Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 12:18:36 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You do know it used to be illegal to make pornography in this country, right?

Mon Jul 01 2024 12:12:42 EDT from Nurb432

Even if that was true, this is not about porn at its core. its about "adult oriented content" which can apply to nearly any arbitrary content they want, and force every adult person to give up their privacy.

Porn is the excuse, and like many laws "but its for the children". When really its not.

Mon Jul 01 2024 12:09:57 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

Pornography is not speech. Make Porn Illegal Again!

 


 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 12:37:01 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That is why what many people call porn, has actual content. Once a story line is added, its no longer pornography. Plus porn is a form of art.  May not be art i like, but i refuse to restrict another adults viewing of it.

But again, this is NOT a law targeting porn. Its a law expanding the ability of the government to invade privacy and effect free speech, using porn and children as the excuse.

Mon Jul 01 2024 12:18:36 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

You do know it used to be illegal to make pornography in this country, right?

 

 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 16:59:03 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You are hopeless.

Mon Jul 01 2024 12:37:01 EDT from Nurb432

Once a story line is added, its no longer pornography. Plus porn is a form of art.

 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 17:32:10 EDT from zelgomer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2024-07-01 20:59 from SouthernComputerGeek <msgrhys@uncensored.citadel.org>

You are hopeless.

Why would you ever want to give the government power over what you can see? Nobody's forcing you to look at it.

[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 18:52:36 EDT from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Why would you ever want to give the government power over what you can

see? Nobody's forcing you to look at it.



He is afraid somebody, somewhere, is having fun.

[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:11:29 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Why?  While its not for me either, why would you try to restrict what another *adult* can view? ( assuming all parties are consenting adults of course. not going ' go there' in this discussion ) How is it harming you in any way at all? No one is saying you have to watch/view..    "i may not agree with your speech, but ill still fight to protect your right to say it".

If its just that you think its offensive, I happen to think 'rap music' is offensive. but that does not mean it should be outlawed. 

Some in this world claim that even seeing a woman's face is a crime...  Restrictions like this are arbitrary, and ant-liberty.

Mon Jul 01 2024 16:59:03 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

You are hopeless.

Mon Jul 01 2024 12:37:01 EDT from Nurb432

Once a story line is added, its no longer pornography. Plus porn is a form of art.

 



 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:33:29 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Surely you, a human being with a functioning brain, can understand that pornography is not speech. Just as hanging rubber testicles from the bumper of your truck is also not speech. It is not unconstitutional to ban obscenity. Ever heard of the Communications Decency Act?

Mon Jul 01 2024 19:11:29 EDT from Nurb432

"i may not agree with your speech, but ill still fight to protect your right to say it".

 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:41:35 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.  

I assume you also feel the statue of David should be torn down? It has that evil nudity so cant be 'art'...  

Mon Jul 01 2024 19:33:29 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

Surely you, a human being with a functioning brain, can understand that pornography is not speech.



 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:46:26 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

*sigh* the statue of David is not pornography.

Mon Jul 01 2024 19:41:35 EDT from Nurb432

I assume you also feel the statue of David should be torn down? It has that evil nudity so cant be 'art'... 

 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:49:52 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Many, believe it is.   which is exactly part of my point.



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 19:52:30 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

To be clear, when I say 'pornography' I mean videos, photos or drawings of people engaging in sexual activity.



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 20:02:03 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

To you its pron, to another its art. To another, its free speech. To another its silliness. To another, it might be against their region and constitute the death penalty.

The lesser should always win. That is what liberty is all about. 

 

And who is to say the true intent of David? Leonardo could have meant it as a sexual object, and laughed at everyone who viewed it "suckers". He did have a sense of humor.. No one knows for sure.   



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 20:05:41 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And sorry for the typos.  you are new, you will get used to it :)

 

Stupid auto spell 'fix' which makes it look like its correct, and my lack of proofreading for correct word context before i post, gets me every time.  I really am not that illiterate :) 



[#] Mon Jul 01 2024 22:45:44 EDT from zelgomer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2024-07-01 23:33 from SouthernComputerGeek <msgrhys@uncensored.citadel.org>

Surely you, a human being with a functioning brain, can understand
that pornography is not speech. Just as hanging rubber testicles from
the bumper of your truck is also not speech. It is not
unconstitutional to ban obscenity. Ever heard of the Communications
Decency Act?

Are you aware that you're on a message board called "Uncensored"?

