RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights

RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

JohnWarren -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (10/31/2005 9:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I really like your idea of the penultimate umbrella.......that's as close as I can come to american for the latin 'penumbra' covering the four cornerposts of the constitution.........my little revolutionary........LOL What would be the ultimate one? quote: So far it seems tho, that most sites are shutting down and people are clamming up.......otherwise Miller might be invoked and re-tested....... and I am quite aware that it is anathema to overturn cases at that level........seems like it could be left to the owners disgression if it made it that far.... Miller doesn't apply to the current laws since they take aim at "indecency" rather than "obscenity". In any case, Miller overturned Roth. Stare decisis doesn't seem to carry the weight in obscenity it does elsewhere.

wipmebeetme100 -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (10/31/2005 11:42:21 PM)
quote: Do you know what the NSCF has done and is doing? Pink in her current circumstances can't travel and can't even meet for regular business meetings. I love and support passion and activism, and if Pink feels this is her calling in life then she should persue it. But research the resources you have. Yes, i know what the NSCF has done and continues to do. Their plate is pretty full, and their work is much appreciated. This in no way is a criticism of them. No one is asking Pink to do this herself, so i don't see a problem with travel and business meetings. It is real easy to find reasons why one should not do something....lets channel that energy into the thinking that..."this can be done". Let me ask everyone this...Are you doing everything you can to make sure that Bush is not successful in this endeavor? Is it important enough to you? cathy

IronBear -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (10/31/2005 11:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre quote: ORIGINAL: Dadddy Here's something I don't quite understand. For most people who think any sexuality is evil, it's a moral issue, right? Well, aren't morals tied in with most religious faiths? Isn't all of this censorship just a really blatant example of non-separation of church and state? The speration of church and state has only one intention - that the state will establish no "official" or "national" faith above any other. It was, by the way, intended to protect the ability of religeous faiths to influence policy by making sure o single faith had all the power. It was in no way intended to prevent religeous influence. It certainly does not mean that people cannot make decisions based upon their individual faith. Actually Soulhuntre, you are quite wrong there is as much that Bush is tied in with the radical Right Wing Christians. (We saw the effects here in Australia in our own political scene). Whilst I have no first hand evidence I do have numerous reports from a wide variety of alternative religions and in particular Wiccanas well as other pagans. The bush administration is surreptitiously attacking their existence and in some cases men in dark suits have been seen and photographed taking details of license plates and following people to ascertain the location of pagan religious meetings as well as compiling lists. Now if these folk are not being targeted or being identified for future action I can not imagine why there is such activities. Never forget that for years Multinational Corporations have been dictating to Governments in such areas as fuel pricing and the suppression of alternative fuels. Do you really think that a radical religious organization cannot and would not do the same? It boils down to who has the money to buy the Government on specific decisions…. Who do you think are behind this drive against pornography? here we know it is the "Family First Party", the leader of which was reported in the national press prior to the last federal election to have stated that when they win power that he would want witched and lesbians burned at the stake publically. This group is a Right Wing Christian organisation with direct ties to george Bush's Church and is funded by the Assemblies of God. Dont forget that as hard as it is to get legislation passed it almost needs an Act od God to have it either repealed or at least modified to a sensible and logical level. Take the money anf personal power out of politics and you may get good political parties who do represent the people.

pinkpleasures -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:01:46 AM)
quote: Do you know what the NSCF has done and is doing? Pink in her current circumstances can't travel and can't even meet for regular business meetings. LuckyAlbatross I quote: love and support passion and activism, and if Pink feels this is her calling in life then she should persue it. But research the resources you have. Yes, i know what the NSCF has done and continues to do. Their plate is pretty full, and their work is much appreciated. This in no way is a criticism of them. No one is asking Pink to do this herself, so i don't see a problem with travel and business meetings. It is real easy to find reasons why one should not do something....lets channel that energy into the thinking that..."this can be done". Let me ask everyone this...Are you doing everything you can to make sure that Bush is not successful in this endeavor? Is it important enough to you? wipmebeetme100 i have already said, Lucky Albatross does not speak for me..nothing prevents me from attending a business meeting, but people are interested in this all over the country, so face to face meetings are not feasible. i agree with wipmebeetme100 that this is something to attend to; i still have not contacted the NSCF nor the ACLU nor done any legal research; i was sorta testing the waters to see what level of interest there is here. Sadly, there seems to be a prevalant attitude of "we can do nothing so why try". pinkpleasures

