a review by a lower court, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 in Ashcroft v. ACLU that -- based on technical grounds, the COPA could not be enforced.
[sup]1[/sup]Although the decision was unanimous, Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor filed a separate opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part".
At the expense of even more of my study time, I decided to provide the rest of you with some relevant links as to what the *actual* case law is on this matter.
I'm only focusing on case law over the past ten years -- prior to 1993, the World Wide Web was not in widespread use.
A good summary is available at Cornell University's Legal Information Institute -- although it is slightly out of date; ACLU vs. Reno/Ashcroft has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
Federal law defines child pornography in a way that requires that a child actually be present (and abused) during its creation. This includes video and pictures, but not fantasy text written in the absence of the minor.
In 1996, this law was amended to include so-called "virtual child pornography" -- video or pictures that include computer-generated children, or adult actors that are digitally altered to look more like children. Such pornography 'loopholed' around the former law. In 2002, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, to strike down the provisions of this law on the grounds that the restrictions it imposed were overly broad.
Communications Decency Act (CDA)
Also in 1996, the "Communications Decency Act" was enacted, which criminalized a broad range of online discussion. Under the CDA, anyone who "initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent," or "uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication" would be guilty of a crime and could be fined up to $100000 or imprisoned for two years.
In a rare unanimous[sup]1[/sup] decision, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Reno v. ACLU that the CDA violated the first amendment.
In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote, "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." [italics mine]
Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
In 1998, Congress attempted to rectify the constitutional flaws in the CDA by passing the Child Online Protection Act.
This new act prohibited "any communication [via the World Wide Web] for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors."
In 2000, a federal appeals court struck down the COPA, although the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft vs. ACLU to partially reverse the decision of the appeals court. In doing so, they sent the case back to a lower court for review.
Following a review by a lower court, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 in Ashcroft v. ACLU that -- based on technical grounds, the COPA could not be enforced.
[sup]1[/sup]Although the decision was unanimous, Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor filed a separate opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part".
Javierdude22: I have no idea how the laws are in the US federally, or how they are in each state in the US.
I do know written child sex stories are illegal in Holland.
Does this mean that Dutch people are excluded from here? Does this mean that the nationals of every country where written child sex stories are illegal are excluded from here? I could even imagine Canada and Britain having more stringent laws on this.
Is this merely a board for U.S. citizens?
I do know written child sex stories are illegal in Holland.
Does this mean that Dutch people are excluded from here? Does this mean that the nationals of every country where written child sex stories are illegal are excluded from here? I could even imagine Canada and Britain having more stringent laws on this.
Is this merely a board for U.S. citizens?
Javierdude22: [quote author=wvalady1968 link=board=99;num=1068500896;start=0#14 date=11/11/03 at 05:09:21]Javier, I think that it means that this forum is based in the USA.
[/quote]
I know...but what I mean is, that since the 'issue' here seems to only be US law (cause the board in it's technical and ownership form falls under US law)...and does not take into account the fact that the posters participating on this board, and everything they post or are associated with, fall under their respective laws.
Th fact that European posters can get into serious trouble if, like phsglist (Scott) said, a D.A. with too much time on his hands starts investigating into LPSG, seems to NOT be an issue in this discussion.
This tells me that this board is not for Europeans, or at least the owners could care less on whether we get into trouble over participating.
Are we, people that are in direct violation of our respective laws, the minute a child sex story gets posted here, in any consideration of the oners of LPSG when we talk about this subject?
Or should we say adieu, arrivederci, vaarwel, gutentag, adios, bya...
[/quote]
I know...but what I mean is, that since the 'issue' here seems to only be US law (cause the board in it's technical and ownership form falls under US law)...and does not take into account the fact that the posters participating on this board, and everything they post or are associated with, fall under their respective laws.
Th fact that European posters can get into serious trouble if, like phsglist (Scott) said, a D.A. with too much time on his hands starts investigating into LPSG, seems to NOT be an issue in this discussion.
This tells me that this board is not for Europeans, or at least the owners could care less on whether we get into trouble over participating.
Are we, people that are in direct violation of our respective laws, the minute a child sex story gets posted here, in any consideration of the oners of LPSG when we talk about this subject?
Or should we say adieu, arrivederci, vaarwel, gutentag, adios, bya...
