Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/26/2005 11:15:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:01:00 PM EDT by Peak_Oil]
Looks like it's suicidegirls.com

I just wanted to let you know that, thanks to the "War on Porn," SG will be taking down a bunch of photosets and individual photos today.

Even the FBI agents paid to surf for porn find this ridiculous, but apparently sending people to jail for pictures of two consenting adults enjoying a little rope bondage is more fucking important than.... I dunno, pick any one of the million of better causes out there that the government could be focusing on.

So, I apologise heartily for having to do this, both to the SuicideGirls whose art is being fucked over and the members who are being treated like babies, but we really don't want to get shut down and sent to jail. As soon as legally possible, the photosets and pictures about to be taken down will come back. Until then, bid a fond farewell to your favourite blood-bathing beauties, rope-bound babes, and handcuffed honeys. Apparently they've no place in today's society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the post above, and from the over 1000 comments this thread got on that board, the FBI contacted them. That site is a pay site, you need to pony up money to see anything, it's not like a free site that any random kid can wander across if he wants to. This is a for-adults, by-adults, you-have-to-pay site.

This is the first casualty I know of in the FBI's new War on Porn.



ETA:

I kept digging and it turns out I'm wrong. The FBI did NOT contact SG and did not send any cease and desist letters. Just found this:

---------------------------------

As we all know, SG is removing pictures as a pre-emptive response to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his new front in the "War on Porn". And a lot of people have been asking about what can be done about it.

---------------------------------
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:23:07 AM EDT
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:26:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:26:34 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]
Fucking morality police? What a waste of resources. Catch some illegals (aliens) or terrorists, let the girls create the kind of porn they want and let the consumers buy the kind of porn they want.

Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:26:36 AM EDT
where did you get your info from?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:27:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Firelotus:
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.



The framers did not anticipate the internet, like they did not anticipate full-automatic weapons. The first and second amendments are out of date and need to be re-written. We should just let the UN govern us.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:30:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Luxan:
where did you get your info from?



Can I post a cold link to their site or is that a COC violation? There is much porn there. If you go to the suicidegirls website and go to their forum you shouldn't have a problem finding the thread.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:30:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:32:10 AM EDT by Luxan]
never mind i see it on there website.

Such a shame to watch the united states go down the toilets faster and faster.

This is a recreational thing. The girls enjoy doing this and it looks like they have a nice community there.

Let me guess I'm sure goths and punk clothes should be made illegal in the United States now as well

sickening

I have no respect for this administration left in me. I wish I could retract my vote.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:33:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:33:34 AM EDT by sWs2]

Originally Posted By Firelotus:
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.


Actually not according to some child protection acts from the past 10-15 years. They distinguish between different types of material. Obscene stuff such as porn etc is not protected. (I forget the specific acts but there were 2 -3 that I know of from a class last semester)
ETA: Not that I think this is ok, I'm just saying they have some sort of laws they are going by...
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:33:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By Firelotus:
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.


Actually not according to some child protection acts from the past 10-15 years. They distinguish between different types of material. Obscene stuff such as porn etc is not protected. (I forget the specific acts but there were 2 -3 that I know of from a class last semester)



It's a paysite with age verification...how is this a threat to children?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:34:28 AM EDT
Ridiculous. Meanwhile, down south, the invasion by criminal aliens continues unabated...
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:35:11 AM EDT
It goes back to probition again. I always thought it would be fun in those times. More smut that will be easier to get ahole of but now WITHOUT any morals. Think 8mm. It still happens anyways though, but it will be happening more often now I bet.

Within the next 10 years just wait for them to show up in the file sharing webs and news groups.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:35:46 AM EDT
The war on porn is more of a lost cause than the war on drugs.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:36:47 AM EDT
Quityerbitchin. I think all women should wear chadors. I'm going to load up on the stock of the first company to offer a line. Gap or Tommy? Who will be the first Morality Czar?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:36:56 AM EDT
Why are we all in this handbasket? And where are we going in such a hurry?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:38:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By Firelotus:
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.


Actually not according to some child protection acts from the past 10-15 years. They distinguish between different types of material. Obscene stuff such as porn etc is not protected. (I forget the specific acts but there were 2 -3 that I know of from a class last semester)



It's a paysite with age verification...how is this a threat to children?


Like I edited to add, I don't this is ok at all, but I'm just offering up some legislation that they (The government) may be using to justify this. Personally, I think kids are going to get a hold of porn if they want it no matter what laws they make up, just like criminals will get guns if they want to. The child protection crap is "feel good" legislation.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:39:37 AM EDT
If you haven't kept tabs on the news you have lost MANY MANY MANY freedoms and RIGHTS under this current administration.