plantlady64 -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:04:26 AM)
Hello Pink, I participate int the Woodhull Freedom Foundation who also participates in the legislation against banning all porn. I wish you luck in your Political Action Committee. Sincerely, sub suzanne

starshineowned -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:32:03 AM)
Greetings..~smiles~ I'm not a political junkie..don't want to be. But when it comes down to all these changes and attempted bans or pretty much anything else for that matter..isn't the President really just a figure head in all this? If memory serves me okay..it's your lobbyist (spelling), Religious big wig fanatics, and congressional persons elected that get these balls rolling. Alot of these things on the books get passed on from one administration to the next, and are not soley the creation of the administration in office when it does finally take effect. Pro's/Con's with every administration since the creation there of but the President himself just doesn't have much say in anything. starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Mercnbeth -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 7:23:45 AM)
Pink, In another thread you wrote: quote: i would not reject anyone based on their political views, and i'm no longer following the news, so i'd be easily out-done in a debate. It's not a matter of being out debated. What we are facing is out numbered by a factor of thousands. Laws in this country are ultimately passed or revoked due to majority opinion. After the lightning-rod that was the 4 second Janet Jackson metallic nipple, the majority mobilized. We are seeing the result. Sure we stand on the "moral" ground of personal privacy, but if you notice the opposition is not battling that front. They are attacking the non-personal space. The public airways of TV and Radio, newsstands where magazine covers can be observed openly, stores and clubs that publicly advertise their wares, and of course the Internet. Our debate point is you can change the channel, parental "V-chips" are installed in every new TV, brown paper covers the cover of playboy. But what of the Internet? There is the equivalent of Janet's nipple popping out all over, in pop-ups and unsolicited email. The lightning-rod is in front of them every day. It was a coincident that Bush and the republicans were in power when this happened. Whoever was in charge would have been forced to address this public outcry. quote: i do not want to live in a country where BDSM is mixed up with prohibited porn; i want the web site owners to be left alone Better in this country then one where someone's definition of "porn" can get you executed. Appreciate what religious right wing represents. It is a LARGE voting block. The membership sheep will vote as a block as directed by their leaders. The republicans exploit this in the same way that the Democrats used to exploit the union and the black vote. Except unlike the Democrats who let that support erode, the republicans go out of their way to cater to it with very positive results. Again, pragmatically, if a miracle happened and our group could be unified and guarantee support to one party or candidate would anyone welcome us? No - Not because they don't want/need the votes/money, but because our numbers are not meaningful. And for every vote we bring to the table, two or more will be generated against the candidate or cause that we support. This isn't surrender it's acknowledgment of reality. We need to fight a more "gorilla"-type war; picking battles for pragmatically universally "good" causes which would bring in enough support to create a coalition majority. Fighting specific battles is much more productive. But you only went to that tact once you gave up on the PAC idea. Local issues, local fights for child custody for instance are "winnable". Because there we are back to arguing for personal privacy, personal rights. Basically these are the battles that the NSFC is fighting. quote: Ron: (oh fuck Merc aint you just about squicked about being culled with me? LMAO) Ron, never think that personal beliefs or political disagreement generates animosity with me. I reserve that for the frauds who misrepresent themselves and the lifestyle. Not squicked at all - honored even. Hell, beth and I couldn't be further apart on a LOT of issues, from god's existence to welfare assistance. Except is our case if we debate and she starts to win - I just gag her! PS - Just in case there is any doubt, gagging beth during debate WAS A JOKE! After the debate is another story!

