PSA from the moderator

[RawHumor]

So we all should feel an obligation to speak out for our right to porn, with no limits or restrictions?

 

[Fflow]

So we all should feel an obligation to speak out for our right to porn, with no limits or restrictions?

We do have an obligation to speak out when our government creates and enforces unjust laws. As for the "no limits or restrictions" part, again, I never said that. I believe there is a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting the public's right to free expression. Right now, as this law stands, our ability to express ourselves has been severely infringed upon, and for a really bad reason.

We are not criminals for wanting to share erotic photos of ourselves, or for wanting to enjoy erotic images of others. Literotica is not a criminal entity for facilitating this free exchange. If someone were to post an illegal image, one that depicted a minor in a sexual act, I'd be the first to report it. I, however, should not need to hire a lawyer in order to post some frisky vacation snaps of the wife. Requiring me to do so is needlessly limiting our free expression, with little societal gain.

 

[Fflow]

BTW, can you guess from whom this quote comes?

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

 

[RawHumor]

We do have an obligation to speak out when our government creates and enforces unjust laws. As for the "no limits or restrictions" part, again, I never said that. I believe there is a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting the public's right to free expression. Right now, as this law stands, our ability to express ourselves has been severely infringed upon, and for a really bad reason.

We are not criminals for wanting to share erotic photos of ourselves, or for wanting to enjoy erotic images of others. Literotica is not a criminal entity for facilitating this free exchange. If someone were to post an illegal image, one that depicted a minor in a sexual act, I'd be the first to report it. I, however, should not need to hire a lawyer in order to post some frisky vacation snaps of the wife. Requiring me to do so is needlessly limiting our free expression, with little societal gain.

An illegal image? You stated previously that we should not allow the state to dictate what speech should be free and what speech should not be free.

You're contradicting yourself. An illegal image, by its definition, is an image that is not, by the state's definition, covered under free speech.

 

[Fflow]

I am not contradicting myself. I clearly stated that the current law is wrong, and needs to be changed. I never once said that no law is the best solution, nor that all images should be allowed.

We all know that certain forms of speech are protected, and that some are not. Libel, slander, and words that clearly cause real harm to others are illegal... the classic "yelling fire in a theater" example comes to mind. As for photographs, an image taken in the process of a crime may be illegal to possess or distribute if the victim, or the perpetrator, is a minor. Such crimes include sexual abuse. This is not part of the debate here. I believe we can all agree that these kinds of images have been, are, and will remain illegal to create, possess, or distribute. I didn't think I needed to spell this out so clearly but, to remove any possibility for further confusion, I am.

I think I'm being pretty clear in what I'm saying. I am writing in good faith. I ask that you do the same.

 

[RawHumor]

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.

As for the "no limits or restrictions" part, again, I never said that.

So, there should be limits... but they're too restrictive as they're written now?

And they should be decided by whom, if not the state?

 

[RawHumor]

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.

I totally missed this post. I see someone else interpreted the same way that I did.

 

[Fflow]

So, there should be limits... but they're too restrictive as they're written now?

That is my contention.

And they should be decided by whom, if not the state?

In the United States, laws are written and passed by the congress, signed into law by the President, and enforced by the Executive branch. The Supreme Court reviews appealed cases and decides if the laws being enforced in these cases are constitutional. The existing law has yet to be challenged successfully in the courts. This, I believe, is because there has been no one willing to step forward and break the law, be tried, and go into the appeal process.

Once the case is accepted for consideration by the Supreme Court, it can examine the law and determine if it exceeds the bounds of constitutionality.

Another interesting aspect of US Government is that the Congress can pass a law, and it can be signed into law by the president, but if the president chooses not to enforce the law, the congress is basically powerless to do anything about it.

It has been a long time since I've studied US civics, so I hope I'm not misstating the process. If I am, please feel free to clarify.

I've not contacted the ACLU to ask them if they're working on this issue but, according to Manu, there has been some organized effort, albeit a small one.

