Red Rose Stories Site

[cloudy]

One question: Who gets to be whose bitch?

Take turns?

that brought to mind that scene from friends where Phoebe says, "If we were in prison, you would both be my bitches."

 

[McKenna]

Take turns?

that brought to mind that scene from friends where Phoebe says, "If we were in prison, you would both be my bitches."

OMG! That's exactly the scene I was thinking of!

 

[cloudy]

OMG! That's exactly the scene I was thinking of!

Funny scene.

 

[impressive]

More ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6409077/

 

[Guest]

Funny scene.

And a great idea for a Pay per view reunion show.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I can understand how the site might have been shut down for containing stories about bestiality and sex with children.

I think she could have been stripped of all bestiality/paedophilia stories, and then given a probation - if she had insisted on putting such stories up again, THEN they should have shut her down.

As I said to others on the other thread on this topic a few days ago, you two should be ashamed.

This has me worried. The fact that authors of pornography don't see a problem with what is being done, and even agree with it, is more worrisome than the FBI's actions.

The way you equate writing about underage sex with paedophilia and paedophiliac material justifies any violation of your rights that they see fit. Writing about underage sex is no more illegal than writing about non-consent, no more illegal than writing about BDSM, no more illegal than writing about shooting the President. They are all victimless actions. That's the difference between written fiction and visual pornography.

In Literotica, the banning of underage sex is an editorial decision. Not because it is the law.

The moment you convince yourselves that it is OK to act against thought-crimes, which is what writing about underage sex is, you effectively give up all your rights as an individual. Shame on you.

 

[Powerone]

Cannot Agree to what they did.

It is about time there was some voice of reason. You cannot pick and choose what you think is "right" or "wrong". The First Amendment gives us this right to publish. If you start allowing some things as okay (underage sex, bestiality, etc ), before you know it they will take it all away.

If you ever seen my stories (including the ones not posted here) I write all types, Underage sex, Priests, rape, torture. I think I even had a few stories on Red Rose site. Before you know it, they will be trying to shut down Literotica.

 

[cloudy]

It is about time there was some voice of reason. You cannot pick and choose what you think is "right" or "wrong". The First Amendment gives us this right to publish. If you start allowing some things as okay (underage sex, bestiality, etc ), before you know it they will take it all away.

If you ever seen my stories (including the ones not posted here) I write all types, Underage sex, Priests, rape, torture. I think I even had a few stories on Red Rose site. Before you know it, they will be trying to shut down Literotica.

I agree. And I apologize for the threadjack.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This only circumstance under which this would be a legitimate exercise of federal power was if the site was exhibiting pictures of under aged kids. The written word is and has for a lnong long time been inviolate.

If they establish the precedent that they can ban writing they find objectionable, it will only take a particularly zealous administration before any dissent is classified as objectionable.

As Lauren said, for writers to agree with this is a dmaned shame.

 

[elsol]

This only circumstance under which this would be a legitimate exercise of federal power was if the site was exhibiting pictures of under aged kids. The written word is and has for a lnong long time been inviolate.

If they establish the precedent that they can ban writing they find objectionable, it will only take a particularly zealous administration before any dissent is classified as objectionable.

As Lauren said, for writers to agree with this is a dmaned shame.

*burp*

This is WHY the feds are doing it this way.

Because some people, who should know better, will get into bed with them.

Of course, the Feds' goal is beyond that victory but the precedent will be set.

I love when writers lie down with censors... it's so ironic.

--Oh wait, I'm a conservative. Irony is lost on me.

Although, I guess the real irony is when the Feds come crashing through the door of someone who said 'Well, it had underage stories... it's okay!'

I'm sure the Feds won't have a problem finding someone who says 'Well, they wrote pornograpy so it's okay!"


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[rgraham666]

I am extremely torn by this.

On one hand, I quite agree with the people who say free speech is inviolate.

On the other, I find sex involving children, in any form, so utterly hideous, I can't imagine anything 'artistic' enough to balance off the horror of it.

On yet another, I don't believe any of our rights are absolute.

The closest I can come to a final decision is that if there were actual pictures of a pedophiliac nature, under the law, the FBI was within its rights.

However, given the current administration, that may be a faint hope.

 

[elsol]

I must admit... I'm torn too.

How far to actually go to protect myself...

a) Take down the stories that I used underage sex...
b) Take down all my sex stories on sites hosted in the US.
c) Take down all my sex stories everywhere...
d) Stop writing
e) Make the girlfriend move out (we're not married)
f) Stop thinking about sex

I have to admit, it's hard to know where to stop.