Soulhuntre -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 12:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger Your a few decades out of date there. The last time obscenity was challenged under the law was FCC v. Pacifica way back in 1987. (Obscene devices, in contrast to obscene images, was last baned in Alabama in 1999. The battle on that one is still ongoing.) The concept that depicting in word or image a sadomasochistic act is by definition outside first amendment protection is an broadening of the concept of obscenity that is inherantly questionable under Miller. This broadening has not yet had a supreme court challenge. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger No, the current rally cry is not "obscene" but instead "please wont someone think of the children". A rally cry that, in case no one noticed, is pushed by radical feminism every bit as hard as radical religeous zealots. Take a look aroudn the web at some of the more active and vocal "grass roots" feminist organizations - the only thing they DO agree with the current administration about is how evil sex and pornography, specifically BDSM, are. It will be important to remember this in the coming fight. The enemy of your enemy can still fuck you over :) quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger Specificity, title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 got amended on June 23, 2005 and now has some rather harebrained record keeping requirements in order to "prove" that all models are over the age of 18. Prosecution, if it even comes at all, is going to be because someone didn't dot all the Is and cross all the Ts for the necessary paperwork, not because of the obscenity of the materials being sold. The current prosecutions of written descriptions of BDSM are not about record keeping issues. quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: Gem The ACLU walked away fromt he Barbra Nike case, as did Barbra Nike herself. Not sure how the NCSF is still allowed to use her name. Could you give me a cite on this. Last time I talked to Barbara, she was still involved in the suit. Yeah, that sort of baffled me too. Last time I spoke with Barbara she seemed fully comitted. It's possible she or Susan Wright will be at TES tonight, I'll double check if I see them. quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Actually Soulhuntre, you are quite wrong there is as much that Bush is tied in with the radical Right Wing Christians. He is constitutionally allowed to have his own religeous beliefs and still hold public offic. The assertion (that I was responding to) that the mere act of having your morals or ethics influenced by your religeoun was a "church and state" violation is simply incorrect. I am unsure how anything you stated after this makes this reality or my stating it "quote wrong". quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear surreptitiously attacking their existence and in some cases men in dark suits have been seen and photographed taking details of license plates and following people to ascertain the location of pagan religious meetings as well as compiling lists. Now if these folk are not being targeted or being identified for future action I can not imagine why there is such activities. Me either... and frankly I doubt it is happening. Heck, I know lots of people on the web who are convinced the CIA is targeting them with mind control rays and making them think lewd thoughts. Mere paranoia and "I saw a guy" type statements are not even remotely enough information or evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Take the money anf personal power out of politics and you may get good political parties who do represent the people. There is not and never will be a way to prevent political power from bringing with it and attracting the attention of wealth and personal power.

wipmebeetme100 -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 4:17:41 PM)
quote: Our debate point is you can change the channel, parental "V-chips" are installed in every new TV, brown paper covers the cover of playboy. But what of the Internet? There is the equivalent of Janet's nipple popping out all over, in pop-ups and unsolicited email. The lightning-rod is in front of them every day. It was a coincident that Bush and the republicans were in power when this happened. Whoever was in charge would have been forced to address this public outcry. I started thinking a bit more about this. Why no flak over the adult bookstores? We have 9 in Colorado Springs and no one is out targeting them. Well, lets see....the names aren't two descriptive...1st Amendment, Romantix, L.V. Video Plaza.....nothing too overt. Hmmm...now the store windows....no nudes, no sexual acts, no pics of dildos, etc. O.K. For the most part they are not out there screaming...HEY, SEX IN HERE!!!! Now let's take a look at some of our adult websites....sure there are age disclaimers, but how many age disclaimer pages depict people engaged in sexual acts? Maybe it is our lack of better judgement that has helped to create this problem. Too late to cry over spilt milk...but that still does not mean i want to sit back and do nothing. It only means that maybe there is a lesson here and we need to learn from our mistakes. Peace, cathy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 4:28:34 PM)
quote: I started thinking a bit more about this. Why no flak over the adult bookstores? We have 9 in Colorado Springs and no one is out targeting them. Well, lets see....the names aren't two descriptive...1st Amendment, Romantix, L.V. Video Plaza.....nothing too overt. Hmmm...now the store windows....no nudes, no sexual acts, no pics of dildos, etc. O.K. For the most part they are not out there screaming...HEY, SEX IN HERE!!!! cathy, Exactly! The club beth and I attending for Halloween in LA had no sign at all and no obvious door to enter. The white iron gate entrance is dark and forbidding. You'd miss it unless you knew where it was and what it was. It defines "low profile". In our opinion it's the BEST place with the BEST people both running it and in attendance.