 

[monique1971]

In the United States, laws are written and passed by the congress, signed into law by the President, and enforced by the Executive branch. The Supreme Court reviews appealed cases and decides if the laws being enforced in these cases are constitutional. The existing law has yet to be challenged successfully in the courts. This, I believe, is because there has been no one willing to step forward and break the law, be tried, and go into the appeal process.

Once the case is accepted for consideration by the Supreme Court, it can examine the law and determine if it exceeds the bounds of constitutionality.

Another interesting aspect of US Government is that the Congress can pass a law, and it can be signed into law by the president, but if the president chooses not to enforce the law, the congress is basically powerless to do anything about it.

It has been a long time since I've studied US civics, so I hope I'm not misstating the process. If I am, please feel free to clarify.

I've not contacted the ACLU to ask them if they're working on this issue but, according to Manu, there has been some organized effort, albeit a small one.

Right. But if I understand your contentions correctly, the fact that we do not have mass civil disobedience of this law is evidence that we are on the verge of fascism. If a Lit moderator chooses not to make his own test case right here and now, he's Eichmann.

And yet, what you describe above does not seem to me to be the description of a society under the heel of tyranny's boot.

 

[Fflow]

Right. But if I understand your contentions correctly, the fact that we do not have mass civil disobedience of this law is evidence that we are on the verge of fascism. If a Lit moderator chooses not to make his own test case right here and now, he's Eichmann.

And yet, what you describe above does not seem to me to be the description of a society under the heel of tyranny's boot.

I would not say that ShyGuy is equivalent to Eichmann. I'd say he was like many nameless, faceless German soldiers and citizens whose tacit capitulation, albeit grudgingly, gave power to the Nazis. These folks knew what they were doing was wrong but were too cowardly to stand up and defy their leadership.

As I said before, many Germans defied the Nazis, sheltered Jews, and helped them to escape the country. Not everyone has the ability to be courageous. I do not fault people who aren't. I do think, however, that there should be some honest accountability, and personal responsibility, when one carries out an order that is clearly ill-advised. One does not receive a 'get out of jail free' card simply because they were following orders.

I do not believe, nor have I stated, that we're on the verge of fascism. I believe that most people who post pictures here, or simply enjoy them, are unwilling to stand up in front of Congress and say that this law is causing them a denial of self expression. I hope that will change. If it doesn't, other off-shore web sites will flourish and Lit will wither and die.

 

[lordonlyknows]

Right. But if I understand your contentions correctly, the fact that we do not have mass civil disobedience of this law is evidence that we are on the verge of fascism. If a Lit moderator chooses not to make his own test case right here and now, he's Eichmann.

And yet, what you describe above does not seem to me to be the description of a society under the heel of tyranny's boot.

I'm not sure why I'm even writing this post, because I can't say it any better than that.

But my point is, despite whether or not this little fiasco is a horrible, unconstitutional injustice demanding protest, why undermine your own point with obviously absurd comparisons?

I'm not saying that the Holocaust, or Nazi Germany, or Hitler can never be mentioned without a sense of grave tragedy.

I believe in free speech; that if people want to be able to call themselves intellectual creatures they need to have the ability to consider (or at least tolerate) every possible idea no matter how gut wrenching, or absurd, or enraging, or sickening, or tragic, or beyond their comfort zone, or whatever...

It's just that none of those things change the fact that if you say something that resonates with an obvious disconnect, someone is going to call you on it.

I really, honestly think that our current administration is pulling for the ratification (or reversals there of) of some way more enraging amendments than some laws that try to take away our precious nudies.

I mean, the banning of same-sex marriage, or attempted reversal of Roe vs. Wade, the attempted ban of muslim students wearing religious articles of clothing, or the attempted law against "the n-word"; there are way more diabolical things happening in politics today. Politics are always going to be (when in the hands of power-hungry honkies/honkettes) diabolical.

There are way more important things happening period.

Just go jerk off to something else, and quit using your religion as an excuse to be stupid.


