Printable View
Have to say, Lee, suggesting that someone be put to death for sharing a fantasy about what is admittedly a foul, sick, and disgusting offense is QUITE extreme, and really raises a red flag to me. I mean, obviously, a lot of people in this industry have differing opinions and some are a lot more conservative than others, but to immediately go to the death penalty is quite shocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
But Squirt, that's not the POINT of his post. Regardless of what he thinks is personally "right" or "wrong" is NOT the issue. The issue is one of free speech, and he's talking about the legality of it, whereas you're taking it PERSONAL yet again.
What alarms me about you is that you are so quick to move your arguments from that of the issue at hand and instead focus on the personal opinions of the person you are debating with. You can't get involved in any of these threads without somehow finding a way to set someone up to reveal what you believe to be a moral or personal character flaw.
I'm not attacking you. I'm just making an observation about what looks to me to be a recurring habit with you. You did the same thing in the barebacking thread with Lee. He never personally attacked YOU, just spoke in what was admittedly argumentative rhetoric, but you launched right in with declarations about what a "sad" human being he was for having the opinions that he did.
I think you have a LOT of great points to make, and I truly get that you're a passionate, caring person, but I just feel that you would make your points a lot more succesfully if you didn't always try and find a way to make the arguments about how morally inferior those you are debating with are for disagreeing with you.
Just my $.02.
A MOST excellent and perceptive point! As Squirt knows, I actually enjoyed his SleepingMen site for the fantasy of it alone, but it DOES border on inappropriateness. But, seeing as how I find that particular fantasy ("seducing" a dude while he's sleeping) to be particularly hot, I refrain from making any sort of a judgment. LOL! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
Another excellent point, but really, you shouldn't even have to make such a statement. As I say above to Squirt, what we are debating here is the Constitutionality of the site, NOT our peronsal opinions about the content.Quote:
I think you missed my point completely. I am totally disgusted by the sort of stuff that was posted on that site. I believe that, at some point, speech crosses a line and should be limited when it's so offensive that nearly everyone finds it gross, appalling, and abusive, and I'm quite certain that most everyone on the planet (except for the sick fuck that wrote that story) would agree that it is over the line and *should* be banned
See, here's my biggest problem with people and the Constitution. Like the Bible, they love to bend it to their own will and draw lines about what it protects and what it doesn't protect. From barebacking porn to, well, whatever you want to toss in there, the First Amendment is set up to protect the free speech of those who wish to express themselves in what is supposedly a "free" society. Whether or not some of the things they are depicting is morally reprehensible is NOT the point. The POINT is, Are these things protected under the First Amendment of the VERY same Constitution that protects the right for each of US to post our own sites--sites that MANY could very well point at and say, "That is morally reprehensible."Quote:
All I'm saying is, by even contemplating creating a line *at all*, we do, at some point, risk the precious right that all Americans have to speak freely. And what the sweet 70 year old lady finds to be something that might make her vomit (if that's the standard we're using for banning speech) is very different than what we who are in the adult industry might make us vomit. So creating a solid criteria for speech that should be banned is a challenge, Hence the famous "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."
Obviously, even people in porn can be somewhat conservative, and we all have our own ideas of what constitutes obscenity. But, as unfortunate as it may be, the Constitution protects a wide array of things that we may not agree with. But thank God it is there in the first place. And I'm sorry, but as people who participate in THIS business (especially THIS business), we have a RESPONSIBILITY to--at ALL costs--fight for our Constitutional rights as American citizens to protect and defend the free speech that we all exploit to serve our own needs. To do ANYTHING less is simply, well, in MY eyes, unpatriotic and, quite frankly, hyprocritical. (Suddenly, PORNOGRAPHERS get to call the shots on what is and isn't punishable for being "obscene"? As much as I love this industry and believe it CAN be a positive social force, I'm sorry, but No. We don't.)
You can draw your own lines ethically where you wish, but legality is another story entirely. And when you start pushing for the death penalty (for God's sake! the DEATH penalty???) and/or locking someone up and throwing away the key for life b/cuz they said or did something that you find to be disgusting (but that which is not against the law), you being to unravel the very fabric that makes this country what it is.
Now, if it is CONSTITUTIONALLY decided that what this site posted is illegal, then hey, throw the book at the chick and make her serve her time for promoting what ALL OF US agree to be disgusting acts. But if it comes to be that she is set free because she was observing her right to free speech, then please, suck it up and take one for the team. Because that TEAM is protecting each and every one of our asses from being tossed into jail for things that THOUSANDS (and probably MILLIONS) of people would love to punish up for.
Isn't that the real issue at hand here, folks? I mean, really, ISN'T IT???
Right. Well let's get back on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Steve stated "The issue is not about the subject matter, but what constitutes free expression."
I said "I had no idea that erotic stories created to get people off fantasizing about raping babies was protected."
I was making a statement on topic about what is believed to be protected expression, or not.
Contrary to popular belief we do not have freedom in America to say whatever we please. There are consequences for what we say. It's illegal to shout fire in a movie theatre, because of the repercussions of your words. It's illegal to threaten the president of the united states. If someone tells people they are going to shoot everyone in school, or writes a story about it, there are repercussions.