HUMONGOUS: [quote author=huge_cock_have_pic link=board=99;num=1068500896;start=0#4 date=11/10/03 at 15:43:10]Don't know what Mark thinks, he won't say it himself. But what Mark should also consider is that he owes the members of his site a duty to protect their interests as much as his interest in free speech.
The types of stories at issues are banned throughout the internet because they are types of stories that will damage the interests of site members and the site. The thought of rape, having sex with a child, bestiality, necrophelia--they have no place in society.
If Mark wants to debate that, he should. But to ignore it and go along as none of this is an issue is wrong on his part[/quote]
Beastility and Necrophilia are two of my favorites ;D
Don't knock it unless you have tried it
I was first exposed to beastility at the age of 19 while visiting a dude ranch in Pennsylvania. while I will spare you the details I will say that it was most exciting.
It wasn't until last year that I had sex with my best friend's mom as she layed there in the coffin, while my college roomate (undertaker) applied make up to her face. She looked very sensual and I seemed to get an instant erection. Again I will spare you the details. But don't knock either until you have tried them.
The types of stories at issues are banned throughout the internet because they are types of stories that will damage the interests of site members and the site. The thought of rape, having sex with a child, bestiality, necrophelia--they have no place in society.
If Mark wants to debate that, he should. But to ignore it and go along as none of this is an issue is wrong on his part[/quote]
Beastility and Necrophilia are two of my favorites ;D
Don't knock it unless you have tried it
I was first exposed to beastility at the age of 19 while visiting a dude ranch in Pennsylvania. while I will spare you the details I will say that it was most exciting.
It wasn't until last year that I had sex with my best friend's mom as she layed there in the coffin, while my college roomate (undertaker) applied make up to her face. She looked very sensual and I seemed to get an instant erection. Again I will spare you the details. But don't knock either until you have tried them.
[quote author=HUMONGOUS link=board=99;num=1068500896;start=0#16 date=11/11/03 at 10:03:40]
Beastility and Necrophilia are two of my favorites ;D
Don't knock it unless you have tried it
I was first exposed to beastility at the age of 19 while visiting a dude ranch in Pennsylvania. while I will spare you the details I will say that it was most exciting.
It wasn't until last year that I had sex with my best friend's mom as she layed there in the coffin, while my college roomate (undertaker) applied make up to her face. She looked very sensual and I seemed to get an instant erection. Again I will spare you the details. But don't knock either until you have tried them. [/quote]
:
You lie. You're just trying to impress - through a (conventionnally) negative approach - the members of this forum.
I don't believe your stuff. I don't believe a jot. As simple as that.
I dare you : YOU LIE. Heeh...
Beastility and Necrophilia are two of my favorites ;D
Don't knock it unless you have tried it
I was first exposed to beastility at the age of 19 while visiting a dude ranch in Pennsylvania. while I will spare you the details I will say that it was most exciting.
It wasn't until last year that I had sex with my best friend's mom as she layed there in the coffin, while my college roomate (undertaker) applied make up to her face. She looked very sensual and I seemed to get an instant erection. Again I will spare you the details. But don't knock either until you have tried them. [/quote]
:
You lie. You're just trying to impress - through a (conventionnally) negative approach - the members of this forum. I don't believe your stuff. I don't believe a jot. As simple as that.
I dare you : YOU LIE. Heeh...
huge_cock_have_pic: Humongous, stop humoring yourself--you are a mere immature annoyance.
In response to the others. The fact is, law enforcement does and will investigate those associated with these types of stories, as well as those who condone their publication.
American law at its core is an exercise in argument. Whover has the best argument wins. Law enforcement takes a more pragmatic view of it and just rounds people up within the very liberal standard of probable cause and lets the legal system and its lawyers decide the fates of those involved. By allowing stories like the ones mentioned previously, the administrators of this site are exposing the members of this site to, at least, the possibility of embroiling them in serious accusations that can affect their personal and professional lives.
In response to the others. The fact is, law enforcement does and will investigate those associated with these types of stories, as well as those who condone their publication.
American law at its core is an exercise in argument. Whover has the best argument wins. Law enforcement takes a more pragmatic view of it and just rounds people up within the very liberal standard of probable cause and lets the legal system and its lawyers decide the fates of those involved. By allowing stories like the ones mentioned previously, the administrators of this site are exposing the members of this site to, at least, the possibility of embroiling them in serious accusations that can affect their personal and professional lives.
Similar threads
