story site shut down by fbi obscenity squad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaun

Ok Squirt - neither you, nor I, nor anyone we know would write about someone with a baby. It's vile, disturbing - horrible. I agree with you there.

---

Well that's what was on the Red Rose site, amongst many other things. There was also a directory titled "toddler" devoted to toddler sex. The baby reference was one story involving a man changing a baby, getting turned on, and fingering the baby to get himself off.

Here are googles results searching the red rose site with the keyword baby.

Here's the google for the site under the term toddler.

I understand your argument about a slippery slope. Did you know there are laws against what fantasy you can watch in a movie theatre? If you are below a certain age you can't watch R rated movies, and they are just fantasy. Certain people cannot buy certain video games that are fantasy. Certain people can't by adult music.

When we legislate fantasy access based on age, why can't we legislate fantasy content for it's actual content, when it involves, specifically, non consenting parties in a sexual act with no purpose in the story but to get the reader off?

We are in the midst of the cultural war and we have to take a stand somewhere. I will not stand beside people who create, specifically, this kind of content. In our business of sexual fantasy there is no place for children period, in reality, in the written word, cartoons, computer animation, etc. That's just my opinion. Not everyone can agree all the time, that's just the way it is.. no big deal :high:

Squirt, I think the point Shaun is trying to make is about about the erosion basic civil rights.

I remember a story you told us a while back about religious fanatics that tried to take your kid. If you didn't have those rights they would have busted up your family.

ap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _ap_

Squirt, I think the point Shaun is trying to make is about about the erosion basic civil rights.

---

We don't have the right to say/write anything we want without repercussions, we never have, and we never will in a civilized society. People slander, people threaten, people defame, etc. and are held accountable, even in fiction. As far as obscenity, community standards have been judging obscenity for quite some time, this is nothing new, and to be honest, I don't think there's a community in America that will not judge this material obscene. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _ap_

I remember a story you told us a while back about religious fanatics that tried to take your kid. If you didn't have those rights they would have busted up your family.

---

And if I was creating or distributing this kind of material they would have been right to.

Again the prevailing argument from your side seems to lump this specific kind of **** fiction, made to solely get people off thinking of abusive acts, with all other kinds of free speech and literary works, when they are completely different. It's like saying homosexuals are the same as pedophiles and sexual abusers, it's simply not true.

Ahh according to the right wing religious loonies :wacko: all homosexuals are the same as pedophiles and pornographers are the cause of all sexual abusers!!!@*$!

9/10 times application of obscenity law is unconstitutional. Problem with red rose is that it will pass a miller test and could introduce some freekin scarry case law.

Ok squirt I'll spell it out for you. Religious folk have taken over your white house and are enforcing their faith on the people while at the same time stomping all over basic consistutional rights. Those rights include freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and press; access to a jury; to bear arms, not to have their shit searched without a warrant, all that good stuff.

Say all you like, but actions speak louder than words and you moved here to escape those religious nuts so nyeerr :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _ap_

Problem with red rose is that it will pass a miller test and could introduce some freekin scarry case law.

---

No judge or jury on the planet would allow those stories to pass The Miller Test, its just not going to happen.

Regards,

Lee

Yeah lets hope so.

2/3 will be easy to get over the line (prurient interest & patently offensive - yep yep), no 'litereary or scientific value' could get interesting.

I can't help but think of one of the artists that Van Gogh imitated, can't remember his name but he was short, had brittle bones and could barely walk so he hated the world and hung out with strippers and hookers alot :huh:

It came out in his work, some of which was seen as obscene, although nowdays he recognised as someone Van Gogh admired and also the creator of many of the graphic design techniques still used today.

There is a message in that, not sure what it is. Something about offensive art.

Hahaha I just realised the smilie for bush is :bush:

ap.

It was Toulouse-Lautrec. He died from syphilis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I will never support the act of writing fiction that has a sole purpose of getting someone off and involves non consenting adults.

---

See, I think rape fantasies can be hot, so long as they are written from the point of view of the supposed victim, and they are only written for the purpose of somebody exploring their fascination with such a thing. As disturbing as it may be, there are a lot of rape fantasies out there written by both women and men who claim to be turned on by the idea of being taken by force.

