Oh great...just what we F*cking need - Porn Police

[raVeneyes]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960105.htm

The Administration has launched a broad assault on sexual content that targets the entertainment industry from Hollywood producers to hotels. The offensive includes creation of a Justice Dept. Obscenity Prosecution Task Force and an anti-porn squad at the FBI, a crackdown on indecent programming by the new Federal Communications Commission chairman, and a wave of indecency legislation.


Talk about wastes of money!!! Yeah small government ... right ... just small enough to be a fly on my wall and tell me it's not right that I beat off at 2 AM every second Thursday...

 

[Calabrio]

The legislation is targeted at Child pornography traffickers.

It has nothing to do with Raveneyes chronic masterbation problems.:tmi:

 

[raVeneyes]

The legislation is targeted at Child pornography traffickers.

It has nothing to do with Raveneyes chronic masterbation problems.:N

The legislation targets all nude/sexual content...not just child pornography.

 

[Calabrio]

The legislation targets all nude/sexual content...not just child pornography.

TARGETS. Other stuff gets caught up in the broad net.
But it's not just about keeping you from looking a adult boobies at 2AM in the morning.

 

[raVeneyes]

TARGETS. Other stuff gets caught up in the broad net.
But it's not just about keeping you from looking a adult boobies at 2AM in the morning.

It's not *just* about that, but that's what it leads to.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. You don't like what's on TV, change the channel. You don't want your kids to see porn, don't let them see porn. You don't like the sexually explicit content of a movie, DON'T WATCH IT!

Pornography and sexually explicit material are NOT illegal...they are not even 'immoral'. There are some types of image that are immoral, and also illegal, but that is not what the Bush administration and these task forces are targeting. They are targeting cable TV, movies, websites, and publications.

It is wrong and a waste of money. You want smaller, more spend-thrifty government? START IN YOUR BACK YARD!

 

[TheDude]

Nixon pulled a similar move when he was running for his second term. He spoke out against pornography as it being the source of moral decay in America, launched a huge campaign. It worked, even though his numbers were down people (religious right) flocked to him as a savior and he won the election only to resign sometime later.

It's just a diversionary tactic. Don't worry Raven, the majority of people enjoy porn in some form, even those that will deny it. It's not going anywhere.

 

[raVeneyes]

The thing is, I'm not so worried about porn. Porn will always find a way to produce and promote itself. I just don't want to be a country that would deny the freedom to enjoy porn.

Obviously porn isn't going anywhere. It's one of the biggest money producing industries in the world and we are the capitol of porn.

BUT if you've ever seen my portfolio http://www.raveneyes.com and clicked on the 'artistic' section, you'd understand why I am concerned. I don't want the Justice Dept. Obscenity Prosecution Task Force or the anti-porn squad at the FBI knocking down my door and demanding my cameras one day just because I have nudity on my web site!!! That is where this is leading! I'll freely admit that my imagery isn't always something that everyone wants to see, but if grandma maureen in kenocious wisconsin doesn't like it then F*ck her! I don't care! Don't look at it grandma maureen.

 

[Calabrio]

The thing is, I'm not so worried about porn. Porn will always find a way to produce and promote itself. I just don't want to be a country that would deny the freedom to enjoy porn.

Obviously porn isn't going anywhere. It's one of the biggest money producing industries in the world and we are the capitol of porn.

BUT if you've ever seen my portfolio http://www.raveneyes.com and clicked on the 'artistic' section, you'd understand why I am concerned. I don't want the Justice Dept. Obscenity Prosecution Task Force or the anti-porn squad at the FBI knocking down my door and demanding my cameras one day just because I have nudity on my web site!!! That is where this is leading! I'll freely admit that my imagery isn't always something that everyone wants to see, but if grandma maureen in kenocious wisconsin doesn't like it then F*ck her! I don't care! Don't look at it grandma maureen.

I would share your concern, but I just don't see this legislation resulting in anything that would resemble your fears.

I would like to add, very nice portfolio, Raveneyes. There's really outstanding work on display.

 

[TheDude]

Check your website, the 'artistic' section didn't come up... BTW, the redhead and the Indian woman (looks Indian) are stunning. Great pictures overall.

I do see your point, thats how it starts. Take away one thing that is wrong and the vultures use it as a base to repress everything else.

 

[raVeneyes]

Check your website, the 'artistic' section didn't come up... BTW, the redhead and the Indian woman (looks Indian) are stunning. Great pictures overall.

I do see your point, thats how it starts. Take away one thing that is wrong and the vultures use it as a base to repress everything else.

I'm sorry...it's the link labeled 'Creative' in the group below the photos.

 

[raVeneyes]

I would share your concern, but I just don't see this legislation resulting in anything that would resemble your fears.

I would like to add, very nice portfolio, Raveneyes. There's really outstanding work on display.

Well, at least you understand where my concerns are based.