Okay the last few were a joke, but the fact that I am seriously considering a-c should worry people... except of course those neo-cons who won't be happy until I'm at g...

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[LadyJeanne]

I am extremely torn by this.

On one hand, I quite agree with the people who say free speech is inviolate.

On the other, I find sex involving children, in any form, so utterly hideous, I can't imagine anything 'artistic' enough to balance off the horror of it.

On yet another, I don't believe any of our rights are absolute.

The closest I can come to a final decision is that if there were actual pictures of a pedophiliac nature, under the law, the FBI was within its rights.

However, given the current administration, that may be a faint hope.

Well, we don't know what stories were on the site. The notice (in the first post) mentioned "sex with children" but wasn't specific as to age. Does that mean under 18? 16? Was it a story about a teen's fantasy or was it a memory of someone older as to their 'coming of age'? Were they incest stories about a girl and her stepfather?

We don't really know, and I'm not inclined to believe our federal government has any right to limit reading material.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I am extremely torn by this.

On one hand, I quite agree with the people who say free speech is inviolate.

On the other, I find sex involving children, in any form, so utterly hideous, I can't imagine anything 'artistic' enough to balance off the horror of it.

You don't have to imagine it. The list of universally recognizable (even by you, without knowing) works of art portraying underage sex is endless.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Does anyone know if this report is true?

Yes, you can go to a Red Rose site and see for yourself that it now appears to be blocked. But the ONLY reports I could find on this incident originated at XBiz.com under the byline of Jayson Romaine. The lack of any second, independent sources makes me a bit suspicious.

This isn't to say it didn't happen. More importantly, the validity of the article doesn't change the nature or importance of the issues it has sparked here at Literotica. I'm just a skeptical old fart, especially about "news" that appears only on the net.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

Does anyone know if this report is true?

Yes, you can go to a Red Rose site and see for yourself that it now appears to be blocked. But the ONLY reports I could find on this incident originated at XBiz.com under the byline of Jayson Romaine. The lack of any second, independent sources makes me a bit suspicious.

This isn't to say it didn't happen. More importantly, the validity of the article doesn't change the nature or importance of the issues it has sparked here at Literotica. I'm just a skeptical old fart, especially about "news" that appears only on the net.

Rumple Foreskin

Yes. I wonder that same thing myself. And in the article, the wording, "men in black" seems a bit much.

Maybe if people would insert any type of story plot it would make more sense.

How many, many stories have we all read that contain murder, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, rape and more? All types of violent crimes are discussed in great detail. All are illegal in real life. But it's not illegal to use them as plot twists.

Why should this be different? Oh, yes. The anti-obscenity law. Hmmm.

Next it will be anti-violence. And then anything not Christian.

(After that it will be anything alcoholic or fattening or spicy. But I digress.)

 

[cantdog]

imp posted a link.

It took me, among other things to this: where you really ought to hear Imagine/Walk on the Wild Side.

Maybe the reference in imp's link is only a mirror of the original rumor.

Maybe the poster calling himself Powerone who is not sure whether or not he had stories on the site can be equally clear about what may or may not have been on it?

 

[SonOfAGhost]

There seems to be a few here have their knickers in a knot that a decades old obscenity law is still enforced in isolated and extreme cases. I have a different perspective. That a law has been around so long and used so sparingly, despite many glaring violations of it, suggests that the censorship sky is not in imminent danger of falling. If you believe this, or any other, law is wrong why waste effort arguing against it's implementation? Instead work to have it repealed.

While a law remains on the books I believe it should be rigorously enforced. If a law is fair then justice will not just be done but it will be seen to be done. The important principle of deterence which is missing in the soft sentences so frequently handed out by our courts these days. If a law is unjust then it's frequent and public enforcement will draw the attention of the dormant public to demand change.

 

[cantdog]

Soft sentences???

 

[Guest]

There seems to be a few here have their knickers in a knot that a decades old obscenity law is still enforced in isolated and extreme cases. I have a different perspective. That a law has been around so long and used so sparingly, despite many glaring violations of it, suggests that the censorship sky is not in imminent danger of falling. If you believe this, or any other, law is wrong why waste effort arguing against it's implementation? Instead work to have it repealed.

While a law remains on the books I believe it should be rigorously enforced. If a law is fair then justice will not just be done but it will be seen to be done. The important principle of deterence which is missing in the soft sentences so frequently handed out by our courts these days. If a law is unjust then it's frequent and public enforcement will draw the attention of the dormant public to demand change.

