Why do you support censorship yet continue to work in porn?

free speech doesnt give some one the right to be irresponsible. People who cry free speech or talk about being free speech advocates but I dont see any of those larger players filing suit over the new 2257. So its all cheap talk. Hustler talked the talked but also walked it , those people I can respect pushing line because they are willing to fight for it.

I've been in this business decades and have had to operate in the UK when things were tight.

I'm probably one of the very few here who've had a knock on the door at 5.00 pm by policeman holding a search warrant. And I'm in favour of censorship.

When we are attacked it's the content at the extreme limits that makes us in the centre vunerable. Yes we need to push the boundaries, otherwise we would all consider a glimpse of a ladies ankles erotic, but those boundaries need to be nudged.

Also some of the content being produced is illegal and should never be condoned, or do you consider using a person as a toilet as acceptable?

Once again - two adults having sex, whether is double anal or deep throats - this is just sex, something eveyone does ( even hypocrite conservative politicians ) and the models get paid and everyone is happy and so is the surfer while watching it.

Burning a cat just for fun is horrible, it shows the guys who did it have no feelings, no emotions and no morals and they cannot exist as normal citizens in a society. They deserve to be punished and showing this viseo to the public, especially with such comments like "this is the hottest pussy" is very irresponsible too and is a very bad example.

don't have time to explain further my point of view, but i am sure many others feel the same as i do.

For the same reason the biggest talk-show host in the country can be popping pills all day long while preaching that others who do so should be sent to prison.

CD, public airways have ALWAYS (read that again) ALWAYS been regulated by the FCC with a code of conduct. The populace wants it, it will not be going away.

The rest of your examples are private entities and they can do as they see fit.

Well exactly. It goes to my central point that people working in adult should be more aware of the detriment and counter-productivity that supporting censorship brings.

I'm as outraged by 'the cat' video as anyone else. The difference is that my anger is focused on those who made it, and not on those who posted it. I am not in support of taking away the right to post contraversial matter, because it opens the door for censorists to take away more rights, tightening the scope of online expression. Do that and soon society will have the blinders on full-bore. No one will be allowed to post or report anything deemed "too contraversial".



And to Paul --- No, I don't personally like the content you mentioned, the "using someone as a toilet" stuff..... but I realize there are people out there who do like to view that sort of thing. I'm not in support of removing the rights of others simply because I don't like something. As long as it's not CP or anything else illegal that is. Hey, let's ban pissing content too huh? There are people who don't like that. What about anything demeaning to anyone, like BDSM.... what about fish-hooking? Let's ban that too right?

See where censorship is a row of dominoes just waiting to be set off?

You think girls do double anal and are happy? Not only that it's just sex?

You worry me more than the cat people.

best post ive seen in the history of gfy.

Let me ask you this.. What if i found a clip where a baby was getting kicked around by a few people... What if i released that clip with a cute little tagline such as "Bouncy Bouncy Baby" or "Anyone for a game of soccer?" instead of demeaning the people who were doing this?

Do you see the difference yet?

You sit here and harp about censorship yet what you havent seemed to figure out is that with freedom of speech come some responsibility for your actions as well.

It really doesn't matter who shows it or did it...they have the morals of a snake.It was tasteless and I wouldn't compare porn to animal abuse.These kinds of videos encourage the sick fucks to make them .Regardless,they love the publicity ..good or bad..It swells their heads even more.

Clicks, I must point out that I don't necessarily agree with what the politically-motivated examples are saying. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Michael Moore has to say, nor do I think the same way as Stern or even agree with the satire of doonsbury.

But I'll defend their right to say it.

I'm sure Stern, and the comic strip doonsbury, will survive and live on. I'm just not for taking away their rights to comment on what they want to comment on. That's all. It seems to me that this is a joyous time for those who are pro-censorship, and a very dark time for those against it. If people keep actually supporting it like I've seen around here lately, we will soon be in more trouble than we ever bargained for.

do you feel better now ?

Newsflash: CJ's whole gameplan is to be tasteless.

Are you in favor of removing the right of joke sites to post "dead baby" jokes? I mean seriously, there are a lot of parents out there who might be terribly offended by those, we better remove some rights soas to protect those parents.

