The government attempting AGAIN to take our rights away!

[WendyWilliams]

Evil Angel is now a pathetic attempt for our shitty government to tell us what is obscene and what isnt. People if you DONT wake up and see that this type of harrassment on porn companys needs to STOP. Just another obstacle and money wasted!

http://www.avn.com/video/articles/29590.html

I wish the Evil Angel company, John S., Joey S., and Jay S. the BEST of luck!

[hondarobot]

I don't even really understand how he could be charged with anything.

A girl peeing is "obscene"? I should have studied law.

:shrug

[El Nino]

Neo fascism is abound

[Fox]

Oh dear...

[BeardedOne]

I'm seeing the "...making obscene content available to minors..." as the focal point of this. I'm guessing that a website or somesuch didn't have enough guards at the gate.

I wonder if it's an open hearing. I just happen to have the day off at the moment.

[Dino Velvet]

Don't know about the obscenity stuff, but I'm glad the present gov't hasn't tried to take away many of my guns. If the Dems get in, they are more likely. The 2nd Amendment is just as important a right as the 1st.

[trish]

Just don't get in Cheney's line of fire, he'd just as soon shoot you in the face as piss in your face...makes no difference to him.

[trish]

Here’s a question. Does the government really care if you watch someone pissing in digital format…or is it the religious right who cares about what you watch in the privacy of your own home and their influence on the administration that’s bringing on this prosecution?

[Felicia Katt]

Don't know about the obscenity stuff, but I'm glad the present gov't hasn't tried to take away many of my guns. If the Dems get in, they are more likely. The 2nd Amendment is just as important a right as the 1st.

and second place is just a good as first? sheesh. The fact its the First means that free speech and a free press are more important.

We talked about this on here about a year or two ago, when the Alberto Gonzales Justice Department took resources away from tracking terrorists and drug dealers to go after pornography. People said then, oh, they are only going after child porn. Well, people were wrong then and are just as wrong to dismiss this now. If you like being able to read and view and discuss adult subjects and content, you should really support parties and candidates who support you in those rights.

FK

[justatransgirl]

I agree with you Wendy. That whole thing is outrageous. The whole thing is harrassment and simply designed to drive him broke. That's how they do.

Look at the guy who owned all the porn theaters in the old days of San Diego. The city kept taking him to court until he went broke and lost most of the theathers and eventually died.

Sigh,
TS Jamie :-)

[BrassVillanueva]

Here’s a question. Does the government really care if you watch someone pissing in digital format…or is it the religious right who cares about what you watch in the privacy of your own home and their influence on the administration that’s bringing on this prosecution?
I'd say it's a little of both. Washington inherently always wants more control. That's just the nature of politics. Those in government almost always feel they should be the ones making the decisions. That's why I cannot stand stereotypical politicians. Put REAL people in positions of power, and that will change.

Of course the other part of it is just as true: the Republicans are so in bed (HA!) with the religious right that they've become just as facist as the Democrats, they just want to control a different aspect of your lives. The donkeys are out to get a control on your money and the elephants want to dictate morality. The difference is that the Democrats truly believe they should be in control of your earnings. The Republicans are simply indebted to the religious right because that's historically been their base, and they're too pussified to stand up for themselves and say "This is NOT what our party stands for!"

Until the Republicans move away from the religious right, they'll continue to try this shit, and it's just going to get worse. If there were a major party that was socially liberal and legislatively conservative (what the Republicans USED to be), I'd join it in a heartbeat.

As for the importance of the amendments, they're all equally important. They simply address different issues. They're numbered for reference, not importance.

[trish]

I'd say it's a little of both. Washington inherently always wants more control. That's just the nature of politics.

The question is control over what. Not all power structures want control of your personal life. Rome, to take a fascist example, didn’t give a shit whether you fucked barnyard animals or not. Republicans do give a shit. Ask almost anyone of them, whether they belong the religious right or not.


Those in government almost always feel they should be the ones making the decisions.

