NationStates Jolt Archive

The owner of an adult fiction website called "Red Rose Stories" has had her home raided and been booked on federal obscenity charges because of the contents of her website. Only her website doesn't contain any adult video or images, she's being charged with obscenity specifically because of the content of the stories hosted there. I dunno about you folks, but I think this offiically marks the transition from the FBI's new obscenity taskforce just being a bad idea to being a _dangerously_ bad idea.

full story here
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=10680

Hmm, how grossly unconstitutional.

"New" obscenity taskforce, same old obscenity laws. They'll have their day in court.

Next stop! Authoritarianism! All aboard! Woo-woo! Here comes to gulog train!

???
How can they do that? Is there a law against publishing obscene stories???? :confused:

???
How can they do that? Is there a law against publishing obscene stories???? :confused:

Obscenity laws vary from place to place, but there's always a local or regional standard. This is nothing new.

Scary... really scary.

Am I the only one who feels reminded of 1984?

Obscenity laws vary from place to place, but there's always a local or regional standard. This is nothing new.

Well, it is to me. I'm just an ignorant German who never suspected laws like this would exist anywhere outside Saudi-Arabia ;)

???
How can they do that? Is there a law against publishing obscene stories???? :confused:

Psychotic interpetation of the United States Constitution results in the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) for obscenity.
Which isn't to say that it's illegal, just that it's not under first amendment protection and thus open to legislation.

Good job conservatives :)

Well, it is to me. I'm just an ignorant German who never suspected laws like this would exist anywhere outside Saudi-Arabia ;)

They've existed here since Day 1.. My guess is you've got some obscenity laws in Germany too, if you look them up. I'm sure there's laws against using profanity on television at certain times of the day, public nudity or vulgarity, etc. It's kinda rare that the government goes after literary obscenity, but it happens.

Psychotic interpetation of the United States Constitution results in the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) for obscenity.
Which isn't to say that it's illegal, just that it's not under first amendment protection and thus open to legislation.

Good job conservatives :)

Hang on... they are basing that on a lack of artistic and literary value????? How would they ever determine if the avarage person would find it prurient?
Oh boy, this is seriously scary, you know that?

That smut was a threat to the stability of the state and had to be destroyed.

They've existed here since Day 1.. My guess is you've got some obscenity laws in Germany too, if you look them up. I'm sure there's laws against using profanity on television at certain times of the day, public nudity or vulgarity, etc. It's kinda rare that the government goes after literary obscenity, but it happens.

Well, there's no law against profanity, but certain things can only be shown after 10 pm, and there's no hardcore pornography allowed on German TV. Although I know that there seem to be loopholes...
Public nudity is not an offense but midemeanour, you might face a little fee for that. But normally, the police will turn a blind eye (or rather, they'll be watching and enjoying ;) )
There are laws concerning picture material, but none that I know of against literature.

According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children. I'm a STRICT constitutionalist, on 99% of the issues in the country, but not when it comes to kids. ANY site with ANY type of ANYTHING having to do with sex with children is fair game for the F.B.I. as far as I'm concerned. Fuck them!

*Uses the Miller Test*

Well, it's official. I'm obscene. :(

Hang on... they are basing that on a lack of artistic and literary value????? How would they ever determine if the avarage person would find it prurient?
Oh boy, this is seriously scary, you know that?

Child pornography is generally considered contrary to the public good.. my guess is the prosecutor will focus on that.. as for what an "average" person thinks, that's what a jury is for. The defense gets to disqualify members of the jury in some cases if they object to them making the decision.

Hmm. The US government overtly sponsors Freenet to promote online freedom of speech, specifically dissent, in places where it is or may be illegal to dissent, such as Iran and China. However, the US regards its own information-borders as sacrosanct, not to be violated by anything which breaks its own laws.

Such an inconsistency can fairly be dismissed as that the US government thinks dissent should be legal and is always legitimate but obscenity shouldn't and isn't, or if not that then as realpolitik. However, the very idea of an "obscenity taskforce" is a joke. If it turns out this site had child pornography on it and is hosted in the United States, take it down, but that's not a job for a self-confessed "morality wing" of the FBI: it's a job for its child pornography department.

"Morality police", whether they are what they sound like or not, appear to be treacherously close to unacceptable restrictions on freedom of speech. Crimes such as child pornography must be dealt with, but not because they are "immoral"; they must be dealt with because they cause terrible harm and violate the rights of the children involved.

i think laws are getting wierd and out of hand in america despite the constitution

Next on the agenda: thought crimes! "I know you can hear what I'm thinking boy!" *hums the cat chow theme*

First they take our porn, next our guns and from there, it's gonna be a free-for-all! :eek:

Now, while I agree that child "bad stuff" needs to be cracked down on, I don't know that an FBI taskforce is necessarily warranted (unless they suspect a serious ring is in operation).