And I'm not comparing porn to animal abuse. I'm saying that advocating censorship is a bad idea, and I'm using the examples at hand.

Do you?

CD let me give u a newsflash,

99% of people were just quick to jump on the topic starters cock and agree with him,

i still cant believe there is even a discussion especially on GFY.

My anger would be directed to those who made the clip.

I'm not saying the description wouldn't spark some outrage too. Of course it would, but not to the point where I want to yell for taking away some rights.


People.... tell the guys at CJ how outraged you are by that title.... sure. What I'm saying is, be careful about how you cry out for the right to post something contraversial should be taken away, because you're opening up a pretty dangerous cavern if you do.

That's all.

Surely even you, Joe, can understand that.

Agreed.

This thread was a long time coming. Too many fools in this industry have the blinders on when it comes to the dangers of supporting censorship.

I am not surprised about the outcome of things. It's called *hypocrisy* and the world has plenty of it to offer.

Most of them are products of their governments.

They have no idea that their rights and freedoms are being taken away from them from right beneath their noses. Most can't think for themselves and prefer to have someone else do it for them. Hence, the massive amounts of sheep.

In most cases, they do not understand the meaning of censorship. Sad really.

There is only ONE example of censorship in your post.....the other examples are private businesses that have the right to do what they want in order to make a profit in their marketplace.

If you have a person writing copy for your sites that is writing political stuff that is lowering your conversion rate, and you want to fire them...THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.

Also remember that EVERYONE has the right to an opinion. The Dixie Chicks have the right to say that they wish Bush wasn't from Texas in front of a crowd in London. By the same token, the fans have the right to say that they don't like that by calling radio stations and refusing to buy their records, and as a private business, the record company has the right to tell the Dixie Chicks to apologize, and the Dixie chicks have the right to tell the record company to screw off and they can try to have a career without them.

The rights go on and on....in every direction.

"I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..." so the song goes.

I can't agree more, many people live their lives, not even knowing how much their own lives are being restricted right in front of their eyes on a day-to-day basis.

They can't realize it until they see the world afterall anyway. And most of them can't even see beyong their own 4 walls anyway.

*beeeeeeehhhhh* says the sheep.

CD, you're missing the point.

They have the right to say it, just not on public airwaves (and they never DID have the right so nothing is being taken away)

oh, and stern's censorship has NOTHING to do with his political commentary.

Sherie, I love you but you're talking about things you don't understand.

it's not a human right to be an asshole

So basically CD, you are proposing anarchy. A free for all.

Let me exercise my right by saying, get lost.

Tell me about it. Maybe they grew up without parents and want the government to protect them. They should start cleaning up there own yard and stop posting disgusting pics on GFY. Heck everytime I click on a thread I'm afraid I might see something disgusting.

Perhaps they only care about themselves and there freedom of speech, everyone else be damned.

I'm disgusted by a whole lotta things. What if people like me started asking for censorship to? Just how far will you be willing to go to satisfy the more sensitive people?

I love you too and from where I sit I understand just fine, it's my opinion on the matter and that's all that really matters to me....

Ya Rightwing bastard ;)

Forgive my ignorance. But Stern is being censored? Then what exactly is his show about nowadays?

I'll give you a chance to re-write that into a coherent question, then I'll happily answer it.

No? Okay, I'll give up this point because I really don't know first-hand what the entire deal was. I was under the assumption that much of the ado was over his political commentary, and censoring for such a reason I will never agree with.

Case in point: the Doonsbury comic strip.

That's what you get from my post? I feel sorry for you bud.

I'm asking you if Stern's show is getting censored.

Radio station is a private business....allowed to make a business decision.... NOT CENSORSHIP (If the GOVERMENT made them do it....then it would be censorship.)

Like I said in an earlier post If you have a person writing copy for your sites that is writing political stuff that is lowering your conversion rate, and you want to fire them...THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.


The people that wish to boycott someone for putting up something that they think is disgusting have the right to do so. If a company is killing dolphins to make their tuna, you have the right to not buy their product...... NOT CENSORSHIP



The newspaper is a private company....they can make their own decisions who they want writing for them....NOT CENSORSHIP.