Well, yeah. That’s their job description. I expect the people I elect to make decisions. Too often they sidestep the really difficult decisions.


Put REAL people in positions of power, and that will change.

All people are REAL people.


Of course the other part of it is just as true: the Republicans are so in bed (HA!) with the religious right that they've become just as facist as the Democrats,

Neither is fascist, nor anywhere near it.


The donkeys are out to get a control on your money and the elephants want to dictate morality. The difference is that the Democrats truly believe they should be in control of your earnings.

Liberals don’t give a shit about your money or how you spend it. They do think that a nation should look out for its own; that government can do more for people. That government can and should provide economic safety nets, educational opportunities and protection against exploitation by concerns foreign and domestic. Not only democrats, but the American people in general want and expect those sorts of services and agree that fair and reasonable taxes are a proper source of revenue to pay for such programs.


The Republicans are simply indebted to the religious right because that's historically been their base, and they're too pussified to stand up for themselves and say "This is NOT what our party stands for!" Until the Republicans move away from the religious right, they'll continue to try this shit, and it's just going to get worse.

The Republicans have been aligned with religious zealotry since Lincoln. It is part and parcel of party. They are inseparable. In the 1860’s it may have been appropriate. It clearly is no longer.

Here I will speak for myself and not my party. It seems to me, personally, that a corollary of the conservative desire to micro-manage individual behaviors, is the opposite drive to give complete and total freedom to corporate collectives. There is nothing in our founding documents that says collectives such as companies and corporations have rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms are for individuals. Over the centuries we've seen these rights being wrested from individuals and lavished upon huge corporations as if these giant complexes had the inalienable rights to which the Declaration referred.


If there were a major party that was socially liberal and legislatively conservative (what the Republicans USED to be), I'd join it in a heartbeat.

There is such a party. The Democratic party balanced the budget and left a ten year surplus when Clinton left office. Gore pledged to invest that money to pay for social security. The Republican party pledged to give it give it away!


As for the importance of the amendments, they're all equally important. They simply address different issues.

What measure of importance are you using here? Importance in the mind of the founding fathers? Importance for law and jurisprudence? Important for our continued freedom? Importance in order of the importance of the issues addressed?


They're numbered for reference, not importance.

Of course the later amendments are ordered by historical accident. But what about the earlier ones? Are they numbered randomly? Does their order reflect the order in which they were considered? Does that order reflect on their perceived importance in the mind of the founders? Have you a reference for this last assertion or is it just your opinion.

[Dino Velvet]

Don't know about the obscenity stuff, but I'm glad the present gov't hasn't tried to take away many of my guns. If the Dems get in, they are more likely. The 2nd Amendment is just as important a right as the 1st.

and second place is just a good as first? sheesh. The fact its the First means that free speech and a free press are more important.

FK

My point is every one of our Bill Of Rights and Amendments are important. It seems that regardless of party, Republican or Democrat, certain rights might be infringed on, whether in reality or perception. I don't like Republicans trying to legislate morality any more than I like Democrats to tell me how I can defend my home from intruders. I'm more in the fiscally conservative and socially liberal camp.

[trish]

Here's some interesting questions.

How many times in the last year have you broken somebody's conception of moral law? Have you been a participant in extramarital sex, for example. Or taken the Lord's name in vain? Or have you had impure thoughts? Have you rented pornography? Perhaps you masturbated once or twice.

Now, how many times in the last year have you had to use firearms to defend your home?

If a certain right is exercised daily in one's pursuit of freedom and happiness and another is rarely utilized, and by most people never utilized...does that speak to their relative importance?

[Dino Velvet]

Here's some interesting questions.

#1 How many times in the last year have you broken somebody's conception of moral law? Have you been a participant in extramarital sex, for example. Or taken the Lord's name in vain? Or have you had impure thoughts? Have you rented pornography? Perhaps you masturbated once or twice.

#2 Now, how many times in the last year have you had to use firearms to defend your home?