If anything, if the FBI is to have a "morality" wing, it should be used to check the morality of the agency's, and the government's, own actions.

*adds to long, long list of reasons why I'm glad I don't live in the states*

Bloody hell, isn't your country the one that's supposed to have freedom and stuff?

After following a few links on that site, I'd say that they were out of their juristiction - literary porn, no matter what the content, on a private website? There's no reason why it should need shutting down. I haven't seen the site in question - what with the only content being the webmistress' note on the front page about this scandal - but if there were appropriate warnings then it should have been fine.

Also, fantasy writing. The 'no children were harmed in the making of this story' kind. What's it anyone's buisness what this woman comes up with in her own head? (though you can always use the 'oh, they just have the appearance of a child. They're actually immortal and over 300 years old' clause, if it's going to be a problem).

In summary: WTF?

Mmm, before you know it, they'll probably start banning Harry Potter books because certain pseudo-Christian lunatics will say it's obscene or some such charge.

Hooray for cencorship in the land of the free.

The owner of an adult fiction website called "Red Rose Stories" has had her home raided and been booked on federal obscenity charges because of the contents of her website. Only her website doesn't contain any adult video or images, she's being charged with obscenity specifically because of the content of the stories hosted there. I dunno about you folks, but I think this offiically marks the transition from the FBI's new obscenity taskforce just being a bad idea to being a _dangerously_ bad idea.

full story here
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=10680

Just think what the money and manpower wasted on that task force could be used for!

Suggestion one: Fight terrorism (Islamic, international and home grown)
Suggestion two: Fight the Met plague (which is spreading and responsible for a great deal of violent crime)

(I could go on but I won't)

Scary... really scary.

Am I the only one who feels reminded of 1984?


Quiet You!

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

Hang on... they are basing that on a lack of artistic and literary value????? How would they ever determine if the avarage person would find it prurient?
Oh boy, this is seriously scary, you know that?

Indeed, the third part of the miller test is near impossible to fail.

Next stop! Authoritarianism! All aboard! Woo-woo! Here comes to gulog train!

*Stands in the shadows, smoking a cigarette*

You're already there...It's a one way ticket for the sheep who don't realise it.

But Ignorance Is Strength as they say.

Don't forget to baa. That would be subversive.

I'm a STRICT constitutionalist, on 99% of the issues in the country, but not when it comes to kids. ANY site with ANY type of ANYTHING having to do with sex with children is fair game for the F.B.I. as far as I'm concerned. Fuck them!


This might get me in trouble, but F you!

It doesnt matter what was written on that site, its just words!
There were no pictures, or anything of that nature, just stories.
Im not advocating pedopheilia, but who are you to say what I can, or cannot read?

This isnt Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.

Freedom of speech, and freedom of the press is just that.
The ability to print anything I want, as long as no one is harmed by it.
Who cares if you, or anyone else gets offended, you dont have the right not be offended.

If we decide that this type of thing is unallowable, where does it end?
When we eliminate all books that contain racy, or controversial subject matter?
Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Stories involving beastiality and sex with children? Yeah thats healthy. I notice that other sites which have erotic stories that do not involve beastiality and paedophillia are still up. Funny that eh?

-Phil.

Child pornography is generally considered contrary to the public good.. my guess is the prosecutor will focus on that.. as for what an "average" person thinks, that's what a jury is for. The defense gets to disqualify members of the jury in some cases if they object to them making the decision.


That wasnt pornography.

Those were stories.

Unless you consider pornography to incude stories.
In wich case, you should also tell the FBI to arrest Stephen King.
Occasional bits of kiddie sex in some of his books, too.

Note the fact these were erotic stories. The whole purpose behind them is for the reader to get off on them, therefore it is simply stories for paedophillia. Just to point out, written stories are a form of porno.

-Phil.

Note the fact these were erotic stories. The whole purpose behind them is for the reader to get off on them, therefore it is simply stories for paedophillia. Just to point out, written stories are a form of porno.

-Phil.


and who gets hurt by such things?

Is there a victim?

Any emotional truama?

Anyone requiring therapy afterwards?

Nope.

As I said, who is anyone to decide what should not be read, by anyone else?

It encourages paedophillia... It is akin to having child porn pictures on the site and there could well be a victim if the stories are based on truth. How about I post a nice little story about how Uncle Brian teaches little eight year old Sally about things hmmm?

Fact of the matter is the site should have been shut down and the way yanks seem to consider these things an infringement on their civil liberties is laughable.

-Phil.

It encourages paedophillia... It is akin to having child porn pictures on the site and there could well be a victim if the stories are based on truth. How about I post a nice little story about how Uncle Brian teaches little eight year old Sally about things hmmm?

Would you care to provide some evidence show that reading such material is more likely to cuase someone to commit acts of pedophelia?

