Lifestyle

TOPICS:

10/15/05
10/13/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

276 | 277 | 278

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Vanuslux

Vanuslux

Atlanta, GA
February 2004

OCT 10, 2005 01:28 PM

Adult erotic story websites often have some really over-the-top subjects. Gang rapes, beastiality, incest, and sex with children are just a handful of the taboos that you can find explored in story form on sites like Red Rose Stories. Well, you could find them at one time, I've been told. The FBI shut them down in their recently invigorated War Against Pornography.

“Trust me on this. I found out the hard way. I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Rosie told XBiz via email. “I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room."



Who knows where the Porn Inquisition will strike next?

VeganGirl

VeganGirl

Boulder, CO
August 2005

OCT 10, 2005 02:07 PM

I'm really gonna have to get a Fuck Censorship T-Shirt now.

MetaTag

MetaTag

United Kingdom
September 2002

OCT 10, 2005 02:11 PM

I am offended by some things more than others...

One controversial Web site shows photos of bloody body parts and mangled corpses — photos, the site says, sent by U.S. troops in Iraq in exchange for free access to graphic pornography pictures.

One series of gruesome photos posted Tuesday showed bloody, naked, face-down male corpses from a variety of angles under the subject line, "Don't [expletive] with the U.S. Army."

"Some more insurgents sent to explain themselves to Allah," the caption read. "Killing is never a casual occurance [sic], but I would kill a thousand to save one American life. I am not responsible for the enemy casualties shown here."

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:12 PM

fuck. i thought this had been decided something like two years ago, as long as there were no pictures, sex fantasies were conidered fiction and therefore free speech?

UnnecessaryZ

unnecessaryz

Astoria, NY
July 2003

OCT 10, 2005 02:21 PM

dirtyprude said:
fuck. i thought this had been decided something like two years ago, as long as there were no pictures, sex fantasies were conidered fiction and therefore free speech?



Yeah, well, a sex fantasy is one thing. A detailed erotic description of what someone wants to do to their own kid is another.

Liante

Liante

SUICIDEGIRL

Kiribati

OCT 10, 2005 02:23 PM

Wiat waht? I clicked this thread completely expecting it to be a parody.

Seriously, wtf. While much of the "erotic fiction" on the Web is brain-meltingly awful, Harry Potter getting gangbanged by anthropomorphic jackalopes and then hatching wings is pretty hard to mistake for anything other than some poor person's dreamed-up fantasy. Nobody gets paid for creating it (thank god) and it's kinda hard to argue that this is going to incite anyone to any more horrible act than writing more of the stuff. Seems like a pretty textbook case of free speech, and I cannot imagine what the hell the feds are smoking to waste their time on this crap.

TonyTails

TonyTails

Calgary, AB
December 2003

OCT 10, 2005 02:29 PM

Liante said:
I cannot imagine what the hell the feds are smoking to waste their time on this crap.



They're high on Jesus.

Bev_Antain

Bev_Antain

Italy
February 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:36 PM

Onward christian soldiers

brokenb

brokenb

Seattle, WA
June 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:37 PM

Well, it's just a matter of time before SG admin voluntarily takes down the journals and forums, then.

It was fun while it lasted...
frown

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:40 PM

UnnecessaryZ said:

dirtyprude said:
fuck. i thought this had been decided something like two years ago, as long as there were no pictures, sex fantasies were conidered fiction and therefore free speech?



Yeah, well, a sex fantasy is one thing. A detailed erotic description of what someone wants to do to their own kid is another.


true, granted. to over simplify, i think this is a baby and the bathwater thing. i wonder why her site wa targeted... was it because it was the work of one person?

cunninglinquist

cunninglinquist

Quakertown, PA
November 2003

OCT 10, 2005 02:40 PM

It is the right wing religious clowns running this country. Words are just that words. Pictures that you see on the news are worse, but then they are part of big brother.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

OCT 10, 2005 02:43 PM

UnnecessaryZ said:

dirtyprude said:
fuck. i thought this had been decided something like two years ago, as long as there were no pictures, sex fantasies were conidered fiction and therefore free speech?



Yeah, well, a sex fantasy is one thing. A detailed erotic description of what someone wants to do to their own kid is another.



Well, a (sick, wrong, fucked up) sex fantasy is one thing. A fictional story detailing, say, serious hardcore drug abuse and forced prostitution and physical abuse is another. Or what about a spy thriller detailing a plot to overthrow the US government that involves killing government officials? Detailed journalistic descriptions of dead children in a war zone?

Are those all protected under the First Amendment or not? They all detail terrible, illegal things...

seanvegas

seanvegas

Lincoln, NE
December 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:45 PM

I read about this. It is total crap, but from what it seems like, the web site backed down without a fight just to avoid spending money on a defense. Had this gone to court, a judge may have ruled in the web site's favor!

Still, I really don't see any reason why the FBI would not target the written word. A paragraph discussing a graphic taboo sexual encounter can be considered artistically tasteless, whereas a movie of two people fucking can contained artistic taste.