EDIT: And if you are in serious fear of the eventual Nazi-esque ban of photos that you'd still like to see on Literotica, or that Literotica is going to whither and die, just go to www.forumer.com and create your own pic-posting community.

Invite everybody, knock yourself out.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

I don't see ShyGuy being the same as soldiers in Germany during World War II or average German citzens who followed the rules during World War II, but I can see the comparassion of the USA to Germany right before World War II. Not because of the nude picture thing, but because of how things are going in the USA right now based on the war and our leader wanting to take away women rights and the freedom of religion.

I'm pretty sure since so far everyone who posted in this thread posts in the Amature Picture thread isn't too crazy about the rules on this board and about the rules actually being applied now, but I can't say the rule is taking away our freedom of speech. The board chooses to follow the law and we choose to post on the board. The rule doesn't state you can't start a message board of your own and not follow the law. I also see nothing wrong with someone writting to the government about it if they don't like it. I think more poeple should write to the government if they don't like something. We still do have a right to do that in the USA. We won't get sent to prision or killed because we speak out against the government.'

With the people who are in office right now I do see the USA heading to pre World War II in Germany. It has nothing to do with this board though. It has to do with other things like the war and Bush and his people wanting to go back to the 1900's where women didn't have much rights and non Christians didn't have much rights.

I don't think the USA is at pre World War II yet, which is why I wish more people would use their right to vote and speak out against the government. If Bush gets his way and has a 3rd term which goes against the constituation then I'm not so sure we'll all of the same rights that we have right now.

 

[MsTexas]

I just want to thank you all for making this one of the funniest threads ever!!

 

[Fflow]

You're very welcome.

 

[Fflow]

Let me, once again, restate my position:

One cannot eliminate culpability simply because one was following orders.

This was made legal precedent at the Nuremberg Trials, and elsewhere.

When one uses that arguement, regardless of its context, it naturally calls forth comparisons to the post-war German legal defense.

Lit currently uses volunteer mods to enforce the image content rules. Lit cannot enforce these rules if people don't volunteer to enforce them.

If Lit can't enforce these rules, it will be forced to either eliminate image hosting all together (something that will negatively impact Lit's usefulness) or break the law and prepare to fight the law in the courts.

I do not believe that I suggested that our government, or this current administration, was in any way comparable to the pre-war German government.

I did not use religion, mine or anyone elses, as a tool to argue my position. I simply pointed out that, as a Jew, I have no discomfort in using these metaphors and comparisons.

I am not equating ShyGuy, or his actions, with those of the Nazis. I am comparing them. There is a real and significant difference.

I hope that helps.

 

[yogiforlife]

re

I don't have a problem with the rules being enforced, I did in fact read them before i ever posted any pics. My question is, are threads being continually investigated for pics that break the rules? because there are a few threads I subscribe to and I can still go to them and find pics that clearly are against the rules. It seems that some people have been red flagged and are therefore spied on, they in turn feel picked on and singled out because they too know there are others who continue to get away with it.

Also, do the rules not apply to AV's? it seems like you can get away with putting anything as your AV and not face any consequences for it.

 

[RawHumor]

I don't have a problem with the rules being enforced, I did in fact read them before i ever posted any pics. My question is, are threads being continually investigated for pics that break the rules? because there are a few threads I subscribe to and I can still go to them and find pics that clearly are against the rules. It seems that some people have been red flagged and are therefore spied on, they in turn feel picked on and singled out because they too know there are others who continue to get away with it.

Also, do the rules not apply to AV's? it seems like you can get away with putting anything as your AV and not face any consequences for it.

I believe that threads need to be flagged somehow in order for them to get a moderator/admin's attention... but in some cases, the mod/admin just happens across them.

My guess is it goes like this:
1. If a thread gets flagged by someone, the mod will look into it.
2. Sometimes, the mod just browses threads in his fun time.
3. Sometimes, the admin peruses threads as part of his/her site responsibilities.

I'm not sure about avatars, but I wouldn't mind having a site-wide ban on cock avs.

