Parents' Ire Grows at *********'s Blog

[Trixie]

No, thats the definition that the Bush Administration attaches to it.

There is a clear cut line between obscene and non-obscene material in my opinion and the opinion of many communities around the country.

Regards,

Lee

A clear cut line? You're kidding, right?

[Lee]

A clear cut line? You're kidding, right?

No im not, as far as im concerned, there is a clear cut line between what i consider obscene and what i dont consider obscene.

Rape, child porn, ***********, vomiting, scat, blood, thats all obscene as far as i am concerned, and guess what, pick 100 people from ANY community at random, and i guarantee that they will all agree with me.

Likewise, anything that shows the inside of a guys ass, out-stretched so you can see his colon, that would be considered 'obscene' to me and pretty much anyone else who viewed it that was picked randomly in any town, big or small.

Regards,

Lee

[Kushiel]

No im not, as far as im concerned, there is a clear cut line between what i consider obscene and what i dont consider obscene.

Rape, child porn, ***********, vomiting, scat, blood, thats all obscene as far as i am concerned, and guess what, pick 100 people from ANY community at random, and i guarantee that they will all agree with me.

Likewise, anything that shows the inside of a guys ass, out-stretched so you can see his colon, that would be considered 'obscene' to me and pretty much anyone else who viewed it that was picked randomly in any town, big or small.

Regards,

Lee

Out of curiosity.. Where would you draw the line between fetish and 'obscene' then? Take a bunch of soccer moms, and I'm pretty sure that they'd consider hairy men in a leather harness and chaps fisting another man 'Obscene' too.

Or even homosexuality in general. Especially here in the bible belt.

So then. By whose standard do we go by for obscenity?

A mini-van driving soccer mom's, mine, your's or Trixie's?:goatse:

Kindest regards,

Kushiel

[Cruisemaster]

Summertime and the pickings for news stories are slim! Yesterday I saw a story about a strip club sending strippers out to a golf course to do lap dances in golf carts. The newscaster pretended to be mortified. Same story here about the ********* who likes to photograph little girls in non-sexual activity and write about his fantasies on his blog. The guy has no criminal record. Going to Latin America is not a crime, strolling around a public playground is not a crime, and posting pictures of little girls playing in a sandbox is also not a crime. I'm sure the soccer moms will figure out a way to make it a crime.

The only newsworthy story here is how a non-criminal is being treated like he is a criminal. Maybe what he is doing is attempting to "handle" his sickness in a way that works for him and harms no child? I don't begin to understand pedophilia, but I do understand how scared we are of sex, including sexual thoughts, in this culture.

Can we find a real problem and deal with that first? Perhaps we can start with why Americans treat sex like some evil plot instead of as the source of great joy and pleasure it can be?

[dj4bbs]

I read everyone's reply to this topic at hand, and especially took notice of what was stated in the last posting.

The answer as to the "why" is due largely to religion - or more to the point perhaps - that religion is used by many ( especially in the United States ) as an escape goat and reason to justify one's actions, thoughts, opinions, and gross prejudical stand against anything or anyone that does not conform to "their" standards. "Standards" that are often based upon religious dogma and brainwashing are those which creep into nearly every facet of life on this planet, but in some countries even more so than others - United States certainly being prominent in that regard.

Until issues such as this one being discussed herein are delt with a total approach based upon total logic and commensense reasoning, completely devoid of "religious fever", we will always have those who are hell bent on controlling one segment of society ( or opinion ) over that of another - and always with the end result that some people will be unjustifably ( and in some circumstances cruely beaten - not just physically - but mentally and emotionally as well ) by those persons or gorups in society who feel they are "doing the lord's work".

I intend to deal with this subject in one of my Commentary Articles on my website. If anyone is interested, you can email me for the URL to my website.

DJ

[Lee]

Out of curiosity.. Where would you draw the line between fetish and 'obscene' then?

My beleif is that anything that is 'illegal' to do in the 'real world' should be illegal online when it comes to 'content'.

Im not aware of any laws that say 2 adults, in their own home, cant go about their lives happily fisting each other until the cows come home if they want to.

Where *I* draw the line on content is where the act being portrayed in it (even if it is pure fantasy) mimics an act that is illegal 'offline' and i beleive the obscenity laws should be re-written to state the same thing.

Regards,

Lee

[Kushiel]

No im not, as far as im concerned, there is a clear cut line between what i consider obscene and what i dont consider obscene.