Jacques1000 -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 4:38:42 PM)
I don't want to be too facetious and flippant, but you would all be most welcome to emigrate New Zealand--noted for its liberal legislation. Last year alone, Civil Unions for same sex partners, the decriminalisation of prostitution, the Clear Air Act (anti-smoking) and a liberal social agenda where the puritannical right are an irrelevancy. I empathise.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 5:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I started thinking a bit more about this. Why no flak over the adult bookstores? We have 9 in Colorado Springs and no one is out targeting them. Well, lets see....the names aren't two descriptive...1st Amendment, Romantix, L.V. Video Plaza.....nothing too overt. Hmmm...now the store windows....no nudes, no sexual acts, no pics of dildos, etc. O.K. For the most part they are not out there screaming...HEY, SEX IN HERE!!!! cathy, Exactly! The club beth and I attending for Halloween in LA had no sign at all and no obvious door to enter. The white iron gate entrance is dark and forbidding. You'd miss it unless you knew where it was and what it was. It defines "low profile". In our opinion it's the BEST place with the BEST people both running it and in attendance. There ya go! Where I used to attend (and even worked for a few years), if you weren't a member and didn't know, you would pass right by. The local police knew we were there. One officer even stopped in on occasion. No problems. Consenting adults doing nothing illegal. The internet is very much in your face, and can be difficult to monitor. I like this site, because there are not all sorts of blatant, sexy gals in shiney black latex. This is a 3rd party location wherein records cannot be kept of every single photo. And I am sure it is hard for the Mods to monitor every single word that is being posted. But they do it, and for that we are grateful. (I am, anyway!) So, when in doubt, take it out. It doesn't bother Me. When they take away My right to practice what I wish, discreetly and respectfully, I will object. There are other freedoms being lost which are far more important to Me than whether or not I can post a sexy avatar. Is it really all that necessary? Not to Me, it isn't.

thetammyjo -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre The concept that depicting in word or image a sadomasochistic act is by definition outside first amendment protection is an broadening of the concept of obscenity that is inherantly questionable under Miller. This broadening has not yet had a supreme court challenge. In general Supreme Court decisions have increased the protection for all works of creativity -- written and visual -- with the exception of two things. First, child pornography and age limits are considered legal. Second the government can refuse to fund or give grants to artists. Where do I get this? One of the books I'm using right now in my class on the history of erotic literature. "Utterly Without Redeeming Social Value: Obscenity and Pornography Decisions of the United States Supreme Court" edited by Maureen Harrison and Steve Gilbert. On the general issues you can consult Michael Perkins' "The Secret Record," David Loth's "The Erotic in Literature" and if you discussions of manuscript survival you can even tackle Patrick J. Kearney's "A History of Erotic Literature". In general attempts to stiffle sexual materials has led to more self-censorship than government imposed censorship. The reason is the economic and social risk involved in possible persecution (however unlikely). Let's face it, even if the supreme court decides for you how much time and money did you invest in the defense. Again, I'll keep saying it over and over, you can't hide you just have embrace the art and the literature, create it, buy it, support it. I really believe that sites and companies and creators who are fully out are the least likely targets because they have more coverage and more support. Officals will target the easiest targets first because they want to have wins they can spin to their supporters. I'm rambling.

candystripper -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:16:14 PM)
quote: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. ~Martin Niemoeller~ Just a thought for the complacent. candystripper

thetammyjo -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 6:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wipmebeetme100 I started thinking a bit more about this. Why no flak over the adult bookstores? We have 9 in Colorado Springs and no one is out targeting them. Well, lets see....the names aren't two descriptive...1st Amendment, Romantix, L.V. Video Plaza.....nothing too overt. Hmmm...now the store windows....no nudes, no sexual acts, no pics of dildos, etc. O.K. For the most part they are not out there screaming...HEY, SEX IN HERE!!!! Now let's take a look at some of our adult websites....sure there are age disclaimers, but how many age disclaimer pages depict people engaged in sexual acts? Maybe it is our lack of better judgement that has helped to create this problem. Too late to cry over spilt milk...but that still does not mean i want to sit back and do nothing. It only means that maybe there is a lesson here and we need to learn from our mistakes. Books, written literature hasn't really been the target of anti-porn folks for a couple of decades now. They can simply rezone anyway if they really want to put a store out of business but official know better than to make obscenity charges because the Supreme Court has made these interpretations in the past. Internet has also been dealt with but not in some many cases and over so many decades. Its still "new" so it seems like it might be an easier target. Plus the internet seems more readily available than the neighborhood adult bookstore with its blacked out windows and the rep for being a "naughty" place. A 12 year old walking into a store front is very unlikely to get much service but online you can pretend more easily to be "legal age". The age question then gets us back into those few circumstances where the Supreme Court has said state and federal can get involved in regulating sexual materials.