No, you wouldnt.....becuase there probably isnt any.

Fact of the matter is the site should have been shut down and the way yanks seem to consider these things an infringement on their civil liberties is laughable.

-Phil.

Attitudes like that are the reason why we left 300 years ago.

The fact of the matter truly is, no one should have the right to say what anyone else can, or should read.
Reading, by itself, isnt going to cause anyone to do anything as heinous as pedophelia, anymore than reading about Napoleon, is going to make me want to try and conquer Russia.

If the site had contained pictures...or video...then by all means, arrest the sicko....but..it didnt.
Just words.

The owner of an adult fiction website called "Red Rose Stories" has had her home raided and been booked on federal obscenity charges because of the contents of her website. Only her website doesn't contain any adult video or images, she's being charged with obscenity specifically because of the content of the stories hosted there. I dunno about you folks, but I think this offiically marks the transition from the FBI's new obscenity taskforce just being a bad idea to being a _dangerously_ bad idea.

full story here
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=10680

Yet another tick upon the reasons why Big Government is bad. And Bush, and his supporters, should be shot.

Well we would love to invite you back, but the fact you seem to believe you have the right to produce stories about paedohpillia and beastiality somewhat puts us off the idea of letting you be a colony.

As for what people can and cannot read, how absurd, of course there should be censorship, otherwise what is to stop a ten year old getting hold of some erotic stories? I simply cannot believe the lack of morals and ethics some parts of America have, while other parts are conservative to the point of being backward.

-Phil.

Well we would love to invite you back, but the fact you seem to believe you have the right to produce stories about paedohpillia and beastiality somewhat puts us off the idea of letting you be a colony.

Well, if thats the kind of attitude that would be waiting for us....you can keep the crumpets, so to speak.

As for what people can and cannot read, how absurd, of course there should be censorship, otherwise what is to stop a ten year old getting hold of some erotic stories?

Uh...maybe his parents?

What makes you think that very same ten year old, doesnt already have them?
God forbid he start masturbating, like normal adolescents.
That would be awful.



I simply cannot believe the lack of morals and ethics some parts of America have, while other parts are conservative to the point of being backward.

-Phil.

Dont confuse advocating free speech, with advocating pedophilia.

Well, if thats the kind of attitude that would be waiting for us....you can keep the crumpets, so to speak.

Uh...maybe his parents?

What makes you think that very same ten year old, doesnt already have them?
God forbid he start masturbating, like normal adolescents.
That would be awful.

Dont confuse advocating free speech, with advocating pedophilia.

Advocating pedophilia is still free speech. Otherwise, organizations we love to hate, such as NAMBLA, would not exist.

Advocating pedophilia is still free speech. Otherwise, organizations we love to hate, such as NAMBLA, would not exist.


Ehh, true.

NAMBLA has a right to exist, even if I wish they didnt.

Ehh, true.

NAMBLA has a right to exist, even if I wish they didnt.

RED LETTER DAY: SIERRA AND BACKWOODS AGREE ON SOMETHING

Lets not forget that writing pedo-stories ISN'T the same as 'advocating pedophilia'.

If the site had ample warnings (WARNING! ADULT CONTENT!! etc.) then I fail to see what judicial ground they had to take legal action. Not that this is an issue anymore in the New USA.

That wasnt pornography.

Those were stories.

Unless you consider pornography to incude stories.


Certainly.

Take it up with AG Gonzales.. he's the one who makes the call. I agree with him in instances of child pornography, although I won't go as far to say that I agree with him shutting down this website, since I don't know what was on it. More generally then, I'm in favor of prosecuting extreme cases of obscenity within the justice system. If these "stories" weren't obscenity, a jury will say so. If you don't think juries should have the right to decide what's obscene and what isn't, re-write the laws.. call your congressman.

RED LETTER DAY: SIERRA AND BACKWOODS AGREE ON SOMETHING


I know...I feel all sticky, too.

Am I the only one who feels reminded of 1984?
No, I've been thinking of that book ever since 1984... and in some cases things are worse than described in the book, it won't be long till the rest follows suit.

Certainly.

Take it up with AG Gonzales.. he's the one who makes the call. I agree with him in instances of child pornography, although I won't go as far to say that I agree with him shutting down this website, since I don't know what was on it. More generally then, I'm in favor of prosecuting extreme cases of obscenity within the justice system. If these "stories" weren't obscenity, a jury will say so. If you don't think juries should have the right to decide what's obscene and what isn't, re-write the laws.. call your congressman.


True.

Im inclined to say that the jury will side with the defendant.

"People V Larry Flint"

The man printed a story about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse.
The SCOTUS decided it was free speech, becuase it was fiction.