 

[DiSparrow]

I'm not sure about avatars, but I wouldn't mind having a site-wide ban on cock avs.

lol....
obviously they are not enforcing these rules so strictly yet. I have seen a few threads start up since this note came out and the first pics right off is either a cock or pussy.
I realize people like that and want to see it... but can people not think of more creative ways to show other than *Bam! there I am* ?!?

 

[yogiforlife]

re

lol....
obviously they are not enforcing these rules so strictly yet. I have seen a few threads start up since this note came out and the first pics right off is either a cock or pussy.
I realize people like that and want to see it... but can people not think of more creative ways to show other than *Bam! there I am* ?!?

But maybe I'm wrong, or a moderator can clear this up for me, you are allowed to show cock and or pussy so long as its not cock in pussy or an act associated with masturbation.

 

[umchick5]

But maybe I'm wrong, or a moderator can clear this up for me, you are allowed to show cock and or pussy so long as its not cock in pussy or an act associated with masturbation.

The mod is on vacation right now, but if you read the rules it says both actual and simulated sex/mastubation as well as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." I asked ShyGuy68 about the latter because to me it can be interpreted in many different ways, and he just agreed with me that it is hard to say what exactly it means. I suppose if the shot focuses on the gentitals, then perhaps it is lascivious exhibition as apposed to a shot that included other parts of your body as well.

As for pics being removed and threads being targeted, that is also hard to say. He is only one person, and he does come here for his own enjoyment as well. Perhaps the threads he visits more often have more pics removed because he sees them. These are just my thoughts. I know you can report a thread if it has inappropriate images, so maybe that is what people need to do to help ShyGuy out. I just know I feel bad for him.

 

[yogiforlife]

re

Yah I just read the other one where he stated he was going away. I feel for him as well, he does his job well and people are gonna be mad at him, does it sparingly and some people feel picked on. I doubt anybody is going to turn in others, if someone is getting away with it, good for them, would take somebody whos jealous or has a personal grudge against them to turn them in.

 

[monique1971]

Let me, once again, restate my position:

One cannot eliminate culpability simply because one was following orders.

Indeed. But in this case, the question is: Culpability for what exactly? Just what are the mods doing that they should be held responsible for? Removing pics that violate clearly posted guidelines? What is so blameworthy about that?

When one uses that arguement, regardless of its context, it naturally calls forth comparisons to the post-war German legal defense.

On the contrary, I believe that context is everything. How can "blame" or "guilt" or "responsibility" for any act be established if context determines the meaning of said act? Some images are illegal in some contexts and not in others. In this case, the moderators are in fact trying to uphold a law. We may disagree with the law, but that is a separate issue from "culpability" as constructed in the Nuremberg trials.

Lit currently uses volunteer mods to enforce the image content rules. Lit cannot enforce these rules if people don't volunteer to enforce them.

If Lit can't enforce these rules, it will be forced to either eliminate image hosting all together (something that will negatively impact Lit's usefulness) or break the law and prepare to fight the law in the courts.

Quite so. I agree with this as a characterization of the facts of the matter. So?

I do not believe that I suggested that our government, or this current administration, was in any way comparable to the pre-war German government.

I am not equating ShyGuy, or his actions, with those of the Nazis. I am comparing them. There is a real and significant difference.

These two statements appear to be in contradiction. Are you or are you not drawing said comparisons?

Commonly accepted definitions of "compare" mean "to represent as similar" or "to examine qualities in order to find resemblances or differences." I agree that to compare is not to "equate" but it does seem that you were indicating a likeness or similarity between Lit mods and the German soldiers who murdered Jews, and others, with the justification that they were only following orders.

And again: I say that such a comparison is laughable and offensive.

 

[trysail]

In Praise of Shy Guy & Monique1971


I commend Monique for her clear thinking and her unassailable logic. Her defense of ShyGuy's role is unimpeachable.

We should be thankful that there are people like Monique and ShyGuy; the simple truth is that Literotica has no choice but to comply with the law. Failure to do so would put the entire site in jeopardy. The choice boils down to having a Lit that is in compliance with the law or having no Lit at all.