Perhaps it's the 'artist' in me, but I do see this legislation turning inward and encroaching like that. What do you think will happen when the FBI's porn task force has to justify it's budget for the year? It will start busting a bunch of sites. What's easier to bust, someone who has money to throw up a defense or someone like me who has none?

Thank you for the compliment on my portfolio. Will work for food

 

[barry2952]

Only every second Thursday?

Seriously. I'm all for hanging child pornographers in public. I can think of nothing worse on this earth than one that preys on children. There is no hope for their redemption.

This brings up the same question as my pot question. Is the dealer more guilty that the user. In this case, is the maker more guilty that the viewer.

 

[TheDude]

Only every second Thursday?

Seriously. I'm all for hanging child pornographers in public. I can think of nothing worse on this earth than one that preys on children. There is no hope for their redemption.

This brings up the same question as my pot question. Is the dealer more guilty that the user. In this case, is the maker more guilty that the viewer.

I fully agree with you on child molesters. Nothing worse in the world.

Someone that uses children as sexual objects is as guilty as someone that watches (condones) it.

Brings up another question related to a different thread. Would writing about pedophilia be illegal?

 

[Calabrio]

Should writing about pedophilia be illegal?

I'd have to say no. But it should result in a brutal a55-kicking by a private citizen.

 

[fossten]

It's not *just* about that, but that's what it leads to.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. You don't like what's on TV, change the channel. You don't want your kids to see porn, don't let them see porn. You don't like the sexually explicit content of a movie, DON'T WATCH IT!

Pornography and sexually explicit material are NOT illegal...they are not even 'immoral'. There are some types of image that are immoral, and also illegal, but that is not what the Bush administration and these task forces are targeting. They are targeting cable TV, movies, websites, and publications.

It is wrong and a waste of money. You want smaller, more spend-thrifty government? START IN YOUR BACK YARD!

Isn't it interesting that the left only sees a slippery slope when it's one of their favorite things? What about the slippery slope of gun laws, or the slippery slope of removing God from public places, or the slippery slope of preventing school prayer, or the slippery slope of changing the Pledge of Allegiance to an atheist's preference, or the slippery slope of the latest ruling saying parents can't prevent public schools from teaching their kids anything they want, or the slippery slope of increased spending, or the slippery slope of prosecuting people for not remembering what they said years ago, or the slippery slope of allowing judges to make new law?

Never hear from the left about that.

 

[mach8]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. You don't like what's on TV, change the channel. You don't want your kids to see porn, don't let them see porn. You don't like the sexually explicit content of a movie, DON'T WATCH IT!

Do you have kids? Do you know what a BS statement that is, "If you don't want to have your kids------------, don't let them"? No one can police their kids 100% of the time and when average TV becomes a showhouse for the gay lifestyle and preteen sluts does everyone just move off to the Klondike?

Pornography and sexually explicit material are NOT illegal...they are not even 'immoral'. There are some types of image that are immoral, and also illegal, but that is not what the Bush administration and these task forces are targeting. They are targeting cable TV, movies, websites, and publications.

This is true, but that does't mean all of it is desirable everywhere you turn 24/7 This is the type of thing that makes much of the third world, especially the Arab world, want to keep us at an arms length.

It is wrong and a waste of money. You want smaller, more spend-thrifty government? START IN YOUR BACK YARD!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But liberals and those whose money, power, and influence eminate from big government want to cut your sack off so you must do as they dictate. Independent self reliant folks are a pox to them.

 

[raVeneyes]

Isn't it interesting that the left only sees a slippery slope when it's one of their favorite things? What about the slippery slope of gun laws, or the slippery slope of removing God from public places, or the slippery slope of preventing school prayer, or the slippery slope of changing the Pledge of Allegiance to an atheist's preference, or the slippery slope of the latest ruling saying parents can't prevent public schools from teaching their kids anything they want, or the slippery slope of increased spending, or the slippery slope of prosecuting people for not remembering what they said years ago, or the slippery slope of allowing judges to make new law?

Never hear from the left about that.

Because it *is* a matter of your favorite things. I agree with a slippery slope in gun laws. I Don't believe in or see a problem with removing God from public space. I do see a slippery slope with preventing INDIVIDUAL school prayer (freedom of speech)...but see a very slippery slope with allowing group or school led school prayer in a bad direction. I see no problem with changing the Pledge of Allegiance to remove under God, there is no continuation from that in my opinion, nor is there a slippery slope to saying parents can choose what their kids learn in school (I remember having to get permission slips signed for sex ed).

The more idealistic the issue, the more likely someone on one side or the other will see it as a slippery slope, and I don't disagree with all of them, but sometimes we over react and sometimes it really is a slippery slope.

 

[Iancusp]

if ur a maale that doesnt enjoy looking at some good porn there something wrong with you just consider yourself a homo

 

[raVeneyes]

Do you have kids? Do you know what a BS statement that is, "If you don't want to have your kids------------, don't let them"? No one can police their kids 100% of the time and when average TV becomes a showhouse for the gay lifestyle and preteen sluts does everyone just move off to the Klondike?

