stories in extreme section

[bridgeburner]

I'm not sure that Yahoo pays all that much attention to what files are sitting on their servers. There are far too many for them to police. Of course, if they stumble across anything they find objectionable there might be hell to pay but most likely they'd just dump it and tell you not to come back.

They try to cover their asses with the Terms of Usage. I don't know if there has ever been a case against porn on the Yahoo Groups but there's certainly some objectionable stuff out there. I haven't spent much time in their Adult groups --- too much spam results and I find navigating at Yahoo tedious at best---- but I know they have Hentai Groups and they can certainly extreme.


Of course, my preference would be for the State to get itself firmly detached from the Church and truly stand behind the First Amendment.


--B

 

[hiddenself]

I'm not sure that Yahoo pays all that much attention to what files are sitting on their servers...
They try to cover their asses with the Terms of Usage.

Hmm. But be aware that the Terms of Usage may state that anything posted becomes property of Yahoo (at least, I think that Geocities is like that -- don't remember if Yahoo has the same).

Of course, my preference would be for the State to get itself firmly detached from the Church and truly stand behind the First Amendment.

Amen to that!

hs

 

[Pure]

bb said,

//Of course, my preference would be for the State to get itself firmly detached from the Church and truly stand behind the First Amendment. //

Well, the tide is in the other direction, for now. Who knows how many generations of Bushes will reign. But note that no state have ever given up the right to deal with 'immorality' --and its depiction. There is no ''church" of any strength in China, but there is still an effort to curb porn. Same in the old Soviet Union.

Given the present lax enforcement, I'd say that 'speech' is as free now as at any point in history. Relevant to this obscenity issue, btw, is 'comics'! These have been restrained, etc., up into the present. (There is a "Savoy" case in Britain; and a radical lesbian comic book in Canada, where penes were cut off.)

J.

 

[bridgeburner]

I suppose one should be gratified to see a compelling argument that morality is not solely a religious concern ---- how many times have I read the same old argument that atheists must of necessity be amoral since they have no God to tell them right from wrong?

It's still depressing to see that man, no matter what his spiritual inclinations, never seems to tire of telling his fellow men how not to get their groove on.

--B

 

[Pookie]

Well, the tide is in the other direction, for now. Who knows how many generations of Bushes will reign.

Remember, COPA was enacted under the Clinton administration.

I just want government to stay out of my home, especially my bedroom. If I'm not hurting anyone, then the government should stay out of my bedroom.

I do recall hearing of a child porn (pics) bust not too long back involving a yahoo group. I just don't remember the specifics.

 

[Pure]

Hi Pookie G,

You reminded us that COPA passed under the Clinton Administration. (1998). However it was included in a larger appropriations bill-- the vetoing of which might have created problems. Here is an account, from the House Committee on Commerce, news release, which names the authors and gives some history; note who the authors say opposed their efforts [bolded by me]:

http://www.house.gov/commerce/releases/pr101598.htm


House Committee on Commerce
News Release

For Immediate Release Contact:
David Fish (Commerce) (202) 225-5735
Peggy Peterson (Oxley) (202) 225-2676
Niko Yen (Greenwood) (202) 225-4276
October 15, 1998


BLILEY, OXLEY, GREENWOOD DECLARE VICTORY ON ANTI-PORN BILL
WASHINGTON—Calling it a victory for America’s children, Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA), Finance Subcommittee Chairman Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), and U.S. Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) are celebrating the inclusion of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in the omnibus spending bill.

The language of the Oxley bill, H.R. 3783, as passed by the Commerce Committee and the full House, was inserted into the budget package Thursday.

"Parents do not want their children assaulted by pornography on the Internet," Bliley said, "That is why we demanded action this year. We must protect our children from the smut-peddlers. Thanks to Mike Oxley for his hard work."

COPA requires commercial, online pornographers to screen out minors before they distribute or sell certain adult material on the World Wide Web. Employing the constitutionally tested ‘harmful to minors’ standard, COPA requires commercial distributors to verify adult status through the use of credit cards, adult access codes, adult PIN numbers, or, in the future, digital signatures or other reasonable technologies.

"My real reward today is that children will be safer on the Internet as a result of this legislation," Oxley said. "We didn’t give an inch in the final negotiations, and I thank the leadership for their backing, which enabled us to prevail over the best efforts of the White House and left-wing interests to defeat this effort."

Greenwood said, "I believe COPA carefully balances the constitutional rights of adults to view certain materials with the compelling governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials."

The three members thanked retiring Senator Dan Coats of Indiana for his Senate sponsorship and for his role in shepherding the bill through the legislative process.