I don't wear knickers.

 

[Couture]

imp posted a link.

It took me, among other things to this: where you really ought to hear Imagine/Walk on the Wild Side.

Maybe the reference in imp's link is only a mirror of the original rumor.

Maybe the poster calling himself Powerone who is not sure whether or not he had stories on the site can be equally clear about what may or may not have been on it?

Powerone has been around almost as long as I have...and probably written more stories. I can't speak for him, but due to the nature of the internet, I have no idea how many sites carry my stories. I only post to 3, but there are far far more that steal them and post them without my permission.

I find that this concerns me very much. Not only because these sites were closed for written materials, but because by inference if the sites that post these stories are illegal, then the writing or possession of such stories is illegal too.

What about music that makes people commit suicide? What about text books that do not support a supreme being? What about books about gay sex and other forms of sodomy or crimes against nature? What about horror books and films with graphic depictions of death? Where do you draw the line? I draw it by saying that as long as you aren't pushing it to minors - you can't prosecute thought crimes.

This is a very slippery slope and these are just the people to push us off the fucking cliff in hopes that the rapture will come.

 

[cantdog]

Couture is right, in that whether or not the Rose story is true, the attack is being mounted all the same. The new pro-torture Attorney General said so.

Son-of-a-Ghost? These are not 'extreme,' these cases. That's the worrisome part. There have been thousands of child-porn-on-the-computer arrests. Thousands, including judges and state legislators. The last judge I heard of pled insanity to defuse the porn charges.

But no one wastes a lot of tears on those cases. We aren't, here, either. The worry is, a plain-text story site went down.

Or didn't, maybe. Either way, they want our ass, Couture is right about that.

Lauren makes, as always, a good point. Bestsellers take up underage sex. Memoirs, detective stories, novels of all descriptions. Child abuse, coming of age, and many other contexts. You'd have to ban a powerful lot of mainstream fiction.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There seems to be a few here have their knickers in a knot that a decades old obscenity law is still enforced in isolated and extreme cases. I have a different perspective. That a law has been around so long and used so sparingly, despite many glaring violations of it, suggests that the censorship sky is not in imminent danger of falling. If you believe this, or any other, law is wrong why waste effort arguing against it's implementation? Instead work to have it repealed.

While a law remains on the books I believe it should be rigorously enforced. If a law is fair then justice will not just be done but it will be seen to be done. The important principle of deterence which is missing in the soft sentences so frequently handed out by our courts these days. If a law is unjust then it's frequent and public enforcement will draw the attention of the dormant public to demand change.

Exactly what law are you talking about? Robert Stroud's works weren't supressed. You can get the turner Diaries easily. I wasn't aware that there were any laws dealing with obscenity or hate speech in the written word.

 

[SonOfAGhost]

Exactly what law are you talking about? Robert Stroud's works weren't supressed. You can get the turner Diaries easily. I wasn't aware that there were any laws dealing with obscenity or hate speech in the written word.

I think you'll find the obscenity laws aren't medium specific. Most such laws also date back to the Victorian era and so were originally intended to only cover text, paintings, photographs and speech.

Just be glad your in the US and can at least argue the 1st ammendment contradicts them. Here in Canada our legal system treats free speech as more of a privlege than a right and, because it's never been unanimously accepted by the provinces, there's some question as to whether our constitution's legitimate. That's why for about 20 years now it's been illegal to have business signs in any language other then French in Quebec. Our federal government is afraid to challenge it for fear the whole constitution (which was only brought patriated in 1982) will get tossed.

 

[Guest]

As I said to others on the other thread on this topic a few days ago, you two should be ashamed.

This has me worried. The fact that authors of pornography don't see a problem with what is being done, and even agree with it, is more worrisome than the FBI's actions.

The way you equate writing about underage sex with paedophilia and paedophiliac material justifies any violation of your rights that they see fit. Writing about underage sex is no more illegal than writing about non-consent, no more illegal than writing about BDSM, no more illegal than writing about shooting the President. They are all victimless actions. That's the difference between written fiction and visual pornography.

In Literotica, the banning of underage sex is an editorial decision. Not because it is the law.

The moment you convince yourselves that it is OK to act against thought-crimes, which is what writing about underage sex is, you effectively give up all your rights as an individual. Shame on you.

*applauds*

Very well said, Lauren.

Lauren makes, as always, a good point. Bestsellers take up underage sex. Memoirs, detective stories, novels of all descriptions. Child abuse, coming of age, and many other contexts. You'd have to ban a powerful lot of mainstream fiction.

Exactly!