We are moving at a very excelerated pace towards a police state and are turning exactly into what we fought to NOT be a part of.

Anything else need to be pointed out?

oh but I must say that even Europe and Japan know that they can NOT stop people from sexual stimultation no matter what it may be.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:40:33 AM EDT
Since when is Suicide Girls porn? I thought that was classified as "erotic photography" or "pin up", as there is no actually sex type stuff happening?

You figure that Hustler, and stuff like that would be a lot more subject to the new "porn police"

Maybe the .gov is leaving the big porn people alone, as they know the smaller ones won't have the $$$ to fight them.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:40:49 AM EDT
I just heard about the "War on Porn" on the radio maybe an hour ago and at first, thought it was the station's idea of a joke....So...um...WTH is going on?
I mean, I am not into porn, but if the guy next door is, WTH do I care if he spends his $ looking at it? I mean, we are not talking kid stuff here....we're talking adults so I don't understand what the crime is? Is there a crime? What is it exactly? Has porn become illegal?
Someone clue me in
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:41:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Daytona955i:
The war on porn is more of a lost cause than the war on drugs.



I blame Al Gore, if there were no interweb porn would be easy to control. As it stands the US would have to buy copies of China's firewalls to keep all the German stuff out.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:41:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By Firelotus:
Now I'm not all about porn but that is a straight violation of the 1st amendment IMO.


Actually not according to some child protection acts from the past 10-15 years. They distinguish between different types of material. Obscene stuff such as porn etc is not protected. (I forget the specific acts but there were 2 -3 that I know of from a class last semester)



It's a paysite with age verification...how is this a threat to children?


Like I edited to add, I don't this is ok at all, but I'm just offering up some legislation that they (The government) may be using to justify this. Personally, I think kids are going to get a hold of porn if they want it no matter what laws they make up, just like criminals will get guns if they want to. The child protection crap is "feel good" legislation.



Oh, I see. It was a reference to how it is playing out more than a position you are subscribing to personally. I think it's 'feel good' too...but it doesn't feel too good to me.

I also agree, kids will get porn. Like they have for a long time. Life will go on. The only thing is they might grow up all fucked up and sexually repressed because there's some bizarre taboo associated with sexuality now. (Like there's way more alcoholism in places where it's taxed so high it's hard to get).

Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:41:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
Fucking morality police? What a waste of resources. Catch some illegals (aliens) or terrorists, let the girls create the kind of porn they want and let the consumers buy the kind of porn they want.




you got my vote as usual
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:42:50 AM EDT
yes suicidegirls.com is what I would call human ART. There is no hardcore porn going on here. Just very beautiful women helping people get there rocks off.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:42:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:46:34 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
I just heard about the "War on Porn" on the radio maybe an hour ago and at first, thought it was the station's idea of a joke....So...um...WTH is going on?
I mean, I am not into porn, but if the guy next door is, WTH do I care if he spends his $ looking at it? I mean, we are not talking kid stuff here....we're talking adults so I don't understand what the crime is? Is there a crime? What is it exactly? Has porn become illegal?
Someone clue me in



Exactly...WTF?

Does Playmore need to get a fucking veil or she'll be arrested if she goes out in public (I mistyped that pubic but caught the edit before submitting ).

Damn! ETA an unrelated change
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:43:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
I just heard about the "War on Porn" on the radio maybe an hour ago and at first, thought it was the station's idea of a joke....So...um...WTH is going on?
I mean, I am not into porn, but if the guy next door is, WTH do I care if he spends his $ looking at it? I mean, we are not talking kid stuff here....we're talking adults so I don't understand what the crime is? Is there a crime? What is it exactly? Has porn become illegal?
Someone clue me in



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=392272
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:45:52 AM EDT
This is a pity. Suicide Girls is hot stuff.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:46:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:50:39 AM EDT by Peak_Oil]
It looks like there are nine+ FBI personnel in the War on Porn, according to this UPI story.

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The Bush administration reportedly is getting help from the FBI in its war on porn, a campaign that has also become the subject of mischievous humor.

Early last month, the FBI`s Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad, reports The Washington Post. The initiative has been designated as one of the top priorities of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, says the Post.

'I guess this means we`ve won the war on terror,' one exasperated FBI agent told the newspaper. 'We must not need any more resources for espionage.'

The squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against 'manufacturers and purveyors' of pornography directed at consenting adults.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, the number of FBI agents assigned to cover the Anthrax attack on Congress in 01 has dropped from 31 to 21, almost the same number of agents that are now assigned to fight the evils of porn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past year, the FBI says, the number of agents on the case has dropped from 31 to 21, a far cry from the hundreds assigned to the investigation in its early weeks. Despite a $2.5 million reward for information leading to a conviction, the case “is going nowhere”, a former investigator said. The favoured theory has remained consistent: that the culprit is an American scientist who had access to the anthrax.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1795336,00.html
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:48:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:49:32 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
This is a pity. Suicide Girls is hot stuff.



And I gather it has some rare features in the sense that the girls have total creative/content control over their own stuff.

I.e. in the sense that they are empowered regarding the dissemination (no pun intended) of the “exploitive” images.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:48:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 12:54:50 PM EDT by 82ndAbn]
Link to Suicide girls Website for verification:

Warning BOTD........well duh
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:50:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By Luxan:
where did you get your info from?



Can I post a cold link to their site or is that a COC violation? There is much porn there. If you go to the suicidegirls website and go to their forum you shouldn't have a problem finding the thread.



Is it work safe?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:51:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By Luxan:
where did you get your info from?



Can I post a cold link to their site or is that a COC violation? There is much porn there. If you go to the suicidegirls website and go to their forum you shouldn't have a problem finding the thread.



Is it work safe?



It is for me.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:51:44 AM EDT
work safe, doesn't show anything but I wouldn't risk my job by looking at this site.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:52:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By Luxan:
where did you get your info from?



Can I post a cold link to their site or is that a COC violation? There is much porn there. If you go to the suicidegirls website and go to their forum you shouldn't have a problem finding the thread.



Is it work safe?



I guess if you work for the FBI it's fine. Some animals are more equal than others.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:52:19 AM EDT
Woooo we started another war to lose! If you havnt noticed the feds are professional half-assers, always starting shit they cant finish, then starting something else to distract people from their last hoohah that didnt work out. War on porn, war on drugs. Two wars that obviously cannot be won since they defy the inalienable rights our forefathers were supposedly protecting with the constitution, bill of rights, america, etc. Legislating the moral behavior of consenting, freethinking, adult human beings? WTF?! Is it just me or does this sound like a bad realm for the .gov to be getting into? As previously noted, problems that can be dealt with are ignored Well what do ya know? Thousands of people marching into this country illegaly to sap on our welfare system and do work for half price and no benefits? Naw thats not a pressing matter of national security, thats good for business. The fact that our govt is cozy with nations KNOWN to support terrorism under the table? Once again this is business that the little man needs to keep his nose out of and leave to the adults.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:52:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By Luxan:
where did you get your info from?



Can I post a cold link to their site or is that a COC violation? There is much porn there. If you go to the suicidegirls website and go to their forum you shouldn't have a problem finding the thread.



Is it work safe?



I guess if you work for the FBI it's fine. Some animals are more equal than others.



Nicely put.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:54:19 AM EDT
So will me having these pictures on my computer or anything make me a criminal or something?

I do have a question for anyone that knows the specifics.

How is suicidegirls.com any better then other porn sites? Besides suicidegirls.com looks to have very hot girls, in goth which makes me wonder if I shouldn't get a membership now there just to help them out.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:55:56 AM EDT
Maybe we should just elect a dictator so he can tell us exactly what is or isn't good for us? This would greatly simplify our current leaders.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:57:17 AM EDT
WTF???? Suicide Girls kicks ass!
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 11:57:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 11:58:43 AM EDT by five2one]

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
Looks like it's suicidegirls.com

I just wanted to let you know that, thanks to the "War on Porn," SG will be taking down a bunch of photosets and individual photos today.

Even the FBI agents paid to surf for porn find this ridiculous, but apparently sending people to jail for pictures of two consenting adults enjoying a little rope bondage is more fucking important than.... I dunno, pick any one of the million of better causes out there that the government could be focusing on.

So, I apologise heartily for having to do this, both to the SuicideGirls whose art is being fucked over and the members who are being treated like babies, but we really don't want to get shut down and sent to jail. As soon as legally possible, the photosets and pictures about to be taken down will come back. Until then, bid a fond farewell to your favourite blood-bathing beauties, rope-bound babes, and handcuffed honeys. Apparently they've no place in today's society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the post above, and from the over 1000 comments this thread got on that board, the FBI contacted them. That site is a pay site, you need to pony up money to see anything, it's not like a free site that any random kid can wander across if he wants to. This is a for-adults, by-adults, you-have-to-pay site.

