PSA from the moderator

[MsTexas]

I was late then

Awwwww

Maybe Santa will bring you an early xmas present

 

[vibes]

Awwwww

Maybe Santa will bring you an early xmas present

uhm ... you know you should not mess with ... believers

 

[MsTexas]

uhm ... you know you should not mess with ... believers

LOL

I would never!

 

[jason_jenn]

sorry,but i HAD to ask a few questions:

a) that law is retroactive?If so,ok,- that should be specified,especially to foreign members of Lit, if not,what happens to the pics posted BEFORE the new rules?

b)a, pics altered to the point of just giving a hint-being with filters or rendered similar to paintings-i.e. no details- are to be considered against the rules?

c)Explicit display of the genital area means erect cock pics? So,general nudes or ass pics shouldn't be considered against the rules?

I'm not nitpicking,i'm ready to delete all the pics,but i do think that the clearer the rules,the better for all the people involved in Lit.

Thanks Shyguy for being so cooperative

These rules (as far back as I can remember) have been posted. I have seen this debate before a couple of times over the three years I have been enjoying Lit. It would be sad to see them shut down by court order because of the backlash of those who cannot accept the way things are...

Shyguy has done an amazing job and I'm not one bit envious of his position to be among the least liked because of said job. As he stated in the first post, according to the guidelines set forth for posting pics, he has let some questionable photos sneak through from time to time.

Remember the presidential election is coming and that means the republicans will be counting on the votes of the conservative populace. Strong-arming the little guy (Lit or other free speech sites) is one of the ways that they gain faith from those who see pornography as a threat to the 'American' way of life.

This crack-down is sure to pass before you know it... It's happened before.

 

[vibes]

LOL

I would never!

that's good to know: I'll sit + wait

 

[Fflow]

ShyGuy, rules, and personal responsibility

"I was just following orders" was the claim that the Nazi officers used to justify the atrocities they committed. If all the Lit mods simply resigned, the rules would be nearly impossible to enforce. The Lit leadership might, then, be forced to eliminate the hosting of images all together. That might, then, inspire folks to use their own hosting, as I do. I pay a company to provide me with a domain, and server space. When I post a picture there, I can link to it here. This eliminates the legal burdon on Lit, and places it squarely on my shoulders. If we, each of us, stepped up to this plate, we could post whatever we want.

It is easy to blame ShyGuy who, btw, isn't entirely blameless, the Lit owners, or even the federal government. What we really need to do, though, is to take responsibility for our own needs.

Peace.

 

[Britwitch]

Have tried to follow the guidelines whenever I've posted new pics and with the exception of one photo (which I've just deleted ) I think my pictures are ok rule-wise...
Most of what I post is of the 'teasing' and attempted 'artistic' nature so while I show a fair amount of cleavage the rest of me is left for the eyes of Mr Britwitch only
Fingers crossed my thread passes the inspection...

Can't be an easy job shyguy....

 

[blackieone]

since there's no two ways about it,i've asked to Shyguy-and therefore Lit owners- clearer guidelines about the pics we can or can't post.There's a grey area that needs to be cleared.Apart from that,i can understand-even if i'm not happy about it- their point of wiew.
I've deleted some pics,no big deal about it,there are other sites where i could post them, the others have stayed and now i simply-if i want to post more,that is- find new ways to take interesting pics.
I think the problem is way more generalized-and it's bordering too much on controllling people way more than it was done in the past.

Brit-pericolosa no,carina sì

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

Nudity is allowed, just not pics with overt sexual context, if I recall correctly.

For the record, I'm all in favor of porn. I have quite a twisted brain when it comes to sexual perversions.

I'm just trying to help show why things are the way they are.

I understand that. I'm assumed you didn't have anything against porn since you are on a site like this. I know not everything is porn but some of the things that are talked about are considered porn to some people.

It says lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person isn't allowed. I think any shot of a penis or vagina would be considered lascivous. I would also assume shots of the breast and butt could be considered lascivous as well. I guess it all depends on the person though.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

I take it that foot jobs aren't allowed to be shown either? I'm editing my pictures right now.

I read the origional rules before this was posted and I wasn't sure if foot jobs were considered ponographic or not. I'm assuming they are.

 

[blackieone]

what if they are drawnings ,then?

 

[Britwitch]

Brit-pericolosa no,carina sì

Grazie
Although my Italian is pretty much limited to the phrase in my sig...I believe that was a lovely compliment...

 

[Fflow]

I take it that foot jobs aren't allowed to be shown either? I'm editing my pictures right now.

I read the origional rules before this was posted and I wasn't sure if foot jobs were considered ponographic or not. I'm assuming they are.

All foot job pix and related materials should be sent to me for review.

Wasn't it Supreme Court Justice William Renquist who said, "I don't know what's pornographic, but I know what I like."

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

All foot job pix and related materials should be sent to me for review.

Well right now they are in my picture thread.