Right now, 60,000 Web sites featuring explicit and obscene material are readily available to unsuspecting children. Current law does not prevent commercial adult Web sites from providing explicit images to children. Commercial distributors of pornography offer free "teaser" pages to lure innocent children into viewing more.

The bill was cosponsored in the House by a bipartisan group of 65 cosponsors. It is backed by 26 pro-family groups.

Bliley moved the bill through the Commerce Committee. Oxley is the author of COPA, and Greenwood is the lead cosponsor. The bill’s Senate companion was authored by Coats.

 

[Pookie]

Pure,

I remember reading some things about that now. Clinton would have been forced to veto the budget. I was reading something else I found funny too. If CODA was enforceable, then the Starr report probably would be viewed as harmful to minors and require adult verification to read on the internet.

Things look good that COPA won't make it through the Courts. I'm certainly not opposed to "protecting children" from pornography on the internet. But I think what is at issue here is a job for parents and not the government.

Pookie

 

[Pure]

Hi Pookie,

you said

Pure,

I remember reading some things about that now. Clinton would have been forced to veto the budget. I was reading something else I found funny too. If CODA was enforceable, then the Starr report probably would be viewed as harmful to minors and require adult verification to read on the internet.

Things look good that COPA won't make it through the Courts. I'm certainly not opposed to "protecting children" from pornography on the internet. But I think what is at issue here is a job for parents and not the government.

Pookie

I tend to agree. Having read more history, including of the predecessor act "Communications Decency Act" I think COPA is washed up. Though COPA introduced a few refinements, it really didn't deal with the SC objections stated in Reno case. It was a quickie attempt at moral reform of a medium that's very resistant, and which has enough similarities to ordinary print and conversation to make censoring/prosecution difficult, given the strong SC interpreations of the first amendment.

J.

 

[Guest]

*Quick note to say that I have not read the two pages of posts past this thread starter, so far... So, forgive me if I repeat anyone here.

Just a general whine really, I have submitted four chapters of a series of mine. They have all been clearly marked as stories that should go in the EXTREME section of Lit. However despite being submitted about four months ago and then again over the last month they do not seem to ever make it as far as the section itself.

I always get notification that they are being moved and that seems to be it. I have mailed the webmaster a couple of times but got no response.

Laurel has stated in the past that she doesn't update the Extreme link often because 1.) she doesn't get many story submissions that go there, and 2.) when Yahoo had a big kiddie porn sting a while back she put the Extreme section on hold.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but well over a year ago I submitted a story to Lit. (This was back when I used my old Tiggs name for those who know me...that'll will give you a time idea here.) The story was "accepted but would be moving to to Extreme due to its content". That's fine. Not my first story in Extreme so I wasn't worried about that.

A lot of time went by. Over in the Story Ideas board a woman requested a story about a "balloon fetish". This, too, was quite a while back. Well, the woman decided to write the story herself afterall. It was about Pippi Longstockings going to a fair, etc. It went to the Extreme section. This, too, was a year after my story was "accepted". Her story was posted in Extreme and mine has yet to show up on any of Laurel's "updated".

Like you, A Cracker Slut, I wrote a thread (or threads even?) asking if anyone knew what could be going on. I PMed Laurel (and still half of my PMs don't reach her or something and the message tracking doesn't "work"...but that's another story), and E-mailed her. I've long since given up thinking that story will never show up now.

Maybe, with this thread, there will be new light for mine...?

 

[Guest]

P.S.

To anyone who may be interested:

The last update to Extreme was on 10/12/02.

 

[Pure]

Hey Pook and others, anyone following this story? Are Mr. Spradlings rights being infringed? Is Mr. Dini persecuting Christians? (He is one, btw.) Are a certain group--unfortunately NON-fringe--of Christians attempting to disctate contents of science curricula?

Here's a bit from todays Washington Post.


In Texas, a Darwinian Debate
Religious Student Protests Professor's Question on Evolution

By Karin Brulliard
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, February 16, 2003; Page A07

AUSTIN, Feb. 15 -- Micah Spradling was never good at English or history. But science, he could do.

As a senior at Texas Tech University, Spradling enrolled in a biology course last fall with the hope that he could get a recommendation from the professor for his application to medical school. But he dropped the course after two classes, when he learned that no matter how he performed in the class, his chances of a recommendation were probably nil.

The biology professor, Michael L. Dini, had a strict policy. He would write recommendations only for students who could "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to this question: "How do you think the human species originated?" Spradling, who believes in creationism, believed that made him ineligible.