If a certain right is exercised daily in one's pursuit of freedom and happiness and another is rarely utilized, and by most people never utilized...does that speak to their relative importance?

I've done both but the one I labled #1 most often. I wouldn't give up either right.

[mbf]

My point is every one of our Bill Of Rights and Amendments are important. It seems that regardless of party, Republican or Democrat, certain rights might be infringed on, whether in reality or perception. I don't like Republicans trying to legislate morality any more than I like Democrats to tell me how I can defend my home from intruders. I'm more in the fiscally conservative and socially liberal camp.

what does "fiscally conservative" mean? that's one of the biggest propaganda successes of Republicans: that they are fiscally sound. The figures show otherwise. It's usually Republican presidents blowing up the US deficit.

Regarding firearms. I am not a yank, I am euro-trash. I live in an OECD-country where we HAVE strict gun laws. And we have an extremely low rate of murders. Way down US-american figures. So I say the right to bear arms has nothing to do with better defence, probably the opposite.

Besides: that particular right was beeing introduced way back, for a certain purpose: tho keep those bloody English from the newly founded Union.

just like the celibate, it's initial reason has changed completely.

but whatever, like I said I am no yank, so why bother.....

[trish]

You found it necessary to defend your home with a firearm within the last year? Sounds like a story we'd like to hear.

I agree: I too wouldn't give up either right. (After all, who would give up all their rights but one? I'd at least demand the top two) I do, however, think both can be regulated. You know, the ol' hollering "fire" in a crowded theater for the first amendment and the ol' no privately owned working bazzooka's etc. for the 2nd.

[Dino Velvet]

You found it necessary to defend your home with a firearm within the last year. Sounds like a story we'd like to hear.

I agree: I too wouldn't give up either right. I do, however, think both can be regulated. You know, the ol' hollering "fire" in a crowded theater for the first amendment and the ol' no privately owned working bazzooka's etc. for the 2nd.

I didn't have to shoot but by brandishing it I was able to run off 2 guys who had a ladder up against a bedroom window.


what does "fiscally conservative" mean? that's one of the biggest propaganda successes of Republicans: that they are fiscally sound. The figures show otherwise. It's usually Republican presidents blowing up the US deficit.

I'm not a Republican so I can't speak for them. Fiscally Conservative to me means lower taxes and spending among other things.

[WendyWilliams]

Evil Angel has set up a website for people to follow: http://www.defendourporn.org/ Also they have set up a defense fund to help with the battle, after anything that is left will be kept as a non profit organization to help future cases. I hope everyone will make a small donation of sorts and sign the guestbook.

Wendy

[Felicia Katt]

Here's some interesting questions.

#1 How many times in the last year have you broken somebody's conception of moral law? Have you been a participant in extramarital sex, for example. Or taken the Lord's name in vain? Or have you had impure thoughts? Have you rented pornography? Perhaps you masturbated once or twice.

#2 Now, how many times in the last year have you had to use firearms to defend your home?

If a certain right is exercised daily in one's pursuit of freedom and happiness and another is rarely utilized, and by most people never utilized...does that speak to their relative importance?

I've done both but the one I labled #1 most often. I wouldn't give up either right.

Dino, you wouldn't be able to defend your right to bear arms, without the right to free speech. All the other rights in the bill or rights are empty promises without the ability to assert or advocate for them.

FK

[Dino Velvet]

Here's some interesting questions.

#1 How many times in the last year have you broken somebody's conception of moral law? Have you been a participant in extramarital sex, for example. Or taken the Lord's name in vain? Or have you had impure thoughts? Have you rented pornography? Perhaps you masturbated once or twice.

#2 Now, how many times in the last year have you had to use firearms to defend your home?

If a certain right is exercised daily in one's pursuit of freedom and happiness and another is rarely utilized, and by most people never utilized...does that speak to their relative importance?

I've done both but the one I labled #1 most often. I wouldn't give up either right.