But what pisses me off is not only the idea that the DOJ is wasting there time on this sort of shit, but also the countless pieces of literature (books by King Rice, etc) out there that involve sexual encounters with animals, children, gang rape and family members.

blackwell

blackwell

United Kingdom
October 2004

OCT 10, 2005 02:48 PM

I think it's very ironic that we - the coalition of the willing - are exporting our brand of democracy/freedom throughout the third world while our governments continue to impose draconian legislation that robs us of our liberty.

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

OCT 10, 2005 02:50 PM

In related news, anyone hoping to find good horse-on-man action before it is banned should be sure to type "bestiality" into google, and not "beastiality". wink

gtwr

gtwr

United Kingdom
October 2005

OCT 10, 2005 02:56 PM

Idjiit said:
In related news, anyone hoping to find good horse-on-man action before it is banned should be sure to type "bestiality" into google, and not "beastiality". wink



In this case I fully support the war on porn. I think this is sick.

blackwell

blackwell

United Kingdom
October 2004

OCT 10, 2005 03:08 PM

gtwr said:

Idjiit said:
In related news, anyone hoping to find good horse-on-man action before it is banned should be sure to type "bestiality" into google, and not "beastiality". wink



In this case I fully support the war on porn. I think this is sick.



The issue is not necessarily what material is being censored but rather the gradual erosion of our civil liberties, which seems to be increasing at an indeterminate rate.

I'm sure the vast majority of people who belong to this community do not 'get off' on the sort of material that has been censored by the American government.

[Edited on Oct 10, 2005 by blackwell]

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

OCT 10, 2005 03:13 PM

wow,........................... just wow.
eeek frown





Bye bye liberty surreal

fpkk

fpkk

United Kingdom
June 2003

OCT 10, 2005 03:17 PM

The days when a comedian could be arrested for saying cocksucker on stage are coming back.

Bill Hicks is up there laughing his ass off that he's beyond punishment for the eat some pussy and the suck your own cock bits.

igordog

igordog

Venice, CA
May 2005

OCT 10, 2005 03:17 PM

Liante said:
.... I cannot imagine what the hell the feds are smoking to waste their time on this crap.



They aren't wasting their time. They are deliberately and intentionally chipping away our rights. Making us easier to control. Easier to inflict further and more outrageous infringements on our rights.

In some places, the statement that I just wrote above would be illegal.... it might not be long before it is here.... I could legitimately imagine it within my life time. Although, I'll have quit this country before it ever gets there....

docrock

docrock

Australia
May 2005

OCT 10, 2005 03:18 PM

Idjiit said:
In related news, anyone hoping to find good horse-on-man action before it is banned should be sure to type "bestiality" into google, and not "beastiality". wink



Proof positive that opression lowers the IQ of any country. Spelling is always the first to go...


Seriously, I can understand when one small individual or small business backs down in the face of authority, and isn't willing to take it to court when the whole political and legal structure (not only america, but countries like britain and australia as well - grrrrrrr) seems to support this sort of bullshit.

This is truly scary.

SomethingStupid

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA
March 2004

OCT 10, 2005 03:24 PM

Yes! Finally I can indulge my sheep fantasies and be considered admirable for engaging in civil disobedience!

igordog

igordog

Venice, CA
May 2005

OCT 10, 2005 03:29 PM

gtwr said:

In this case I fully support the war on porn. I think this is sick.



Bestiality is already illegal, so's incest.... people who make it are criminals.... people can't fuck animals or their children... this is not the issue in question.... this is about censorship....

Saying that I can't write a sentence... ANY sentence, is with out a question both wrong, and constitutionally illegal.

If you don't like what your seeing, than TURN THE FUCKING CHANNEL!

That being said, I fully support you right NOT to watch it or read it.... I also support you right to tell other people that they shouldn't watch or read it...

But it ends there.... you can't make laws to enforce your own personal feelings of asthetic or morality and still call your home a free country....

To quote Larry Flint, "the price we pay for our freedom is tolerance..."


Also, btw.... sorry I took your statment out of it's context. I totally agree with your disgust with trophy photographs of war victoms. However, I feel that the issue with your (and my) disgust should be about the war.... not photographs about the war. If anything, I believe there should be photos of the deaths caused by war distributed via internet. The media obviously is 'too moral' to tell us what we actually do over there....

[Edited on Oct 10, 2005 3:35PM]

Chriztian

Chriztian

Tallahassee, FL
September 2004

OCT 10, 2005 03:48 PM

How come we can't have some jackass lawyer (redundant I know) go on a crusade for our first amendment rights like that dipshit who is trying to make all video games g-rated...even though the average gamer is now is his late 20's-early 30's.

Oh wait, I forgot we're too damn lazy to support him and generally don't have deep enough pockets for it. Whereas all these rich people can be scandalized that their newest box-like babysitter can show the dirty things they think about and collect. ARRR!!!

MetaTag

MetaTag

United Kingdom
September 2002

OCT 10, 2005 03:49 PM

From the days of Clinton in charge, a Bush promotional grafiti...



[Edited on Oct 10, 2005 by MetaTag]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next