Free Porn's Future, the Bush Admin., and the Supreme Court

[Bansheelinks]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/03-218.pdf

I just finished reading the 5-4 decision whereby the Supreme Court ruled against the proposed Child Online Protection Act.

Even if you support Bush, for whatever reason, if you like his foreign policy, tax cuts etc...........you have to WAKE UP! The Bush administration, lead by him and his mentally sick Attorkneejerk General, John Asshead, or out to wage a war on our way of life! Period! If he gets in, more conservative judges will be appointed and we will continue to be dealt crippling blows, one after the other. The harrassment won't stop.

If you have time, read this decision. I know Clinton signed COPA but the Supreme Court is really an adult webmasters last line of defense against all this religious mania.

The fact that it was 5-4 is chilling and will give me nightmares. Get your heads out of your asses with your "whoo-hoos!" and "lets party!" and lets work to defeat Bush in November! This is becoming very dangerous to our way of life.

[Bansheelinks]

Of course, Justice Scalia dissented and voted in favor of upholding COPA.........Justice Breyer also wrote a dissent.

If Bush wins again, the future looks very bleak for free online porn. If Bush wins, tgps better make plans to move out of the US because you know he'll propose COPA II and appoint a neo-conservative to the Supreme bench.

So much for your "lets party!" chortles. I'd love to join in but a 5-4 decision scares the hell right out of me.

[VirtuMike]

You are correct.

[rbrruss]

This is a direct quote from Scalia's dissent:

"Since this business could, consistent with the First Amendment, be banned entirely, COPA?s lesser restrictions raise no constitutional concern."

The next president is possibly going to appoint as many as 3 new justices. Who do you want filing those vacancies?

[kenny]

How do you know a democrat wont appoint somebody that will vote for COPA?

Am I missing something here? Because I never heard of a pro porn political party.

Clinton himself signed it.

[Bansheelinks]

Sorry to be the one to point out the obvious black lining in the clouds, but a potential storm may be coming. In the meantime, thank god for the ACLU in this matter. And work to defeat Bush, even if it means dropping off Kerry pamphlets, even a few, or talking to someone who is on the fence. Do your part even in small ways. It is becoming too dangerous.

[Tom_PMs]

This is really about children and their parents. Adult webmasters dont have ANY possible motivation for children to see their adult websites in the first place. None.

This is all completely misguided.

They should rule that parents must be responsible for themselves and their children maybe..

[cosis]

good now vote bush out

[benc]

What other medium or location can a child easily seen porn. The Internet is pretty much it.

I think eventually free porn on freely accessed pages will be a thing of the past. Will happen eventually.

[Bansheelinks]

Originally posted by kenny
How do you know a democrat wont appoint somebody that will vote for COPA?

Am I missing something here? Because I never heard of a pro porn political party.

Clinton himself signed it.

And what was our last line of defense? the supreme court!

Use your head man! Do you want Bush appointing judges? Or Kerry? Its time for adult webmasters to put aside their petty political differences and realize the menace Bush and Asshead are to our way of life. Focus on that. Not on foreign policy. Not on tax cuts. Focus on their war on porn. Who do you think pressured VISA to adopt tough new standards on "bogus obscenity?" There are a million ways for Bush to harrass us. If they get in again, they haven't even started.

[kenny]

Originally posted by Bansheelinks
Sorry to be the one to point out the obvious black lining in the clouds, but a potential storm may be coming. In the meantime, thank god for the ACLU in this matter. And work to defeat Bush, even if it means dropping off Kerry pamphlets, even a few, or talking to someone who is on the fence. Do your part even in small ways. It is becoming too dangerous.

Here is what is going to happen

The law will eventually be passed. They are going to keep trying until it's finally passed.

It does not matter if Kerry, Bush, Clinton, or Mr. Potato Head is in office appointing whoever.

[Lycanthrope]

Originally posted by kenny
How do you know a democrat wont appoint somebody that will vote for COPA?

Am I missing something here? Because I never heard of a pro porn political party.

Clinton himself signed it.

Exactly, and how come everybody forgets who Al Gore was married to?

Tipper would have messed up everything...

[angelsofporn]

i just hope you guys all actually vote

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Originally posted by kenny
How do you know a democrat wont appoint somebody that will vote for COPA?