"I had people say, 'Well, why didn't you just lie to him?' " Spradling said by telephone from Lubbock, in the Texas Panhandle, where the university is located. "But I don't really deny my faith, not to any extent that was going to go against anything that I was about."

So the 22-year-old student transferred to Lubbock Christian University to take the same course and secure a recommendation.

Last month, the Justice Department launched an investigation into whether Dini's insistence that his students affirm a belief in human evolution illegally discriminates against students' religious beliefs.

The case encapsulates a head-on clash between what civil liberties groups and university officials consider academic freedom and scientific standards and what some religious groups regard as blatant discrimination based on faith.

The Justice Department inquiry was prompted by a complaint from the Liberty Legal Institute of Plano, Tex., a lawyers group that favors prayer in public schools and the right to distribute Christian literature at public schools and parks. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has asked Texas Tech to submit information on its policy relating to letters of recommendation by Feb. 24.

But the university insists it has no such policy and doesn't intend to create one.

"A letter of recommendation is personal to a professor," said Dale Pat Campbell, general counsel and vice chancellor at Texas Tech. "If you start infringing on a professor's academic freedom, you might as well blow your house up. That's a very sacred thing you're talking about."

No other students have complained about Dini's policy, Campbell said.

Hiram Sasser, staff attorney for the Liberty Legal Institute, said Dini's policy is a clear violation of civil rights that compromises students' academic freedom.

"You have to let your students think for themselves," he said. "I don't believe Dini does. He has a religious litmus test. Would we be having this conversation if he was denying letters of recommendation to Muslim folks, requiring them to accept that Mohammed was not the prophet?"

Shortly after the Justice Department stepped in, Dini changed the wording of his requirement for students seeking recommendations. The professor's criteria are posted on his Web site, www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm. He now asks students to "give a scientific answer" to the question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

He also added that the question should not be "misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs."

The decision to change the wording was Dini's, Campbell said, noting that he thought neither version demanded that students disavow their religious beliefs. The professor's criteria also require that a student know him fairly well and receive an A in his course.

Sasser said the altered wording does not help.

"It tells me they know we're right," he said. "They're trying to create a better position for themselves if they were in a lawsuit. But it's a sham. It's still the same thing."

Dini's policy is grounded in academic standards, not religious discrimination, said Harvey Madison of the Lubbock chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I interpret it to mean that you must accept, or at least not reject, the theory of evolution," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make any religious reference." [...]
===

 

[SlickTony]

He would write recommendations only for students who could "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to this question: "How do you think the human species originated?"

I think Prof. Dini should have left this issue alone. After all, if Micah Spradling could keep his grades up in the course, why shouldn't he get into medical school?

OTOH, when I was living in Baton Rouge, I had a Sunday school teacher who was also the head of the Anatomy department at LSU, and he believed in evolution. So being religious and believing in evolution doesn't have to be incompatible, and there's no reason, outside of a desire to unnecessarily stir things up, why one should have to make it so.

 

[Pure]

How did humans originate (most likely) has a scientific answer(s), which should be adhered to, endorsed as credible on the evidence (not 'believed in' like religion) by science students.

The is no 'alternate answer' or theory.

The account of origins in various religions is a religious account
"God created 'man' in his image, in seven days. [Genesis]"
NOT in competition with the scientific account, as Spradling and co. would have it. Indeed many Christians, including Dini, a devout Catholic, see this point and stay the hell out of any role in dictating content of science courses.

Don't you see a parallel in the attempt--we've been discussing--of some religious folks to dictate 'morality' and say what's 'harmful to minors'-- according to purely religious criteria?

 

[bridgeburner]

What if the question were: Provide a description of a reliable treatment for cancer?

Is it religious persecution not to award a medical degree to the guy who says "Well, get yourself a snake and have the congregation lay on hands....."


Get real. You're free to practice your religion as you see fit but to insist that non-christian patients be subjected to one's religious views is an infringement on their religious beliefs and quite possibly dangerous to their health.

Faith in magic is a wonderous thing, but let's not start passing out medical degrees and recommendations to folks who believe the world is less than 5000 years old. Consider it a sacrifice your Faith requires: that you not practice medicine.

Jaysus.


/rant

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

You've got the right of it. There is a strong gene for what I like to call "nanny-mama-ism" in the human animal. Some folks just aren't happy until everyone thinks like they do or at least pretends to. The gene knows no political boundary, either.

The flip side is that it's this same gene that causes people to fight for things like civil rights and the downfall of tyranny.

I suppose one must take the good with the bad, but ,honestly, I can't help bitching about it.

 

[Pure]

For those interested, a thread has started on "Use of Underage Characters", this author's forum.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151662