Rape, child porn, ***********, vomiting, scat, blood, thats all obscene as far as i am concerned, and guess what, pick 100 people from ANY community at random, and i guarantee that they will all agree with me.

Legal is legal in the United States. I agree with you that if you can't do it legally, you shouldn't be able to do it on the "intar-webs." AEBN has a strict policy about incest, age verification, bestiality, etc... I support it whole-heartedly...

However.. There are a few things that you mentioned that aren't 'illegal' in one's own home, between consenting adults..

There are Vominatrix's (Vominatrices?) out there.. to my knowledge their fetish isn't illegal. Nor is having your 'Red Wings,' or having sex while your lover is menstruating.. which I believe Trixie mentioned as having in her r'epertoire of websites.

That was point that I was trying to make.. It's fine that you don't think illegal activities should escape the 'obscene' label... but you also mentioned acts that weren't illicit.

[Lee]

but you also mentioned acts that weren't illicit.

But acts that HAVE been deemed obscene by the DOJ

Regards,

Lee

[Kushiel]

My beleif is that anything that is 'illegal' to do in the 'real world' should be illegal online when it comes to 'content'....

...Where *I* draw the line on content is where the act being portrayed in it (even if it is pure fantasy) mimics an act that is illegal 'offline' and i beleive the obscenity laws should be re-written to state the same thing.

Regards,

Lee

But by the same token, shouldn't acts that -aren't- illegal not be branded as obscene?

If you're going to use fisting as an example of something being 'legal' in the bedroom, and not 'obscene' in content...

You should be fair to the other 'bedroom-legal' activities.

Kindest regards,
Kushiel

[chadknowslaw]

But acts that HAVE been deemed obscene by the DOJ

Regards,

Lee

Deemed obscene by the DOJ and other prosecutors but NOT found obscene by juries -- the obscenity cases that have gone to juries [as opposed to taking a plea bargain] are getting NOT GUILTY verdicts. Having the DOJ accuse your material of being obscene does NOT make it so.

Again, there is a constitutional right to _possess_ obscene material in the United States.

Assuming all consenting adults, Vomiting on someone is not illegal. Nor is taking a shit on someone, pissing on them, eating shit or drinking piss. All perfectly legal in the privacy of your own home. The constitutional right to possession of obscene material would allow me to make a video of that and keep it. This is perfectly legal.

The government wants to send people to prison when they _sell_ those videos to other consenting adults that want to see it. From the constitutional scholar point of view, it should not matter if content turns someone's stomach as long as the performers are consenting and the buyer wants to buy it.

If you start making judgments as to what is acceptable and what "crosses the line" then someone else may believe YOUR content "crosses the line". If you look at content that only depicts consenting adults and go "Ewww, the people that sell this should go to PRISON for selling that" what is to say that someone else looks at YOUR content and says the same thing??
"I think images of a man giving another man a blowjob is obscene and anyone that sells this filth should go to jail" is subjective. Different juries could come to different conclusions -- some would agree with that statement and some would not, and thus a law that can be interpreted _subjectively_ is inherently unfair.

Any law that would criminalize a specific act between adults would be struck down, so the act of one consenting adult shitting in the mouth of another consenting adult is definitely a protected act -- so everything that does not include animals or children is legal to do at home. If the act is legal, then the filming and distribution of that film should also be protected.

I may not choose to watch such material, but I understand that the laws that protect MY expression also protect the free expression of the people that act in, produce, distribute, and purchase that material.

[Lee]

Having the DOJ accuse your material of being obscene does NOT make it so.

You are correct it doesnt, but for MANY it means, if they fight it, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in legal fees, if they dont fight it, its means PRISON.

How many people on any of the adult industry webmaster boards do you think would actually 'risk' that for their business or, more importantly, how many do you think could actually afford a million dollar lawsuit?

Its not something i am willing to risk therefore, i publish content that the DOJ doesnt consider to be obscene, whether their definition is right or not, they are the ones who can in effect, bankrupt me if they wanted to, they are the ones who would have my business closed down.

Its called making a good business decision.

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

Its called making a good business decision.

Regards,

Lee

I would call it a conservative business decision.


:-) Lee is a conservative! nah nah nah

[Baghdad Bob]

i think we do have to be careful what type of sites to promote on the web i wont promote some stuff because i dont feel safe with it on my survers even thou it is legel to have