Am I missing something here? Because I never heard of a pro porn political party.

Clinton himself signed it.

he may have signed it but who introduced it?

The statute's primary author is Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH). The main proponents of the bill include Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN). The bill was very popular in the Congress. While the contents of the omnibus appropriations bill (which served as the vehicle for final passage of many Internet related bills) were being negotiated last week, Clinton's representatives quietly opposed COPA. However, when Rep. Oxley went public with the debate, and the administration quickly and completely caved in.


__________________

[kenny]

Originally posted by angelsofporn
i just hope you guys all actually vote

If I was a US Supreme Court justice I would vote agaisnt it.

But other then that I am powerless.

You would think after three attempts they would finally get the message and stop wasting tax payers money on this thing.


Do they have a limited number of times that they can attempt to push this law through?

Can they just keep trying a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh time until they finally get it through?

[Bansheelinks]

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo Risin
he may have signed it but who introduced it?

The statute's primary author is Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH). The main proponents of the bill include Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN). The bill was very popular in the Congress. While the contents of the omnibus appropriations bill (which served as the vehicle for final passage of many Internet related bills) were being negotiated last week, Clinton's representatives quietly opposed COPA. However, when Rep. Oxley went public with the debate, and the administration quickly and completely caved in.


__________________

Glad you pointed this out as quite often this is the way things happen. And the fall out is our profits, jobs, and livelihood.

[zentz]

fuck the bush

[kenny]

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo Risin
he may have signed it but who introduced it?

The statute's primary author is Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH). The main proponents of the bill include Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN). The bill was very popular in the Congress. While the contents of the omnibus appropriations bill (which served as the vehicle for final passage of many Internet related bills) were being negotiated last week, Clinton's representatives quietly opposed COPA. However, when Rep. Oxley went public with the debate, and the administration quickly and completely caved in.


__________________

Introduced, signed, endorsed, it doesnt matter.

My point being that there is no clear way to fight agaisnt this bill. Republican, democrat, Bush, or Kerry, it doesnt matter.

Do you honestly think voting Kerry in office will put a stop to it?

[Bansheelinks]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

****************

This is from the AP! Notice the language used. This is the kind of shit we are fighting against. Now we are lumped in as "peddling dirty pictures to web-surfing kids." This is sick.

[Bansheelinks]

Next thing you know they'll be saying we are trying to bribe kids with candy to go look at online porn, take daddy's credit card when he isn't looking, and sign up to our sites.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Originally posted by kenny
Introduced, signed, endorsed, it doesnt matter.

My point being that there is no clear way to fight agaisnt this bill. Republican, democrat, Bush, or Kerry, it doesnt matter.

Do you honestly think voting Kerry in office will put a stop to it?

there's a difference between active and passive opposition

Clinton only signed it because he didn't want to look like he was pro-porn... He was basically forced into signing it

[kenny]

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo Risin
there's a difference between active and passive opposition

Clinton only signed it because he didn't want to look like he was pro-porn... He was basically forced into signing it

I don't care if he was forced. That doesn't do me any good. He signed the fucking thing.

None of those guys care about the well being of our adult websites.

Kerry isn't the magical answer that is going to make this go away.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by kenny
Introduced, signed, endorsed, it doesnt matter.

My point being that there is no clear way to fight agaisnt this bill. Republican, democrat, Bush, or Kerry, it doesnt matter.

Do you honestly think voting Kerry in office will put a stop to it?

No and you have made a key point. While no politician will stop an anti- porn bill because of the political fallout you have to look at who is likely to introduce such a bill. This is a Republican issue one that their base wants to happen. The Clinton administration gave up on COPPA after the court ruled against it. According to the article above they didn?t want it in the first place and only capitulated once the Republicans tried to make it a ?Clinton is for porn? issue. The Bush administration decided to revive COPPA from the dead. The simple facts are if you have Republicans in the White House and in Congress they will advocate for things like this, and appoint judges that will likely uphold things like this. If you have Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress, obscenity prosecutions and new laws like COPPA aren?t as likely to happen because it isn?t something their base cares much about. While you can?t make any guarantees how any appointed judge will vote once they are the bench Judges appointed by Democrats are less likely to filter their decisions through bible like Justice Scallia declared he does a few years ago.