More generally then, I'm in favor of prosecuting extreme cases of obscenity within the justice system. If these "stories" weren't obscenity, a jury will say so. If you don't think juries should have the right to decide what's obscene and what isn't, re-write the laws.. call your congressman.

You got it backwards, in order to have your way you are the one who needs the laws to be re-written.

Those stories are an expression of free speech and thus its authors protected by the constitution. To label them as 'obscene' is yet another expression of free speech, but doesn't provide ground for legal action, period, i.e. any legal action directed at the author/s is unconstitutional.

True.

Im inclined to say that the jury will side with the defendant.

"People V Larry Flint"

The man printed a story about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse.
The SCOTUS decided it was free speech, becuase it was fiction.

I believe that case was not about 'obsenity' but about 'libel'.

You got it backwards, in order to have your way you are the one who needs the laws to be re-written.

Those stories are an expression of free speech and thus its authors protected by the constitution. To label them as 'obscene' is yet another expression of free speech, but doesn't provide ground for legal action, period, i.e. any legal action directed at the author/s is unconstitutional.

Obscenity laws exist. You're saying they can't, constitutionally? They kinda.. already do. And have been upheld by the Supreme Court..

So.. if you would like them *not* to exist, then you must have those laws changed, not I.

Obscenity laws exist. You're saying they can't, constitutionally? They kinda.. already do. And have been upheld by the Supreme Court..

So.. if you would like them *not* to exist, then you must have those laws changed, not I.

I'm saying that the obscenity laws don't, or at least shouldn't, apply to 'stories', at least thats what I'd say common sense would dictate.

A world of difference between a guy hanging around a kindergarden to flash his johnson and an erotic story.

I believe that case was not about 'obsenity' but about 'libel'.

You could be right, but libel is a tort.. meaning that there could never be a libel case called "People vs. Larry Flynt," since "the people" are never represented in civil court.

You could be right, but libel is a tort.. meaning that there could never be a libel case called "People vs. Larry Flynt," since "the people" are never represented in civil court.

Hence the case being a joke that should never have been allowed to be taken to court in the first place, same with the webmisstress for putting up those stories.

The People V Larry Flint was about the 1st amendment. As far as I know, the Supreme Court doesnt hear Libel cases.

This isnt the first time something like this happens. This reminds me of the case of Brian Dalton. Sentenced to 10 years in prison for writing a fictional story in his private journals that he never even published or intended to. Google it for more info.

The People V Larry Flint was about the 1st amendment. As far as I know, the Supreme Court doesnt hear Libel cases.

Ok, I didn't know that. That puts the case in a far more reasonable light for me. Still, I'd say that satire should definitively be covered by the 1st am. but I guess some conservatives would disagree when that satire is directed at them.

The owner of an adult fiction website called "Red Rose Stories" has had her home raided and been booked on federal obscenity charges because of the contents of her website. Only her website doesn't contain any adult video or images, she's being charged with obscenity specifically because of the content of the stories hosted there. I dunno about you folks, but I think this offiically marks the transition from the FBI's new obscenity taskforce just being a bad idea to being a _dangerously_ bad idea.

full story here
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=10680
Hello Fahrenheit 451. I give it a week before they try to be the Catcher in the Rye or any other classic book for violent sexual imagery.

Satire and Parody are covered by the first ammendment. I'm a wrestling fan and remember when WCW had the New World Order another fed called ECW dd their own stable called the Blue world order ripping off the name, logo and the name of the 3 main members of NWO. WCW tried to sue ECW but the courts ruled that BWO was a parody and covered by freedom of speech.

OH NOES!!!!


This means hentai is not long from being taken of the shelves... no, wait, I don't live in the US :D

But honestly. There is a niche in porn that is full of girls who looks extremely young. This cateres to the peadophile community as well, with no laws being broken as the girls are over 18 yo (how can I know that? Well, if they weren't, they wouldn't be allowed to continue to produce, that's for sure.)

How does this differ from writing peadophilic fiction?

Another question I have to raise is, whether this kind of thing is inherently bad. If a peadophiliac (who you must remember is not so by choice) can get some form of sexual stimulation from pictures or stories were no kids were hurt?

Furthermore I find it very unlikely that this sort of material creates any new peadophiles. Peadophiliac is a disease and if you choose it, you are allready probably sociopathic.

But I guess it's better that some people don't get offended.

Yay FBI

Ok, I didn't know that. That puts the case in a far more reasonable light for me. Still, I'd say that satire should definitively be covered by the 1st am. but I guess some conservatives would disagree when that satire is directed at them.


As far as I know, and what Jeeves tells me, The SCOTUS primarily hears cases of Consitutional Law, IE; First amendment rights, or other cases involving the Amendments, or the Constitution itself, or Federal law.

As such, I have hopes that this case, although the site contained stories wich may have been disgusting, but nevertheless, has every right to print them, under the first amendment, and should be allowed to remain.