This is the first casualty I know of in the FBI's new War on Porn.




Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo­ooooooooooooooooooooo!

Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:08:05 PM EDT
Hi Ho Hi Ho....
Hi Ho.... It's off to court we go....
where a whole new SCOTUS has been chosen to run us
Hi Ho... Hi Ho...
Hi Ho Hi Ho...
Hi Ho...


As a Christian, I don't agree with pr0n... but I also understand that it's the same 1st Amendment which grants me the right to stand on the courthouse steps with a John 3:16 banner.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:10:07 PM EDT
So, why are they only removing selective content and not shutting the entire site down?

There's still plenty of porno stuff up there, from my brief review.

Perhaps the spreads (pun intended) that were removed involved underaged models?

Does anyone think it SHOULD be OK to use underaged models?

Just askin, because something here doesn't add up.

I'd like to see scans of the cease and decist letters.

If these guys have counsel, and if the photos involved adult contributors as they say, then their lawyers surely would have advised them to ask the .gov to pound sand. Lots of free publicity, and you wind up winning on first amendment grounds. The only reason that WOULD NOT apply is if the photo groups in question actually had something indefensible about them. Such as the age thing I mentioned, or perhaps the bondage depicted being non-consensual.

We have yet to hear the end of this story. I'll be paying attention to what else is out there, but it does seem to me that we're not getting the whole set of facts from either side.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:12:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Hi Ho Hi Ho....
Hi Ho.... It's off to court we go....
where a whole new SCOTUS has been chosen to run us
Hi Ho... Hi Ho...
Hi Ho Hi Ho...
Hi Ho...


As a Christian, I don't agree with pr0n... but I also understand that it's the same 1st Amendment which grants me the right to stand on the courthouse steps with a John 3:16 banner.



And I’m not a Christian but I sure don’t want them telling you that you aren’t allowed to stand there with that sign.
That’s something that you have a right to do.

Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:14:30 PM EDT
What's the current legal test for obscenity/stuff not protected under the 1st amendment?

I remember it as being up to the standards of the local community and lacking all artistic/social value, or something like that.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:15:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
What's the current legal test for obscenity/stuff not protected under the 1st amendment?

I remember it as being up to the standards of the local community and lacking all artistic/social value, or something like that.



I'll know it when I see it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:18:20 PM EDT
there are no underage models here
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:19:32 PM EDT
Completely wrong....this country's priorities have gotten majorly fucked up.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:24:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
Does anyone think it SHOULD be OK to use underaged models?




Woah there, Are you saying SG used underage models without the permission of the guardians? If so, then I'm all for a little law enforcement, but I didn't realize that was the case.

Give me more info please.

Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:27:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Woooo we started another war to lose! If you havnt noticed the feds are professional half-assers, always starting shit they cant finish, then starting something else to distract people from their last hoohah that didnt work out. War on porn, war on drugs. Two wars that obviously cannot be won since they defy the inalienable rights our forefathers were supposedly protecting with the constitution, bill of rights, america, etc. Legislating the moral behavior of consenting, freethinking, adult human beings? WTF?! Is it just me or does this sound like a bad realm for the .gov to be getting into? As previously noted, problems that can be dealt with are ignored Well what do ya know? Thousands of people marching into this country illegaly to sap on our welfare system and do work for half price and no benefits? Naw thats not a pressing matter of national security, thats good for business. The fact that our govt is cozy with nations KNOWN to support terrorism under the table? Once again this is business that the little man needs to keep his nose out of and leave to the adults.



Beat me to it. It's just a diversion from all the other failures... especially illegals.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:29:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YellowLab:
Completely wrong....this country's priorities have gotten majorly fucked up.



The only difference between most Republicans and Democrats isn't whether they want to run your life or not, but which area.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:31:49 PM EDT
It's fine with me as long as they don't take my over/under.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:33:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By five2one:

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
Does anyone think it SHOULD be OK to use underaged models?




Woah there, Are you saying SG used underage models without the permission of the guardians? If so, then I'm all for a little law enforcement, but I didn't realize that was the case.

Give me more info please.




Let's just clear this up right now. There are no underage models on SG, and there never were. Somebody invented that fictional BS out of thin air and posted it in this thread.

SG does not host child pornography and never has. Now that that's cleared up, you may resume your regularly scheduled trollathon.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 12:33:30 PM EDT
"War on Porn" (TM, R, C 2005), brought to you by the "moral" bastards that are probably infinitely more perverted than the "immoral scum" they seek to prosecute.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top