[kenny]

Originally posted by Kingfish
No and you have made a key point. While no politician will stop an anti- porn bill because of the political fallout you have to look at who is likely to introduce such a bill. This is a Republican issue one that their base wants to happen. The Clinton administration gave up on COPPA after the court ruled against it. According to the article above they didn?t want it in the first place and only capitulated once the Republicans tried to make it a ?Clinton is for porn? issue. The Bush administration decided to revive COPPA from the dead. The simple facts are if you have Republicans in the White House and in Congress they will advocate for things like this, and appoint judges that will likely uphold things like this. If you have Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress, obscenity prosecutions and new laws like COPPA aren?t as likely to happen because it isn?t something their base cares much about. While you can?t make any guarantees how any appointed judge will vote once they are the bench Judges appointed by Democrats are less likely to filter their decisions through bible like Justice Scallia declared he does a few years ago.

Besides from hoping that a judge appointed by a democrat is less likely to pass the bill into law, there really isn't nothing else to it.

How many times are they allowed bring it to the surpreme court?

Because the way I see it, they are just going to keep changing things around in the bill until they finally pass it.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Kingfish
Judges appointed by Democrats are less likely to filter their decisions through bible like Justice Scallia declared he does a few years ago.

And this isn't just about porn.

It's about all civil liberties in general.. Freedom of Speech.. Seperation of church and state.. Abortion rights...

The Supreme Court is supposed to defend against attacks on our rights.
If it is corrupted with neoconservatives, we will face 20 years of unrestricted legislative facism.

[DirkPitt]

If you think about it, who wants kids surfing your sites anyway they don't have a credit card, they don't make you any money. So you can't just put a bunch of naked photos up on a site you have to censure them, put little stars or something over nipples and mid section. No more free pictures means more profits. It will also stir things up a little bit, nothing bad with a change in the business world. In the long run I think it might be better. Flame away you non-belivers and people that hate change.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by kenny
How do you know a democrat wont appoint somebody that will vote for COPA?

Am I missing something here? Because I never heard of a pro porn political party.

Clinton himself signed it.

The two most right wing religious judges, Scalia and Rehnquist, ruled against the porn industry, with one of them saying they first amendment doesn't portect porn.

Scalia's statement is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, but supports his strong religious beliefs.

John Kerry has repeatedly said that he strongly supports the separation between church and state.

Bush has repeatedly shown that he believes in trying to tear down the separation between church and state.

There is no defense of Bush on this issue.

The ACLU just saved your business. Read what Scalia said - he does not believe that you have any right to publish porn. None.

If you are a right wing pornographer, you should think very hard about the people you have been supporting. They want you in jail.

This is a direct quote from Scalia:

"Since this business could, consistent with the First Amendment, be banned entirely..."

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by DirkPitt
If you think about it, who wants kids surfing your sites anyway they don't have a credit card, they don't make you any money. So you can't just put a bunch of naked photos up on a site you have to censure them, put little stars or something over nipples and mid section. No more free pictures means more profits. It will also stir things up a little bit, nothing bad with a change in the business world. In the long run I think it might be better. Flame away you non-belivers and people that hate change.

This is not just about free porn pictures, it's about any material, including text, that would offend children - that includes mainstream magazines, health sites, news site, and just about any other site.

This is not about making more money, it's about free speech and the rights of people in a free society.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died all over the world to protect your freedom and you are more worried about making a few extra dollars. This issue if much bigger than just money.

Here is a quote from justice Scalia:

"Since this business could, consistent with the First Amendment, be banned entirely..."

Forget about the false idea of this helping you make more money and realize that they are talking about making the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution powerless to protect anyone who publishes material that offends children or Christians.

[kenny]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
The two most right wing religious judges, Scalia and Rehnquist, ruled against the porn industry, with one of them saying they first amendment doesn't portect porn.

Scalia's statement is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, but supports his strong religious beliefs.

John Kerry has repeatedly said that he strongly supports the separation between church and state.

Bush has repeatedly shown that he believes in trying to tear down the separation between church and state.

There is no defense of Bush on this issue.