[#] Tue Jul 02 2024 07:42:04 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Honestly, don't care.  Many, ( one can argue most, but not all, i do fully admit ) laws are unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. That they are a 'law' is irrelevant, in the discussion of right and wrong. And true, some are more of a violation than others. In the 2A community we deal with this all the time.  Just because a law has not been struck down yet does not make it 'right'.  And even said unconstitutional law makes it to SCOTUS and isn't struck down ( or ignored ), it simply means they messed up, it does not magically become 'ok' to infringe.

True, its a law, and you might go to prison for violation, but its still wrong in this context.

And i can go back to my example of other countries, most who are even worse. Its law there for xyz that we would not even think of doing.  And its still wrong, even if their social constructs, or random belief system, allows, or even demands, it.

Remember too, i'm one that feels the constitution did not go far enough.  It was a great foundation, but they needed to build it a bit stronger to withstand attacks from within. They wrongly assumed that future generations would improve, not destroy, the groundwork they created and the way of life they dreamed of.

Mon Jul 01 2024 19:33:29 EDT from SouthernComputerGeek

 Ever heard of the Communications Decency Act?

 


[#] Tue Jul 02 2024 11:56:31 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

lol   ya :)

Mon Jul 01 2024 22:45:44 EDT from zelgomer
Are you aware that you're on a message board called "Uncensored"?

 



[#] Wed Jul 03 2024 04:57:46 EDT from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2024-07-01 19:33 from SouthernComputerGeek
Surely you, a human being with a functioning brain, can understand
that pornography is not speech. Just as hanging rubber testicles from

the bumper of your truck is also not speech. It is not
unconstitutional to ban obscenity. Ever heard of the Communications
Decency Act?

Pornography is a means of expression. Softcore pornographic fotography often tries to approach to traditional artistic photography.

But even if it didn't count as "expression" or "speech" I still think it is dumb to empower the government to ban what people jerks off to. Today they try to ban porn, tomorrow they use those same mechanisms to ban something you care about.

[#] Wed Jul 03 2024 08:17:55 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Which was the "setup" here in my state.  and why it got shut down ( for now.. with luck permanent )

"adult oriented material" is pretty damned vague. on purpose. Hell that would even cover something as minor as Steven King books.. Not that i read them as its not my thing, but the government has no business knowing i don't. ( part of the law was 'audit on demand' so they had to give out periodic list of who accessed what. )

Also could cover gun related books, stores.. 18+ for that too. ( many have the 'im over 18' button on them now.. ).  Have to show ID at the door and its recorded, if all you do is browse...  ( gets around if you pay cash for that ammo...now they know )

Wed Jul 03 2024 04:57:46 EDT from darknetuser
. Today they try to ban porn, tomorrow they use those same mechanisms to ban something you care about.

 



[#] Wed Jul 03 2024 13:03:06 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I hope we didn't run him off.. 

Mon Jul 01 2024 22:45:44 EDT from zelgomer
Are you aware that you're on a message board called "Uncensored"?

 



[#] Thu Jul 04 2024 10:45:49 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Related to the law about requiring registration to view 'adult oriented content'..

 

I dont know details, not real important, but there was a case at SCOTUS this week regarding a teacher using snapchat for grooming students. (ok, that is wrong but its not a constitutional issue ). Something about trying to get them out of section 230, due to their *users* actions.  They voted not to bother to hear it. ( a flaw in our Constitution, but for another day ) 2 normally conservative justices were the dissenters and one put out a statement ( as they always do ) but 2 items really caught my eye:  

  • "It will come up again and not hearing this now, will delay our us holding media platforms accountable for their platforms."  its not their fault that they have bad users. Cant hold companies liable for what their customers do.  Even discussing that at this level is a bad precedent, and clearly he has intent and desire ..
  • And he goes on to say "flaws like allowing people to auto delete posts or lie about their age or identity.".. and that its "a defective design"   yikes. Not good. this is a bad road to go down. And from what normally is a conservative. 

 

 

Sounds like 'know your user' mandates is coming... As well as self-policing ALL content, especially private conversations. And not just stuff the platform owner dislikes.  I assume that also means phone/data companies, and no more end-to-end encryption. Oh and do we now get to hold Microsoft liable for letting them type bad things in the first place, or deleting files? Monitor companies for displaying the content ?  Do we hold Ford liable due to letting someone kidnap the person groomed on shapchat, using a windows computer, and phone, on the AT&T network with an LG large screen monitor, and put them in the back seat and be able to start the car still? How about sidewalks.. people hide their identity and do bad things there too.. or the park.. Bar codes on our forehead and tracker chips in our neck? Mandatory monitoring of all people and all devices? How far does it go before its stopped?   Orwell would be proud ( ok, not really, but you get the point )



Go to page: First ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20