I remember being a kid and my parents didn't have cable because they thought I was too young to see some movies on HBO. Then eventually they got HBO because I got old enough. I didn't have internet access until I was old enough to see porn. It *is* possible to police your children 100% of the time, or at least for the most part. They *will* see things that you don't want them to see, but sometimes it's time for them to. It's your job as a parent to tech your children what those things mean/stand for and what you think is the proper way to deal with them.

This is true, but that does't mean all of it is desirable everywhere you turn 24/7 This is the type of thing that makes much of the third world, especially the Arab world, want to keep us at an arms length.

So you think the answer is to make our world like the Arab world? I don't. I enjoy having the freedom to say/do as I please with very few restraints.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But liberals and those whose money, power, and influence eminate from big government want to cut your sack off so you must do as they dictate. Independent self reliant folks are a pox to them.

Nooo my friend. Conservatives and the religious right want to cut my sack off so I do as they dictate...I've never heard one liberal even come close to the level of censorship that many conservatives wish to achieve.

 

[mach8]

Modeling ourselves after poor societies is not to be advcated, but we need to be aware of the way these societies prerceive us and why they see us in such forms as "the great Satan", it's not just because we support Isreal.

It is very difficult in todays world to monitor kids 24/7 when both parents are obligated to work, teachers persue their own agendas and are difficult to regulate, and parents are made villians for disciplining their children.

Conservatives and liberals both seek to cast you in their mold, beware those who kill and defame to promote an ideal, they are the true criminals of history.

 

[Vitas]

Oh great...just what we F*cking need - Porn Police

What we NEED is people that are able to express themselves without expletives. Obviously you are not one of them.

 

[raVeneyes]

What we NEED is people that are able to express themselves without expletives. Obviously you are not one of them.

That was meant as a combination anger and irony.

What more ironic thing than for someone to censor my way of speaking about assaults to freedom of speech.

 

[barry2952]

I believe the irony was lost.

My wife and I were discussing my previous question about who is the more guilty party, the child pornographer or the viewer. In this case she agreed that the pornographer is by far the more guilty party as they are the maker.

She brought up a very interesting point, though. She said that she feels that a pornographer would be far less guilty if they created their filth by using high-tech animation. "No child was abused or even used in the making of this film".

The Japanese have been using animation in their pornography for years because their society has deemed it repulsive to see the actual sex act itself on film.

This more-guilty party question has some interesting twists. Who's more guilty; a hitman or the person that procures their services? A drug dealer or drug user? A prostitute or a john? A pimp or a prostitute?

Many have stated that both are illegal acts so they deserve the same punishment. I believe that each of those scenarios is different because of their affect on society.

Can anyone tell me why prostitution is illegal? Why is it that a woman can give it away, but she can't sell it. Seem illogical to me.

 

[mespock]

What about the slippery slope of gun laws,

Slippery Slope I don't want Rednecks running around toting guns killing people they don't like because they are drunk and disorderly. I fear for all those women whose Redneck Drunk husband comes home and pulling out the gun that they are toting and killing because they are a Redneck dumb ass who think that toting a gun will make them a big guy or increase their dick size.

or the slippery slope of removing God from public places, or the slippery slope of preventing school prayer, or the slippery slope of changing the Pledge of Allegiance to an atheist's preference, or the slippery slope of the latest ruling saying parents can't prevent public schools from teaching their kids anything they want,

If you want what you want talk to your kid and disagree with public school then home school your kid or send them to the private school. There are more people and religions in our schools who said you're religion is the right one. Also the pledge says liberty and Justice for All not just conservative fundamentalist

or the slippery slope of increased spending, or the slippery slope of prosecuting people for not remembering what they said years ago, or the slippery slope of allowing judges to make new law?

Never hear from the left about that.

Why are conservative afraid of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[mespock]

I believe the irony was lost.

My wife and I were discussing my previous question about who is the more guilty party, the child pornographer or the viewer. In this case she agreed that the pornographer is by far the more guilty party as they are the maker.

She brought up a very interesting point, though. She said that she feels that a pornographer would be far less guilty if they created their filth by using high-tech animation. "No child was abused or even used in the making of this film".

The Japanese have been using animation in their pornography for years because their society has deemed it repulsive to see the actual sex act itself on film.

This more-guilty party question has some interesting twists. Who's more guilty; a hitman or the person that procures their services? A drug dealer or drug user? A prostitute or a john? A pimp or a prostitute?

Many have stated that both are illegal acts so they deserve the same punishment. I believe that each of those scenarios is different because of their affect on society.

Can anyone tell me why prostitution is illegal? Why is it that a woman can give it away, but she can't sell it. Seem illogical to me.

Interesting discussion Barry.. Lost of food for thought.