So now people cannot voice an opinion about a private entities(GFY) actions? Everyone is allowed an opinion.......NOT CENSORSHIP

The only thing that is CENSORSHIP, is when a GOVERMENT forces people to not publish, or say, certain things.

The FCC has a problem with Stern discussing anal sex during the morning drive.

you mean an owner of a newspaper can't decide what's best for itself and has to let some halfwit cartoonist do harm to his business because of "free speech"?

Yes, in a nutshell, that is what I get from your post.

Lets all run a muck and do whatever the fuck we want regardless of who it offends or doesn't.

As far as I know, yes. It's being censored for content.

Seriously.... that's what you read into my post. Unbelievable.


See people? This is the kind of myopic thinking I'm talking about.


I am talking about rights that already exist. We HAVE the right to say and post certain things, even if those things make certain people uncomfortable or some find it distasteful. "All the news that's fit to print" as it were. Free speech and all that rot. I'm talking about taking away some of those existing rights, and I'm saying that supporting that kind of censorship (because it very much IS censorship) is a very bad thing for our business, and society for that matter.


I have never been comfortable with another person being able to tell me what I can and can not view in the privacy of my own home... With the exception of CP or anything obviously illegal that is. I'm saying BE CAREFUL about the rights you want taken away because it will come back to bite us all on the ass one day.

Clear enough?

I'm not in favor of censorship. I am opposed to the exploitation of children and animals for financial gain. I'm not going into the cat bullshit anymore. If you can't figure out what that was really about you're bullshiting yourself.

I'm one of the few people on this board that actually did get censored. Maybe the only one. I've been in this business for 20 years so it was bound to happen sooner or later and we knew that going into it.

I was there at the very beginning of the phone sex biz. Pioneered a lot of the stuff in that industry. Of course the downside to being the fucking pioneer in any biz is you are sailing in uncharted waters and the lead ship. So you never know what lies ahead.

When I got into that sector of adult there were no laws on the books yet regulating obscenity via telephone lines and computers.
Our attorneys told us some advice about what we could or shouldn't broadcast, but it was pretty much meaningless.

After seeing the huge call volume we could do, we said fuck it, let's go balls out, push the edge as far as we can and make lots of money. At the time it was all just recorded fantasies. Pretty lame looking back now, mostly moaning and groaning, orgasms, fucking and sucking sounds. But guys loved it and we did millions of minutes a month with it.

Of course to generate millions of minutes you have to do large scale advertising. We ran full page ads and tons of little ads in all the major adult print mags. The Net hadn't been invented yet so at that time the print mags were still the best place to do your marketing.

The downside of course is we stuck out like a sore thumb and we're an obvious choice for the conservatives to go after.

So the government we found out started to make surreptitious recordings of all our phone sex broadcasts. We got a C & D from the AG, and 24 hours to shut down all our operations or be hit with $75,000 per day obscenity fines.

Looking back I think these prosecutors just made up half the crap they said they could nail us with and we probably could have fought it on technicalities, because they were using non-applicable obscenity laws and applying it to telecom systems.

After saying oh shit now what, we decided it would cost us millions to fight it and of course we didn't want to push it inadvertently into a worse hostile direction since they were at least giving us the opportunity to shut down and have nothing more happen in terms of fines or prosecution.

So we shut down.

The ironic thing we sat there thinking now what, this sucks. Then we had the brainstorm, and said fuck it, lets just figure out creative programs for mainstream audiotext, there's no competition at all. And that's what we did, and we ended up making even more money in mainstream than from adult.

So it sucked to get censored. We lost millions of phone sex revenue we could have had going forward, but all turned out for the better in the long run.

I'm sure there are subscribers out there that will end their subscriptions because that paper doesn't have the guts to support free speech. Censorship is a two-edged sword.

I'm not saying the paper can't decide it's own policies. What I'm saying to webmasters is that it isn't wise to support furthering the cause of censorship.

what form of censorship do you see being supported by webmasters that you disagree with?

I do not believe for one second that the writers of the US Constitution intended to legalize the dissemination of racial hatred. Lawmakers agreed and found some ways of limiting those who think otherwise. Information relating to national security may not be broadcast. You are not even allowed to speak as you want about another individual without risking legal repercussions.