If you are the person writing the story, then you are in essence consenting to the fantasy, but not the crime. Writing a rape story in which you are the victim isn't giving consent for it to happen in real life. The difference is that you are in control of your fantasies. That's why fantasies are healthy for us. They allow us to live out certain acts in our minds instead of giving in to them in our real lives.

I would have a problem with a rape/non-consensual story in which it was written from the POV of the attacker, who was getting off on raping the person. But if it's written from the POV of the "victim," it's a different story for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _ap_

Ok squirt I'll spell it out for you. Religious folk have taken over your white house and are enforcing their faith on the people while at the same time stomping all over basic consistutional rights. Those rights include freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and press; access to a jury; to bear arms, not to have their shit searched without a warrant, all that good stuff.

Say all you like, but actions speak louder than words and you moved here to escape those religious nuts so nyeerr :P

---

Why you pretend to have any clue of all the reasons I moved to Australia are beyond me. I've never met you.

I've lived in Australia 3 years now.. you peg America as being taken over by religious fanatics, yet my son going to public school here in Oz has mandatory religion class once a week. Your prime minister had a photo session with Bush in church when he visited America a couple months ago and attented Sunday services with Bush, splashed all over the papers and TV here in Oz as Americas whipping boy. I have bible thumpers knocking on my door once every 3-4months.. something I experienced once living in the states. I had to move one of my office locations because the building was owned by a minister who didn't like the fact I was doing legitimate business he didn't morally agree with.

Can you film porn in Melbourne legally?

I find it ironic, as an Australian, you are trying to decide what you think is right for the American people and American policy and how much our country is going down the drain. Try looking honestly at your own country and the problems your people face here, but you wont do that as it's easier to focus on the issues of others instead of your own. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

I would have a problem with a rape/non-consensual story in which it was written from the POV of the attacker, who was getting off on raping the person. But if it's written from the POV of the "victim," it's a different story for me.

---

Yeah I can see where you're coming from and that's on the absolute fringe for me. I've actually seen one or two videos along that line that were hot and didn't involve extreme degradation. For me, when it's involving men only, or women only, it's different then the same genre involving men vs woman.

Like I said before... there is no place for children in adult erotica. It seems a simple line when dealing with this specific genre but we get these yahoos that want to lump **** jack off porn with great literary pieces... they have absolutely no boundaries, anything goes for them, it's really unfortunate.

Hi Squirt, all....

Squirt - my problem with this entire prosectution isn't that the prosecuters are going after published CP per se.... they are prosecuting more than CP. According to this indightment, there are also issues of watersports (I don't really care who pee's on whom), D&S (I've said, "Yes sir may I have another" a few times myself), *********** (Pets are safe around me, but I sort of understand the fantasy....)

The thing is - who gets to decide what is and is not allowable to think about and discuss? Who gets to decide what is literature, and what is not? Where do we draw the line? ONLY on CP? What if the CP in question is about an overdeveloped 14 year old? Are those fantasies OK (as long as no one actually DOES anything?) 12? 16? Or are we to pretend that no one has ever looked at an adolescent and thought - wow?

We live in a society that sexualizes children - where little kids are put on TV in crop tops and lipstick, where 13 year old fashion models are presented as the norm for adult women to aspire to. Frankly - in the realm of actually protecting children, I find commercial advertising that sexualizes kids and normalizes a sexual viewpoint of young girls to be FAR more dangerous.

It was STUPID for Rose to allow underage stuff on her site, and perhaps morally reprehensible - if I were her lawyer I would charge extra. At the same time, I have a serious problem with the prosecution of what amounts to a "thought crime" -

All across America, kids are molested by thier parents (usually step parents). Not in a stupid online story - but in real life. Prosecutions for these very real crimes are extremely rare - beause, for the most part, children are viewed as the property of thier parents. Children are sexualized in the mass media on a regular basis to sell stuff. We have a deep puritanical streak in our culture that tends to result in more children being hurt rather than protected.

I think the prosecution of these thought crimes is a very easy way to pretend action on a very real and difficult problem - while actually protecting not ONE real child. And in the meantime, another chink is put in the wall regarding how far the government can go to regulate what is being discussed - not ONLY CP, but homosexuality, D&S, and other things that the religious right finds "icky"