If this goes to court, I think we'll find that freedom of expression is ever so slightly limited.
Every human being on this earth has ethics and morals. Those that don't are in the insane asylums of the world.
The religious right has pegged ethics and morals as only belonging to them and their people, that's false.
The ethics and morals of most of us in the adult industry allow us more freedom of action then those in the religious sector. Our ethics and morals help us decide who to give money to, who to help, how to help them, etc.
Discovering our own limits, and the limits of others, is part of every human beings journey on this planet. The limits of the majority is what makes public policy. It will be interesting to see if the limits of the majority agree that freedom of speech extends to molestation stories meant to titillate.
Now THOSE are great statements, Squirt! Not that I'm the person who gets to declare what is the "right" and "wrong" way to debate, but I think ya done good. ;)
And you're right: We don't live in a COMPLETELY free society where all speech is free. There are SOME limits, and rightfully so. But I still stand by my other post in this thread about the Constitution and free speech. Until those limits are more specifically defined (and boyfunk makes a great point about the dangers in trying to figure out where to draw that line), the Consitution is set up to protect us all from proseuction for selling our fantasies to the masses.
a lot of people in our industry seem to think that the first amendment is there to protect their right to sell porn. there ARE some things that - as far as i know - were never protected. i have not one clue if whether this story or stories like it are protected.
i was surprised years ago to discover at the silverlake circus of books that there were 6 different magazines dedicated to incest fantasies. YUCK! incest is illegal, but stories about it apparently were not - at least two of the magazines were up to high issue numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Personally, I like a little bit of big brother/little brother fantasizing. I'd never want to sleep with my OWN brother, but thinking about getting it on with two brothers is kinda hot to me.
There IS a difference between reality and fantasy. The reason that bareback porn (reality) is not illegal is b/cuz I believe you can only be arrested for infecting someone if you are knowingly and maliciously intending to do so without their permission. (I could be a little off on the specifics, but I think that's the general gist of it.) With stories (fantasy), a crime is not actually being committed, even if the story does eroticize said crime. Recruiting a child to participate in filmed or photographed porn is reality, but the thought of doing it (or writing about it) is merely fantasy. And when we begin to LEGALLY punish people for their fantasies (no matter how sick we think those fantasies to be), we run to risk of destroying what makes us stand as a country.
(Not that I wouldn't want to put some of these people who write about CP into shock therapy for a few sessions and see if we couldn't fry the shit out of their brains....but that's just my PERSONAL fantasy... )
I have no problem talking about sleepingmen.com but I don't want to get off topic in this thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you feel strongly about it and I'll address your comments there. Needless to say sleepingmen.com is consensual sex. The site does not involve rape, people saying no and sex being forced on them, or drugging someone for sex. Sleepingmen.com is a far cry from stories about fucking babies in diapers and sex with minors. So let's get back on topic in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
It seems to me he was just bringing the site up as an example to make a point, Squirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
And, I know the site may feature models who consented to taking part, isn't the turn-on predicated upon the notion that the guys are being "taken advantage of?" I mean, why else would anyone want to seduce a guy who's sleeping? If we were really wanting "consensual" sex, we'd wait 'til they were awake to initiate it, right?
Sorry, not trying to turn this thread into another topic, but I don't want to turn this into a whole other thread. Purely playing Devil's Advocate just to be a smartass here. :)
I have no problem talking about sleepingmen.com but I don't want to get off topic in this thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you feel strongly about it and I'll address your comments there.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
I think that we are all in agreement that freedom of speech is important, and one of our many rights as Americans. I feel comfortable drawing a line in the sand at content involving molestation of minors that is created to sexually arrouse the consumer.
Mister Mark,
On the topic and a little past… I can see why you feel death is a little strong. You yourself host, on your website (LPSG.ORG) user submitted stories about kids engaged in sex. These stories are also submitted by underage users of your site.
Is the fact that they are underage make it ok for them to post them on your ADULT site?
But back to the strong feelings against Lee’s post
Is it that before, when LPSG was an ezboard, you yourself also posted some stories that touched on the acts that in real life, get you prison time?
Exactly. And I wasn't indicating that I had any issue with sleepingmen.com... just illustrating some relatively mainstream sites that somebody could point to and say "SEE!! THAT"S SEX WITHOUT CONSENT!!! THAT ISN"T PROTECTED SPEECH!!". Point being... no matter how you attempt to delineate a sensible, enforceable rule, there will always be sites that are within somebody's "gray area" and that's the slippery slope that we embark upon when we talk about limiting *any* speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
I understand where you're coming from.. but again... content involving children below the age of consent will always be a line I would never consider "ok" to cross, whether legal or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
It's not illegal to make the moves on a mate sleeping in real life, but child molestation and rape is illegal.
Looks like we just found the next site to be 'raided' by the authorities :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Happysucks
Regards,
Lee
WOW big eye opener going to that site! I'm not giving links to the number REAL LIFE accounts MisterMarks users give about their REAL LIFE sexual encounters with minors but there are many!Quote:
Originally Posted by Happysucks
MisterMark has the LPSG.ORG domain been seized from you? I see that the domain registrar states:
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Do you think the users of the site know the feds are in control of the site now? LOL