Like it or not, we long ago accepted the principle of censorship and the only real issue now is where the lines are drawn. Unless you believe that existing forms of censorship should all be torn down, it is emotive nonsense to cry "censorship" whenever someone wants to argue about one of those lines. It is equally absurd to suggest that drawing a line in one area impacts automatically on another.

However, it is also true that the issue of censorship shows up a major flaw of democracy, namely that very few people actively participate. So there is always someone trying to push a minority view through, relying on the apathy of the majority to get away with it. And others exploit the freedoms that exist, relying on that same apathy.

It may be practically easier for organisations like ACLU to fight the broad issue of freedom of speech, rather than dealing with each case on its own merits. But someone who tells individuals that they should not express an opinion about specific areas, is guilty of the very censorship they claim to oppose.

Having said all of that, I would point out that in the couple of posts I made about the burned cat, I did not suggest that it should be illegal to display such material. Nor did many others, so in any case it is misleading to accuse us all of wanting censorship. I simply expressed my disgust at the owners of a business who display such material, not to protect freedom of speech, not to educate anyone, but solely to make a profit.

Should I be censored and not allowed to express that opinion?

I believe he means to suggest that the only morals that you should come into play when rallying against publishing something are the ones that originally determined the law.

He is saying if YOU find it sick, it doesn't matter. Is it breaking the law? If not, no matter how you feel about what was published, you should support it's right to be there, no matter how YOU feel.

That is the point I believe he was trying to get across. I understand Canadianspeak because I am one.

Now, my thoughts:

It WAS Rick's right to decide to keep the cat video on CJ. If it breaks laws, then he will be punished by the government for it. But it is fortunately not up to any private citizens or GFY members to decide if it is legal - it is ultimately the supreme court. Nothign is really clear in our biz - this is why the supreme court exists - to define lines where there are none.

BUT, it is also the right of those complaining to have the contrary opinion. This is why I rarely get in these piss fights - everyone can think what they want.

Private business is totally different. Doonesbury, Ronstadt, etc were all private issues and can be handled anyway those in power in those situations deem fit. It's THEIR right to free speech, they are the boss and unless it is a religious or race issue, they can do whatever they want.

I find fellow 'censorship fighters' tend to blur the public/private line to suit what they support. This certainly weakens ANY argument, and I hate it because it reflects poorly on the side I support.

But, back to the topic, I simply feel that those like Flynt or Rick have blazed the trail for me today. No matter how acceptable disgusting I feel their media is, their determination to test legal lines while intelligently accepting the possible consequences is essential to a free society. Without people like them, the USA would NOT be what it is today (Regardless of how you feel the current situation is).

Hmm.

I suppose I have a problem with that kind of censorship as well. People out there in the world have the right to not tune in to Stern's show. The certainly have the right to turn it to another station. They even have the right to bitch and moan about it openly.

but to shut someone up simply because some people don't like what someone is saying? Some censorship is needed, and no one in their right mind would disagree with some of it..... but a lot of it is pretty ugly, and quite frankly... scary.

I think it's about kids hearing, at least that's the excuse they used.

it all comes back 2 the Super Bowl

Stern knew the consequences of what he was doing and chose to continue them. In my mind that makes him fantastic for challenging laws that he feels are opressive, BUT odd for being surprised when the hammer finally came down.

Viacom was simply unwilling to support his position. That's their right too. They are a private company.

It's patently obvious in several threads on this board, both in the past few days and in the past 4 years, that many here support censorship in various forms and degrees.



To the last few posters --- I'm not advocating removing existing censorship laws here. Nor am I "crying censorship" all the while trying to curtail or censor anyone's opinion. I don't know why you people are even suggesting othewise, none of my posts have even hinted of that.


What I'm saying for the umpteenth time is that I don't support FURTHERING the cause of censorship. I don't advocate removing existing rights in the area of freedom of online expression, I don't support adding in MORE censorship.

And what I'm saying is, neither should you. (you as in "you all").

That's it, that's all. I don't think I can say it any clearer here. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could have read "anarchy" into what I said, but I suppose in any group there are bound to be a certain percentage of those types.

And what "type" is that?

This is GFY that's how