As far as I know, and what Jeeves tells me, The SCOTUS primarily hears cases of Consitutional Law, IE; First amendment rights, or other cases involving the Amendments, or the Constitution itself, or Federal law.

As such, I have hopes that this case, although the site contained stories wich may have been disgusting, but nevertheless, has every right to print them, under the first amendment, and should be allowed to remain.

Except the Supreme Court only hears about a hundred or so cases a year, often less.. I would doubt this case even wins its appeal, if the pornographers can afford to make one at all. Speculation, of course, but my guess is that this case won't even make a "blip" on the National radar screen, which I'll be satisfied with at least. :)

OH NOES!!!!


This means hentai is not long from being taken of the shelves... no, wait, I don't live in the US :D

But honestly. There is a niche in porn that is full of girls who looks extremely young. This cateres to the peadophile community as well, with no laws being broken as the girls are over 18 yo (how can I know that? Well, if they weren't, they wouldn't be allowed to continue to produce, that's for sure.)

How does this differ from writing peadophilic fiction?

Quite simply, one is written fiction, and the other is cheap, tawdry porn, with questionable content.



But I guess it's better that some people don't get offended.

Yay FBI

No, not really.

Nowhere, in the US Constitution is anything protecting an individuals right not to be offended.
People get offended by different things.
What offends me, may not offend you.
Therefore, its not right to make laws that support my beliefs, and not yours.

Yes, stories about children and sex, are inherently wrong, but should not be illegal.
If someone wishes to read such filth, thats thier choice.
As long as no childen are being violated, physically, or mentally...no harm, no foul.

Except the Supreme Court only hears about a hundred or so cases a year, often less.. I would doubt this case even wins its appeal, if the pornographers can afford to make one at all. Speculation, of course, but my guess is that this case won't even make a "blip" on the National radar screen, which I'll be satisfied with at least. :)


Quite right.

The SCOTUS hears a very limited number of cases, and this likely wont be one of them unless, it is appealed to a higher court than a local, or state level.
As such things are still more or less protected, it probably will be thrown out.

Quite right.

The SCOTUS hears a very limited number of cases, and this likely wont be one of them unless, it is appealed to a higher court than a local, or state level.
As such things are still more or less protected, it probably will be thrown out.

We'll have to wait and see.. I'm betting the government wins, but it's possible they may not. However, they've probably won already, since one of the things the government does best is bankrupt defendants before they even have a chance to go to trial.. kinda like the ACLU does to small towns when they know they can't afford high-quality representation.

Stories involving beastiality and sex with children? Yeah thats healthy. I notice that other sites which have erotic stories that do not involve beastiality and paedophillia are still up. Funny that eh?

-Phil.

You'll notice that the article says the site owner was also in trouble because her site included stories depicting hardcore s&m, group sex, scat, golden showers, people pretending to be slaves, sodomy, and various other acts that it's perfectly legal to perform at home, even if they're not necessarily acts everyone would enjoy. But apparently legal though it is to do all that stuff with a consenting partner, it's apparently against the law to write naughty stories now.

And that's the heart of what's so disturbing about this. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is attempting to lock people up because of the written word. If they apply this sort of retarded standard across the board, then people who work at frickin' Amazon.com are gonna end up being arrested because their company sells copies of John Cleland's "Fanny Hill", Von Sacher-Masoch's "Venus In Furs", or William S. Burroughs' "The Naked Lunch", because those three titles (and many others that are considered famous milestones in literature's treatment of the erotic) all have _very_ graphic descriptions of acts which the FBI has decided it wants to ARREST people for writing about.

Quick! Someone remind me why we're fighting the terrorists again? Something to do with not wanting their religion and morality forced down our throats...

And yet here we have our very own FBI being used as essentially a moralist thought police to ensure we conform to the Republican(or at least Theo-Con) religion and morality.

And the lines between 'terrorists' and 'US government personnel' blur yet again...

Quick! Someone remind me why we're fighting the terrorists again? Something to do with not wanting their religion and morality forced down our throats...

And yet here we have our very own FBI being used as essentially a moralist thought police to ensure we conform to the Republican(or at least Theo-Con) religion and morality.

And the lines between 'terrorists' and 'US government personnel' blur yet again...

Do you enjoy living in the Fascist States of Amerika?
(Nothing against the American people, of course, just the volume of petroleum consumption and how little attention they pay to how screwed over they're getting).

I just hope the sheeple wake up soon!

Do you enjoy living in the Fascist States of Amerika?

HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY!!!! :mad: :mad:

It's the Republic of Jesusland thank you very much! :p

The owner of an adult fiction website called "Red Rose Stories" has had her home raided and been booked on federal obscenity charges because of the contents of her website. Only her website doesn't contain any adult video or images, she's being charged with obscenity specifically because of the content of the stories hosted there. I dunno about you folks, but I think this offiically marks the transition from the FBI's new obscenity taskforce just being a bad idea to being a _dangerously_ bad idea.

full story here
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=10680
I wrote both my congressman and one of my senators about this. Both of them know me! LOL! :D

Do you enjoy living in the Fascist States of Amerika?
(Nothing against the American people, of course, just some of their habits.
Bite me. :mp5:

I wrote both my congressman and one of my seators about this. Both of them know me! LOL! :D

Well after the fifth or sixth time they had have 'that crazy old veteran' forcibly removed from their offices, I guess they decided to look up your name. :p

But seriously - Political Action! It's a good thing!

Do you enjoy living in the Fascist States of Amerika?
(Nothing against the American people, of course, just some of their habits.

We elect representatives to write laws.. government bureaucracies enforce laws, including obscenity laws. It's a democratic process, not dictatorial rule or oppression. It's censorship in some cases, but not without due process and trial by jury. I don't see fascism here, however fashionable it may be to throw the term about.

Bite me. :mp5:

Heh.

I refer primarily to the excessive automobile use, and the blind following of many of the Sheeple...

I doubt you'd be in the latter category though...

We elect representatives to write laws.. government bureaucracies enforce laws, including obscenity laws. It's a democratic process, not dictatorial rule or oppression. It's censorship in some cases, but not without due process and trial by jury. I don't see fascism here, however fashionable it may be to throw the term about.

Not yet, no. However, the undertones of the government over there seem to be getting the darker undertones.

Again - nothing against the people.

Assuming the agents in charge don't get their asses handed to them by their bosses and the charges dropped, I'm betting it will be a drawn out court case that the Gov't will eventually get eaten alive on. The ACLU will jump all over it.

A case went to court years ago involving a gaming company that produced a "cyberpunk" RPG and the Feds raided them and took their computers etc. under anti-hacking laws.

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/index.html

And some people want to put MORE authority to "protect" us in the hands of the Gov't?

Actually this is more reminiscent of Ashcroft vs. The Free Speech Coalition. Rhenquist and O'Connor both dissented from the 6-3 majority opinion, so I dont think the new justices would make any difference here. If this makes it to the supreme court (which I doubt it will have to), expect the banning of obscene text to be declared unconstitutional by anything from a 6-3 to a 8-1 decision.

Scary... really scary.

Am I the only one who feels reminded of 1984?

I agree with you, this is doubleplusungood...

I think this is just the new FBI task force trying desperately to produce results.cant stop any of the real child porn so they decide to go after an easier target,someone who isnt trying to hide their identity,because she thinks what she's doing is perfectly legal.

OH NOEZ,she's writing erotic stories involving sex with children!that means everyone who goes to that site is automatically a peadophile!

I know of another site that has erotic stories,involving sex with children.one that comes to mind is where a girl(of unspecified age) seduces and has sex with her father,another involved two girls,12 and 8,having sex with their gardener and another boy(presumably around 12).None of these were written by the site's creator,but are submitted by members.This site contains many many other things,and these stories are not the main part,does this mean it too is soon for the chopping block?

Oh,and if someone else wants to risk posting a link they can,but im not gonna.i dont remember anything about erotic stories in the posting rules,but they arent set in stone.

So if Marquis de Sade was alive today we could arrest him? Hmm...

Well ya,coz he's a(and i quote)multiple rapist, torturer, and proto-murderer
Site in question (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/desade.htm)

This might get me in trouble, but F you!


Well, fuck you too then.

I don't give a shit about the rights of people who write kiddy porn stories. I'm glad they shut the site down, and I'm not worried about MY rights because I DON'T WRITE ABOUT KIDDIE PORN. The sick bastards oughtta be sterilized and stranded on a deserted island with cannibals.

So if Marquis de Sade was alive today we could arrest him? Hmm...
Damn right!

a deserted island with cannibals.
...

An island where no people live, but which does have people living there.

Impressive.

Well, fuck you too then.

I don't give a shit about the rights of people who write kiddy porn stories. I'm glad they shut the site down, and I'm not worried about MY rights because I DON'T WRITE ABOUT KIDDIE PORN. The sick bastards oughtta be sterilized and stranded on a deserted island with cannibals.

I concur with backwoods,fuck you.
Why can't people write erotic stories with children?because people might get offended?oh noez!
well nobody is being forced to read the stories.And it really is a terrible thing if peadophiles get their urges satisfied by stories and therefore dont have to go rape some innocent child,we should stop this at once[/scathing sarcasm]

...

An island where no people live, but which does have people living there.

Impressive.

Silly,the cannibals don't live there.they just show up for the tourists.

...

An island where no people live, but which does have people living there.

Impressive.
I meant put the cannibals there with them. Being a literalist doesn't get ya any IQ points.