Dino, you wouldn't be able to defend your right to bear arms, without the right to free speech. All the other rights in the bill or rights are empty promises without the ability to assert or advocate for them.

FK

Why are you looking for an argument with me? We agree on the majority of this issue. As I said, all our rights are important. I agree we wouldn't have the right to bear arms without the freedom of speech. We also wouldn't have the freedom of speech if we didn't have the right to bear arms. We have common ground, Felicia. God bless America!

[Felicia Katt]

We aren't arguing, we are discussing. You suggested the second amendment was your first priority. I'm trying to get you to reconsider that, since your ability to make that suggestion is only possible because of the first amendment. You won't be able use a gun to get porn if it is banned. Put another way, I'd rather you were able to get excited then for that bulge in your pants to only ever be a gun :)

meow

FK

[mbf]

once again: some of you yanks are funny. As I stated earleir, the ocuntry where I live in, has strict gun laws. Strict as in EVERY responsible adult has the right to own a gun and if he/she desires, will get one without much of a problem.

The demands are low there, just have no criminal record. Don't have a record regarding certain mental problems. Attend a short crash course regarding the proper use of guns with a certified organisation.

Sounds all sensible to me, so, what's to fear there?

[Dino Velvet]

You suggested the second amendment was your first priority.

meow

FK

No I didn't. I said it was just as important. I don't believe there is an issue here.

[LoneWolf]

The second amendment is called the "first freedom" because it allows a person to provide personal protection for themselves and their family. Safety according to Maslow's Hierarchy is the second most import "need" right below basic biological needs; food, air, water, etc.

It doesn't matter how many times you use your second amendment freedoms. You only need to use it once in your life for it to be worth the trouble. You only need to be shot by a mugger once to end up dead forever, thereby making all of the other constitutional freedoms moot.

Most proponents of gun control are wealthy liberals who live in nice neighborhoods that are frequently patrolled by police, and usually as a second layer of protection they have private security guards controlling access to the community gates or building entrance. Taking their Safety for granted, this allows effete liberals to dismiss the working class as "bitter people who cling to... their guns."

TL;DR- fuck gun control.

Sorry Wendy for adding to the derailing of this thread.

[wombat33]

Evil Angel is now a pathetic attempt for our shitty government to tell us what is obscene and what isnt. People if you DONT wake up and see that this type of harrassment on porn companys needs to STOP. Just another obstacle and money wasted!

http://www.avn.com/video/articles/29590.html

I wish the Evil Angel company, John S., Joey S., and Jay S. the BEST of luck!


Regardless of what we think of the government my personal feeling is that they are doing a good thing. Porn is fine for a percentage of people but it ruins others lives, both those in the industry and those who watch/collect/need it.

I think the world would be better off without porn and I wish I nevr started down the trai of the porn viewer/collector.

[trish]

NRA calls the second amendment the first freedom; the founders called it the second amendment. Maslow places physiological needs first at the base of his pyramidal hierarchy. The primary psychological needs follow next in the hierarchy. The primary psychological needs, according to Maslow, are security of body (that would be health), security of employment (knowing how your going to pay for your next meal), security of resources (living within the means of the land, knowing where your next meal is coming from), security of morality (knowing your not going to be stoned for announcing and following your own moral dictates), security of the family health (speaks for itself) and lastly security of property (which Maslow realized is relevant only to communities that have developed a notion of individual ownership).

There are many ways to provide those needs. Individual gun ownership is not required. Freedom of speech is. But I’m for gun ownership. But with the ownership of a gun comes responsibility. I would like to see prospective gun users take a course, pass a test, get a license and renew it periodically. The user can carry the license in her wallet and a sticker can readily be placed on the butt of the gun or rifle. It’s exactly what we expect of anyone who wishes to drive a car. Licensing is not contrary to the freedom to drive nor contrary to the freedom to own or use a gun. (btw “fuck gun-control” is not an argument…you’re have to do better if you want to be persuasive).