wipmebeetme100 -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/1/2005 11:58:49 PM)
quote: Internet has also been dealt with but not in some many cases and over so many decades. Its still "new" so it seems like it might be an easier target. Plus the internet seems more readily available than the neighborhood adult bookstore with its blacked out windows and the rep for being a "naughty" place. A 12 year old walking into a store front is very unlikely to get much service but online you can pretend more easily to be "legal age". I also see a lot of parents that don't want to be bothered monitoring their childrens internet access. And yes, i do see that as a parental repsonsibility.

Soulhuntre -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/2/2005 11:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper quote: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. That quote is an interesting one - not the least of which because of how often it is selectively applied. For instance I know many people who have used it in the current battle over censorship who have in other times completely supported the idea of prosecution without evidence in so called "date rape" cases and similar instances. It seems to be something trotted out whe someone doesn't like what is happening to them, and ignored when they like what they are doing to others :)

thetammyjo -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/2/2005 11:24:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wipmebeetme100 quote: Internet has also been dealt with but not in some many cases and over so many decades. Its still "new" so it seems like it might be an easier target. Plus the internet seems more readily available than the neighborhood adult bookstore with its blacked out windows and the rep for being a "naughty" place. A 12 year old walking into a store front is very unlikely to get much service but online you can pretend more easily to be "legal age". I also see a lot of parents that don't want to be bothered monitoring their childrens internet access. And yes, i do see that as a parental repsonsibility. I completely agree. But the political and social reality is that it is this group of parents who don't want to do this who are making the greatest noise so the politicos pay most attention. If we as a group spent tons of money (both for political causes and to support the businesses and creators of our erotic materials), wrote to our representatives in government and pulled out voter drives they pay attention to us. I would not be surprised if the government targets small businesses first because they will settle and fold up faster than let's say an important publisher or a massive money making pornographer.

Soulhuntre -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/3/2005 11:46:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo But the political and social reality is that it is this group of parents who don't want to do this who are making the greatest noise so the politicos pay most attention. I agree - and interestingly it isn't all from one side the way many think. For instance in the "left / liberal" side fo the world there is a fringe group that is pushing a extreme extension of political corectness called "non-coercive parenting". The idea behind it is to fight opression by granting children the same final say in their lives youw oudl give an adult. No punishment, no coercion. Your child doesn't want to go to school? Don;t force them. They want to surf porn ont he Internet? Let them - but then declare porn as "exploitation" and try and get it shutdown. Idiocy exists on all sides :)

candystripper -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/3/2005 4:23:36 PM)
quote: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. ~Martin Niemoeller~ (1892-1984) Quote used by candystripper quote: That quote is an interesting one - not the least of which because of how often it is selectively applied. For instance I know many people who have used it in the current battle over censorship who have in other times completely supported the idea of prosecution without evidence in so called "date rape" cases and similar instances. It seems to be something trotted out whe someone doesn't like what is happening to them, and ignored when they like what they are doing to others :) Soulhuntre Martin Niemoeller was a Protestant Pastor who initially lent his support to the Nazi Party as a force to overturn the Communists. He withdrew his support when Hitler made churches subordinate to government, and was imprisioned for 7 years in a concentration camp. He later opposed the prolifigation of nuclear weapons. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/niemoeller.html Jewish Virtual Library i fail to see any correlation between Niemoeller's famous quote and date rape...but i am sure his quote has been used by other "people who didn't like what was happening to them". The message of the quote is quite powerful. For example, the current proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage is something i have actively opposed. i do so in part because i have gay friends who are dear to me; in part because i fear it may signal a return to the bad old days, overturning such legislation as hate crime charge enhancements; and partially because a country in which gay people must live without the same rights as i is one headed down a path of repression which eventually will find its way to my door, my bedroom, my Church, my community. Another quote which applies is: quote: We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. -- July 4th, 1776 ~Ben Franklin~ http://www.famous-quote.net/ben-franklin-quotes.shtml candystripper

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125