NEWS: Suicidegirls.com vs the War on Pornography

CULTURE: Suicidegirls.com vs the War on Pornography

I'm sure most of you Suicidegirls.com members have already read a thread or five on this topic, but for those of you who read the Newswire and not the boards, I think this bears repeating.

SuicideGirls.com is removing content due to the Bush Administration's "War on Pornography."

Staff member Olivia posted the following announcement:

So thanks, all of you who voted for Bush, or who didn't vote at all. This is your reward.

I remember back in November in the political threads whenever someone would say they supported Bush someone would say something like, "You do realize he is against places like SG, and if he had his way this place would be shut down, don't you?"

Well, I guess they are beginning to realize it now. Or maybe it's more of the same and they are still standing by their man.

Anyone who voted for Bush and enjoys SG have some serious inner conflicts to deal with.

Bush and the GOP used your support to fuck you and your neighbors over.

Hope you're happy.

F*CK.


Come to Canada...

SuicideGirls.CA!

SG should make a protest home page that lasts for a couple of days that has a simple black background and a banner that reads : "SuicideGirls.Com...censored by the Bush Administration"

Makes me sick.

this is exactly why i don't understand how any artist/musician worth anything could support the GOP either. i don't understand it at all.

I don't understand from the original thread if the site is being proactive in removing the material in the first place or is it also submitting the material to the FBI to be checked?

And the UK will be going the same way also, by possible extending existing legislation to cover the internet.

Gotta love it.

Hmm... military-backed repressive regime.... sound familiar to anyone?

Maybe someone will invade us and free us from this tyranny?!

didn't Austrailia do this kind of thing a ccouple years ago?
i hope canada doesn't do this ever... that would suck

It pains me to say it... but the title is misleading. It implies there is enough of an option for there to be a Vs.

That's not quite right. They're saying it's because of the internet, but from the pdf linked to in the BBC story it's clear it'll cover possession from any source. So if you have home snaps of anything not allowed within the R18 rating, which rejects everything s&m beyond "light bondage", then it's up to 3 years in prison for being so naughty. The current law covers selling and importing.

Under this law the Spanner case would have resulted in even longer sentences, for the gay chaps who were having just too much kinky fun.

gay .......................... not sexualy but just gay................

FUCK BUSH.

You fucking kidding me? John "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry would shutdown SG just as fast. In fact, I think he would shut it down faster because I suspect that Kerry actually knows how to use a computer, and Bush does not. But that is not the point.

If you think _any_ American politician would show any mercy to SG or any site like it, you are retared.

The proposed UK legislation to cover extreeme pornography on the Internet aims to make it a crime for individuals to posses violent, pornographic images with a punishment of up to 3 years in prison.

I do not suport the proposed law, becuase extensive research had found no causal link between the viewing of such images and the promotion of violent crime. The proposal is to punish people for what they do in their own homes, because other people may find that offensive.

Some images, such as snuff movies, are offensive to me, but I think that the law may also extend to some S&M images on this site.

In the future, viewing some images on SG could become a crime in the UK.

LOL.

It's not surprising really, is it? With neoconservatives occupying the whitehouse, it was almost inevitable that the internet, a bastion for freedom of expression, would be subjected to archaic legislation that patronizes the vast majority of adults who enjoy surfing for pornographic material on the web.

I voted and it didn't make a difference. Did I do it wrong?

Clinton had 8 years and 2 mandates to do this, and he didn't. Edwin Meese tried to shut down porn in the '80s. Who did he work for? Yup, Ronald Reagan.

I knew that from the story I'd written here previously which was derived from the BBC story. I was just using this as a case in point.

keep spinning, maybe someone here will actually believe you.

The law will be difficult to enforce. It's a very ambigious area to police effectively unless specfic guidelines are applied to what is and what isn't acceptable.

It's completely moronic to criminalize consenting adults who choose to produce S&M pornography and publish it on the web.

What kind of reactionary society are we living in.

[Edited on Sep 25, 2005 by blackwell]

How many people are there just like you in that red state? Could all your votes together have made a difference?

We'll never know, since you all said "fuck it, why bother trying."