Thank you Wendy for providing the link. I do hope everyone who visits this thread check it out. Protect freedom of speech, by speaking out.

[tsmandy]

Regardless of what we think of the government my personal feeling is that they are doing a good thing. Porn is fine for a percentage of people but it ruins others lives, both those in the industry and those who watch/collect/need it.

I think the world would be better off without porn and I wish I nevr started down the trai of the porn viewer/collector.

So after 1,733 posts you decide that we should be behind bars for making "obscene films"? Seems like you need to sort some stuff out wombat, at the very least maybe delete your hung angels account.

I happen to be a very big fan of many of the activities that are labeled obscene, so....

My goal for the rest of the year, is at least 1 of each:

A fisting scene (maybe if I'm lucky I'll get to fist two people at once, I've double fisted one person, but never 2 at one time)

Sex with bondage (who doesn't like to get tied up and fucked, or vice versa?)

Golden showers (not solo, done that, but pissing on someone else, or being pissed on)

[Edmund]

...any more than I like Democrats to tell me how I can defend my home from intruders...

You do realize that the Second Amendment was composed at a time when a national army was unrealistic, and it only guarantees your right to serve in your state militia? To "bear arms" in 1789 meant to serve in the military.

[trish]

That's true, Edmund. And by arms, they meant front loaded flintlock rifles and pistols. Fortunately we've adopted a jurisprudence that allows the interpretation of our founding documents to evolve with time and culture. The modern interpretation, without a doubt, grants individuals the right to own firearms. But how those rights are to be exercised and regulated is not clear. It's a part of our modern reading that is currently being worked out in the courts, in the legislatures and in the opinions of the people.

[stimpy17]

First, us "Yanks" are not "subjects" to a Queen, Dictator or other ruling family.

Second, we are the owners of our Country. Few others can make this claim.

Third, we have a Constitution that supersedes all state or local laws. Few others can say this. If the whole EA story is being told then he has the right to have his case addressed by the highest court in the land.

As a test to your own freedom I'll ask this general question- are you "allowed" to own a firearm? No, the "Why do you need one" isn't the question, does your Country trust you with one, or are they afraid of you owning one? Why? People legally immigrate here for our freedoms and rights and we accept them with open arms regardless of what one might hear. If one thinks of us as haters or racists then my friend you've been lied to.

In closing, read our Bill of Rights again, it is the law of this land, period. Bush or Clintonx2 cannot change this. "The Right of the People to Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed" and not a word about flintlocks. If one takes the First Amendment in this vane then free speech on radio and TV isn't included in the First Admendment.

Proud to be American, join us.

[chefmike]

Has anyone bitching about gun control in this thread ever been denied the right to own a firearm in the USA...and if so, why were you?

If not, stop bitching about not having enough firearms around, pilgrims.

You'll probably just shoot your eye out anyway.

[redtiger]

Well Wendy, you know our furer Adolf Bush has to make himself look good in front of his right wing fascist conservative lackies!

[El Nino]

The second amendment is of VITAL importance. Bottom Line and can not be argued in any free nation

[trish]

Evil Angel has set up a website for people to follow: http://www.defendourporn.org/ Also they have set up a defense fund to help with the battle, after anything that is left will be kept as a non profit organization to help future cases. I hope everyone will make a small donation of sorts and sign the guestbook.

WendyJust thought this was worth repeating. :wink:

[Felicia Katt]

As a practical matter, the gun lobby and the NRA are so powerful and so entrenched, and the Judiciary is so packed with right wingers, that there is no chance of any meaningful gun law reform occurring anytime soon.

But the First Amendment, and your right to read and see and talk about sexual matters is under fire now, by a Department of Justice, remade as a political tool by partisan hacks.

2 years ago, you would have said what is happening to Evil Angel was impossible. 2 years from now, it might be happening here.

If that matters to you, you should support Evil Angel's defense now, and you should not support a candidate who has promised more of the McSame insanity for the next 4 years.

FK