I concur with backwoods,fuck you.

And I tell you the same thing I told him. Fuck you too.

Kinda makes me wonder if the ones defending kiddie porn stories are the same ones that read them. HHMMMMMMmmmmmm. So, anybody read any good "books" lately?
~EDIT~ BTW Anybody who is more worried about their own rights than the safety of children is selfish, and doesn't deserve those rights! GO F.B.I. !!!!!!!!

And I tell you the same thing I told him. Fuck you too.

Ooh,yay a threesome!
BTW,way to rebut my arguements.i now wholeheartedly support your point of view[/scathing and obvious sarcasm]

Oh how i love my sarcasm

...and now its getting its last rites as we speak.


"I'm a STRICT constitutionalist, on 99% of the issues in the country, but not when it comes to kids. ANY site with ANY type of ANYTHING having to do with sex with children is fair game for the F.B.I. as far as I'm concerned. Fuck them!"

and people like you are the reason we will soon have NO rights at all,regardless of whether you are talking about freedom of speech or our other rights. i admit that its kinda sad when you see people writing stories about the abuse of kids,but its just PRINT,and its their right under the constitution. the site didnt contain any photos,and the stories(however disturbing they might be)were just fantasy. i could show you dozens of equally disturbing sites that talk about torturing blacks,killing jews,and raping women,but they are still up and running. as soon as someone puts sex and children in the same story,the site goes down.
kinda hypocritical if you ask me. if we start banning anything that offends anyone,then we might as well give up freedom of speech all together...and that is actually what is happening,because people refuse to stand up and defend their rights.

lazy,scared,selfish,wimpy,ignorant,and small minded population. this will lead to us being completely controlled by the government....enjoy...

Kinda makes me wonder if the ones defending kiddie porn stories are the same ones that read them. HHMMMMMMmmmmmm. So, anybody read any good "books" lately?
~EDIT~ BTW Anybody who is more worried about their own rights than the safety of children is selfish, and doesn't deserve those rights! GO F.B.I. !!!!!!!!

Safety of what children?the non-existant ones in a persons imagination?

Ya actually,the last book i read was good,the black angel by james connolly(i think)

I'm not going to bother denying that i read those stories.but i don't read erotic stories on a regular basis,they do nothing for me.

Well, until it's struck down by the Supreme Court, the decision's going to stand. This seems like a rather wasteful use of the FBI's resources, but...

Personally, I'm not torn up by this site being brought down, but legally speaking I see it as a clear infringement of the 1st Amendment.

*Bangs head on table as the sky comes crashing down on freedoms.*

*Bangs head on table as the sky comes crashing down on freedoms.*

*dances cos he doesnt live in america and his sky remains in place*

*Bangs head on table as the sky comes crashing down on freedoms.*

Really, I think it's going to take a lot more than one erotica website being taken down to get rid of freedom, but this decision's still rather problematic.

*dances cos he doesnt live in america and his sky remains in place*

Lucky bas****.

Really, I think it's going to take a lot more than one erotica website being taken down to get rid of freedom, but this decision's still rather problematic.

Yea, but it is the beginning of the end.

Yea, but it is the beginning of the end.

Precedents are always dangerous, but they can be overturned. All this needs is one successful SC case and the matter is dead; of course, taking this to the Supreme Court would be a battle in itself, but...

Precedents are always dangerous, but they can be overturned. All this needs is one successful SC case and the matter is dead; of course, taking this to the Supreme Court would be a battle in itself, but...

We'll just wait with our torches and pitchforks, and see where this ends up.

We'll just wait with our torches and pitchforks, and see where this ends up.

If Larry Flint can win (with a magazine that outright shows explicit sexual acts), this woman can win as well. Just see how it turns out, because I think this one might bite the FBI in the ass.

bite the FBI in the ass.

:D :fluffle:
you cant script stuff like this.

:D :fluffle:
you cant script stuff like this.

zomg! That's BDSM with a scat fetish!

zomg! That's BDSM with a scat fetish!
*waits with his pitchfork for the FBI to shut down jolt*

Assuming the agents in charge don't get their asses handed to them by their bosses and the charges dropped, I'm betting it will be a drawn out court case that the Gov't will eventually get eaten alive on. The ACLU will jump all over it.


They won't get their asses handed to them by their bosses though, this is what their bosses _want_. Attourney General Gonzales said that he wanted to get tough on porn, and the FBI director announced that they'd be forming a ten agent anti-porn taskforce with the specific job of tracking down producers and distributors of pornography and trying to bust them on obscenity. Earlier news on the subject has made it pretty clear that this is exactly the sort of thing they were created to do. They're not there to bust retailers for selling people who aren't 18 or producers who hire people who aren't 18. They're not there to get tax evaders. They're not there to bust up pedophilia rings or find rapists or crack down on porn producers who aren't paying their employees properly. They're specifically there to come down hard on anything "inappropriate", and to clog the courts with as many pointless Obscenity trials as possible. It's all just about putting the fear into makers of pornography so producers, retailers, and site owners in the United States will be too scared to run anything hardcore even though they could probably legally get away with it. Basically it's nothing but an incredibly shameless and disgusting appeal to the religious right, and one of hte most cynical misappropriations of law enforcement money for vote-grabbing that I've ever seen.