 

[blackieone]

Grazie
Although my Italian is pretty much limited to the phrase in my sig...I believe that was a lovely compliment...

so does mine,but that was more than deserved...i've loved the face pics the most

Your AV is beautiful

 

[Britwitch]

so does mine,but that was more than deserved...i've loved the face pics the most

Your AV is beautiful

Aww...
Thanks...
I like my AV too...Yours is quite delectable you know

 

[blackieone]

Aww...
Thanks...
I like my AV too...Yours is quite delectable you know

ok,now the red tint is because of your compliment!!!

Well, your Av makes me want to reach and caress your face.....and give a brief and tender kiss

Sorry for that,but ,yes, is THAT effective

 

[monique1971]

"I was just following orders" was the claim that the Nazi officers used to justify the atrocities they committed.

This isn't the first post to make this comparison. I find it laughable at best, and profoundly offensive at worst.

 

[RawHumor]

I've seen more + more posts of yours in the PG and its subforums, Raw ... maybe your speed is just fine

I rarely post in the PG, and the PG has no subforums. Rather, it is a subforum of the Personals.

Sometimes threads that I post to in the Personals are moved to the PG.

 

[lordonlyknows]

"I was just following orders" was the claim that the Nazi officers used to justify the atrocities they committed.

Everybody needs to quit it with the ineffective Nazi allusions; they belittle the aforementioned atrocities that were commited during that regime, as well as the intellect of their users.

 

[Fflow]

I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. As a Jew, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Intellectual honesty requires that we not forget that knowingly capitulating to authority is what allows abuses of power. War is not possible without a person willing to pull a trigger. The death penalty is not possible without someone willing to end a life. These pic rules are not enforcable without volunteer mods reporting and/or deleting the images. If we're unwilling to speak honestly about this, then we're all just pissing in the wind. When we allow the state to decide where art begins and ends, or where free speech begins and ends, we will find ourselves all too quickly marching smartly to the ovens.

 

[vibes]

I rarely post in the PG, and the PG has no subforums. Rather, it is a subforum of the Personals.

Sometimes threads that I post to in the Personals are moved to the PG.

... a way or another

 

[RawHumor]

I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. As a Jew, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Intellectual honesty requires that we not forget that knowingly capitulating to authority is what allows abuses of power. War is not possible without a person willing to pull a trigger. The death penalty is not possible without someone willing to end a life. These pic rules are not enforcable without volunteer mods reporting and/or deleting the images. If we're unwilling to speak honestly about this, then we're all just pissing in the wind. When we allow the state to decide where art begins and ends, or where free speech begins and ends, we will find ourselves all too quickly marching smartly to the ovens.

So you'd prefer anarchy to civilization? Where there are no rules and everyone can do whatever they want, because no law should be able to tell them what to do?

 

[monique1971]

I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. As a Jew, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Intellectual honesty requires that we not forget that knowingly capitulating to authority is what allows abuses of power. War is not possible without a person willing to pull a trigger. The death penalty is not possible without someone willing to end a life. These pic rules are not enforcable without volunteer mods reporting and/or deleting the images. If we're unwilling to speak honestly about this, then we're all just pissing in the wind. When we allow the state to decide where art begins and ends, or where free speech begins and ends, we will find ourselves all too quickly marching smartly to the ovens.

Are you an anarchist? Do you believe that all state power, no matter how constituted, leads invariably to oppression? The only way in which the above statement makes sense to me is within that context.

Otherwise:

Logically, if you were correct and the least infringement on expression led invariably to genocide, then the United States would have degenerated into the basest tyranny decades ago.* There have been anti-sedition laws and anti-obscenity laws on the books for most of our history. Admittedly, the reconcilation of such statues with the First Amendment is a complex and ongoing process that has yielded both good and bad law. Your argument still doesn't hold up.


----
* Perhaps you do believe, in fact, that the United States has been an oppressive, genocidal dictatorship throughout its history. I think that's a debatable claim, myself.

 

[Fflow]

So you'd prefer anarchy to civilization? Where there are no rules and everyone can do whatever they want, because no law should be able to tell them what to do?

I did not say that. If that's what you understood me to say, then you are confused. If a law is wrong, as moral individuals we must not support it. A government can put a gun in your hand, and may even aim it for you, but cannot force you to pull the trigger. There may be a consequence for noncompliance, but that may be better that capitulating to wrong or unjustified demands. Part of living in a civil society is having the ability, as an individual, to dissent, to speak out against that which may be unjust, and even resist when necessary. Even within the laws of the US military, a soldier has the duty to refuse unlawful orders. Obeying them is a serious offense.

In pre-war Germany, there were many German Christians who refused to obey the anti-Semitic laws, who hid Jews in their attics and basements, and helped many to escape. These Germans were breaking the law, but did so because they knew the law to be wrong.

The French resistance was breaking the law, but did so because they knew that capitulation to the new German controlled government was unacceptable. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white person. Mahatma Gandhi broke the law when he walked to the sea and made salt, one of our basic human needs. He was beaten and jailed, as were many others, but that did not deter them. Our founding fathers were breaking the law when they decided to resist taxation without representation. Had they capitulated, we'd be living in a very different country.

So, lest you be further confused, let me reiterate one more time: Civil society must provide an avenue for individuals to speak out against unjust laws. When that fails, resistance to those laws is required. This is not an advocacy of anarchy, but of personal responsibility.