ShyGuy has a pretty thankless job; I'm grateful to him for tackling it.

 

[Fflow]

Literotica has no choice but to comply with the law

This is where our opinions diverge. Every day, people and corporations knowingly break laws so they can be tested in the courts. That is how the government protects its citizens from bad laws.

Although I respect Monique's interpretation of my statements, I respectfully disagree with them.

Lit should not be using volunteer mods to protect themselves from breaking federal law. Will they defend themselves by blaming the Mods when an image goes unnoticed, and charges are filed? Will the Mods be dragged into court to testify?

Lit should either remove the ability to post pix, or fight the law in the courts. To act as censors of content that is clearly harmful to nobody is wrong. Even more wrong is to expect volunteers to carry out this practice. Volunteer mods, asked to carry out this task, should refuse.

 

[kittykateater]

This is where our opinions diverge. Every day, people and corporations knowingly break laws so they can be tested in the courts. That is how the government protects its citizens from bad laws.

Although I respect Monique's interpretation of my statements, I respectfully disagree with them.

Lit should not be using volunteer mods to protect themselves from breaking federal law. Will they defend themselves by blaming the Mods when an image goes unnoticed, and charges are filed? Will the Mods be dragged into court to testify?

Lit should either remove the ability to post pix, or fight the law in the courts. To act as censors of content that is clearly harmful to nobody is wrong. Even more wrong is to expect volunteers to carry out this practice. Volunteer mods, asked to carry out this task, should refuse.

Well said.

If you volunteer to follow orders you don't have to (nobody FORCES anyone to be a moderator here), can you still use the "just following orders" defense? I assume Lit makes a profit....to protect that profit, they SHOULD fight unconstitunioal laws that hamper the site in ANY way!

In a way it's kind of flattering that a pic of my cock is such a threat, that someone took the time and effort to go through every one of my recent posts on dozens of threads and delete every last pic of my cock! (although maybe not so flattering...mine's probably NOT the only cock deleted around here). My chest and ass are still here...even on the same threads....but not my cock. It's WEIRD! Gotta wonder who has nothing better to do with their time than sift through so many pics and delete just cocks!

I also had a pic where I was deliberately vague about whether what was on my belly was liquid hand soap or come. No cock or pussy in the photo, but it too was deleted....just in case that WASN'T soap!

My point is, whether it was soap or come on my belly, what possible harm or threat did this photo pose to anyone, that it needed to be deleted?

It all seems so silly...if it weren't for the fact that one form of censorshp historically leads to other forms, until NOBODY is free. It's an insidious disease...if censoring ONE harmless expression is tolerated...and a pic of my cock IS a harmless expression....it's an easy and slippery slope to banning lots of other forms of harmless expression. I'm NOT talking about shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, or posting plans on how to build a bomb.....we're talking about a pic of a 51-year-old man's cock....why such a need for religion or government to censor that? And why DOESN'T Lit stand up and fight against this idiocy?

Censorship, once tolerated, historically gets MORE, I know of no case where once you let religion and government censor...whether Literotica or anything else.....the censors have never been known to step back and REDUCE the amount of censorship they do!

And yes I do write to Congress and support ACLU. Ever see the movie about the President (played by Michael Douglas) having a girlfriend (played by Annette Benning)? There's a great line where the president says government officials take an oath to defend the constitution, so the press shouldn't be asking the current president why he's a member of the ACLU, they should be asking his opponent running for president, why he ISN'T!

You can't VOLUNTEER to be a moderator and enforcing unconstitutinal censorship laws..whether it's "just" nude pics or any other harmless form of free expression, and also claim to love free speech. I agree, either challenge and don't enforce that law, or don't volunteer to be a moderator.

The moderators may well be nice people and hard-working, as others have said, and I have nothing against them personally, my beef is with the laws they feel they need to enforce, but that doesn't change the fact they are voluntarily enforcing a bad law.