If Larry Flint can win (with a magazine that outright shows explicit sexual acts), this woman can win as well. Just see how it turns out, because I think this one might bite the FBI in the ass.

The most famous of the Larry Flynt cases (and the only one that set an important precedent)wasn't about obscenity though. He ran a fake advertisment spoofing Campari's "Remember Your First Time" ad campaign at the time. In it, instead of having some celebrity remembering their first time drinking Campari, it had a bogus interview about Falwell remembering the first time he fucked his mother. Falwell sued for libel, and rather predictably Falwell lost because various legal precedents had already been set protecting satire from libel charges (and in this particular case the jury agreed that the satirical ad's claims were just so ludicrously out of character that nobody would believe it was really Jerry Falwell, so the ads couldn't possibly have harmed his reputation).

Where the important legal precedent kicks in is that the court still awarded Jerry Falwell 200K for emotional distress, but Flynt managed to win on appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with his argument that public figures can't recover damages for "intentional infliction of emotioanal distress" caused by satire, as satire is constitutionally protected free speech and similar lawsuits could be used as an attempt to silence it without having to meet the same burden of proof as libel and slander cases.

Which is all very well and good, but apart from being a First Amendment issue it's got pretty much nada to do with obscenity laws :)

Nowhere, in the US Constitution is anything protecting an individuals right not to be offended.
People get offended by different things.
What offends me, may not offend you.
Therefore, its not right to make laws that support my beliefs, and not yours.

Yes, stories about children and sex, are inherently wrong, but should not be illegal.
If someone wishes to read such filth, thats thier choice.
As long as no childen are being violated, physically, or mentally...no harm, no foul.

I couldn't agree more. I guess the sarcasm didn't carry very well ;)

I'm a STRICT constitutionalist, on 99% of the issues in the country, but not when it comes to kids. ANY site with ANY type of ANYTHING having to do with sex with children is fair game for the F.B.I. as far as I'm concerned. Fuck them!But no children were harmed. The stories were most likely not even based on real characters. You can't arrest people for thinking things, or for expressing their thoughts.

Well, fuck you too then.

I don't give a shit about the rights of people who write kiddy porn stories. I'm glad they shut the site down, and I'm not worried about MY rights because I DON'T WRITE ABOUT KIDDIE PORN. The sick bastards oughtta be sterilized and stranded on a deserted island with cannibals.
Thought police, go!

Its good to see that there is outrage about the banning of text, but I think its safe to say if this has to make it to the supreme court (which it probably wont), it will most likely be struck down. If the supreme court was able to strike down laws against actual pornographic images portraying what appear to be children but arent (the so called "virtual porn" of Ashcroft vs The Free Speech Coalition), there is no way they wont declare the banning of text about fictional children unconstitutional. That last decision was 6-3 with Scalia, O'connor, and Rhenquist dissenting. Two of the three dissenters are now gone, what are the chances the supreme court would rule in favor of keeping a law more obviously unconstitutional than the one dealing with actual images? With Rhenquist and O'Connor gone, we can expect anything from a 6-3 to a 9-0 decision (Scalia may come around since this time not even images are involved, only text).

Kinda makes me wonder if the ones defending kiddie porn stories are the same ones that read them. HHMMMMMMmmmmmm. So, anybody read any good "books" lately?
~EDIT~ BTW Anybody who is more worried about their own rights than the safety of children is selfish, and doesn't deserve those rights! GO F.B.I. !!!!!!!!

You know, you remind me of that politician who wanted to shut down GTA:SA because of the content that could only be viewed via a mod. He used the same argument. "THINK OF THE KIDS! OH NOEZ!"

Perhaps we can ban the word pedophillia and sex next hmmm?

Its good to see that there is outrage about the banning of text, but I think its safe to say if this has to make it to the supreme court (which it probably wont), it will most likely be struck down. If the supreme court was able to strike down laws against actual pornographic images portraying what appear to be children but arent (the so called "virtual porn" of Ashcroft vs The Free Speech Coalition), there is no way they wont declare the banning of text about fictional children unconstitutional.

If this were being prosecuted as a case of child pornography, you'd be right. As it is, it's being prosecuted as a case of obscenity--so if it makes it to the Supreme Court, we'll be getting a precedent as to what constitutes "local standards" (via Miller) for material posted on the Internet.