The ACLU just saved your business. Read what Scalia said - he does not believe that you have any right to publish porn. None.

If you are a right wing pornographer, you should think very hard about the people you have been supporting. They want you in jail.

This is a direct quote from Scalia:

"Since this business could, consistent with the First Amendment, be banned entirely..."

There is no defense for any of them. It's inadequate to base on speculation that a democrat president will appoint a judge to oppose the law. That is no safe defense measure in my opinion.

Voting for Kerry isn't a realistic approach in aiding the porn industry at all.

How many times are they allowed to attempt to push this bill into law?

That is what I want to know.

That is what matters, because if they keep trying over and over again changing things here and there they will eventually get it.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by kenny
There is no defense for any of them. It's inadequate to base on speculation that a democrat president will appoint a judge to oppose the law. That is no safe defense measure in my opinion.

Voting for Kerry isn't a realistic approach in aiding the porn industry at all.

I agree that Clinton should not have signed the bill, but Clinton did not write the bill, nor did he support it.

Voting for Kerry is voting for the separation between church and state.

Voting for Bush is voting for a government that wants to tear down the separation between church and state.

Do you support governments that try to impose religious beliefs on their people?

Do you support the separation between church and state?

[Tom_PMs]

a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids

I'd support a law that punished people who actively seek out children and force dirty pictures to their browser. Who wouldnt?

But thats not what COPA is all about.

When j. ass. covered a public statue of lady liberty on a public building with a $20k tax-payer paid for cloth because he thought the piece of art was obscene, nobody needed to be hit in the head with how these people think. What irony.

Kerry's stance is an unknown factor. Bushs' is well-known and twisted.

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally posted by kenny

Do you honestly think voting Kerry in office will put a stop to it?

why can't porn companies donate a few millions to Kerry's campaign

[pornguy]

There are people on this board that have the skill, to make a web site and with in a week or so, have millions of hits a week.

With that in mind, we have the power to swing any vote for almost anything. If we were to, in a VERY Proefssional manner, start to point out to people that it is the parents who should be policing theie children, we may actually be able to make an impact for our own good.


Instead of doing something like this, a bunch of you will tell me to STFU and stupid shit like that.

So, just send me your mailing address from jail, and I will, from time to time send you cookies.

[BeHeadR]

Originally posted by CamChicks
And this isn't just about porn.

It's about all civil liberties in general.. Freedom of Speech.. Seperation of church and state.. Abortion rights...

The Supreme Court is supposed to defend against attacks on our rights.
If it is corrupted with neoconservatives, we will face 20 years of unrestricted legislative facism.

Finally someone gets it. It DOES matter who wins the election, do you want bush appointing HARDCORE conservatives and religious fanatics? Or do you want Kerry appointing moderates who are more capable of making a rational decision not based on religion? I vote Kerry.

[Oedipus]

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
why can't porn companies donate a few millions to Kerry's campaign

I'm sure that Kerry would love to disclose that he received millions in campaign funds from a Porn PAC.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by kenny
Besides from hoping that a judge appointed by a democrat is less likely to pass the bill into law, there really isn't nothing else to it.

How many times are they allowed bring it to the surpreme court?

Because the way I see it, they are just going to keep changing things around in the bill until they finally pass it.

Actually there is quite a bit more to it. If you have Democrats in control of congress it is more likely things like COPPA will never get out of committee. You wont have a guy like John Ashhahahahaha in charge of the Attorney General?s office. You might recall that prior to 911 that John Ashhahahahaha thought our industry was more dangerous to America than terrorism.

[Bansheelinks]

Originally posted by Tom_PM


When j. ass. covered a public statue of lady liberty on a public building with a $20k tax-payer paid for cloth because he thought the piece of art was obscene, nobody needed to be hit in the head with how these people think. What irony.

I always thought, after I found it he covered lady liberty, that this man has a serious problem..........and I dont mean that to be a joke or embellishment in anyway, shape or form. The fact that an A.G. of our country would cover up such a beautiful statue, and what she represents and symbolizes, tells a lot about how religion has twisted this man's mind.



I also agree with others on this thread..........one or two more neo-con judges appointed by Bush and we are in for some neo-fascism and some assaults on our free speech.