Censorship

[steve25805 126,021]

A brief interchange between Scot_Lover, Admin, and myself elsewhere on the legality of this forum's contents in different jurisdictions has made me think of censorship again. In the UK, the ever-present threat of the narrowmind prude squad is still very much alive. And in recent years they have been on the march.

Pandering to them, the UK government has enacted laws designed to criminalise the production of certain types of pornography. The catalyst was the prosecution and conviction of a man who murdered a woman and stored her body in a lock up for a week or so, periodically returning to it. He was found to be obsessed with necrophile porn, loads of which he had on his computer.

The claim was made that this porn so fueled his fantasies that he was eventually driven to act them out for real. Personally, I believe he accessed that type of porn cos he was already a necrophile. The porn didn't turn him into one. After all, I am pretty certain that if most of us were exposed to such shit we would not suddenly turn into necrophile freaks.

However, this case was used to create a groundswell of opinion in favour of crackdowns on all such essentially non-consenting sexual acts. Was of course a massive trojan horse, because they ended up criminalising all sorts of consensual fetishistic activity too, eg many forms of BDSM and - of relavance to us - golden showers or the consumption of pee.

Of course, the law only applies to operators within the UK. It has no jurisdiction whatsoever on material hosted outside the country, which makes something of an ass out of our laws. And short of a Chinese style firewall - which no free people could ever accept - there is nothing much that can be done about porn hosted elsewhere. But some UK-based operators have stopped producing or selling pee porn, one or two have been targeted and taken down, whilst others have shifted their operations offshore.

And this is the trouble with governments and politicians. They tend to use any convenient argument that comes along to increase their controls over us and try and impose their own standards upon the rest of us. Social libertarianism is not a major impulse driving most politicians. The desire for power and control is usually what drives them.

Technically, I am now breaking the law in the UK every time I view or download a video or pic depicting someone being peed on. Fortunately, the police - with all the paedos and sex slavers out there - have far more important things to worry about than the millions of little people like me who aren't hurting anyone.

It does mean, however, that the British authorities do now potentially have a stick to beat us with if we cross the line and rock the boat at all. These laws are thus potentially dangerous and a severe threat to personal freedom.

Curiously, though, whilst imagery depicting people being peed on is technically illegal, imagery showing people just peeing someplace is not. This means that the kind of naughty pissing stuff I love - women pissing on carpets and all that - is still legal to produce here, whilst golden showers is not. Potentially, this could result in the UK becoming the number one producer for porn showing girls pissing in naughty places, lol, which is perhaps good for enthusiasts like me.

But, nevertheless, censorship of consenting adult material by consenting adults, depicting consenting adult sexual activity, and for the viewing pleasure of consenting adults, should be none of the government's fucking business.

Anyone else have anything to say about the censorship of sexual material?

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

I apologised for not making myself clear, but this content, in this country is "technically" illegal. As for the Chinese type firewall, it was tried here, catchingly titled Cleanfeed. Sanity prevailed and it was declared a flop, and the whole thing was quietly dropped. There is still a content filter in place, but it needs to be reported, and to date, I've not seen anything gone missing. All torrent sites were supposed to be blocked, guess what? Still there, still alive.

Another reason I'm careful is the threesome relationship, (and the copious amounts of pee) when anyone is around, its everyone act normal. Mary, on the weekend, summed it up perfectly with a "Thank fuck they've gone" comment. One of my mates (who was here for dinner on Saturday) is a Senior Sergeant with the state Highway Patrol, I'll let you think about that and draw your own conclusions. I think his wife suspects something, but she's cool, women always know.

Like I said in the original post, what you do in your own place is usually left alone, unless it hurts someone. It's a strange world we live in.

Has anyone else got any Censorship issues?

[F.W 5,734]

As long as material is not against the law,animals,children,then its just sex between adults,and why should it be censored?Of course there are times when sexual activity should not be shown on TV.But thats common sense,not censorship.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Can someone explain the bank / credit card issue? I have never had anything refused, ever, I buy from Hightide with no problem, Chaturbate and MFC happily accept anything I throw at them, and I'm just using a normal MasterCard and a Visa card. Maigh and Mary have bought stuff on their cards too, I'm kept in the dark there though, until DHL or UPS knock on the door.

[steve25805 126,021]

The bankers are being forced by the US government to deny service to certain "unacceptable" companies in a back door attempt to put them out of business. This includes gun stores, adult businesses, some companies offering high interest "payday" loans and others. They call this Operation Choke Point, and the object is to prevent the companies that the government does not like (even thought they are legal) from doing business.

Well, that is worrying and an obvious threat to our right to buy adult material.

Personally, I am dead against high interest pay day loans which pretty much exploit the financial desperation - and in some cases stupidity - of desperately poor people. I expect we'd disagree on that again. Nevertheless, I believe that if an elected government opposes something, it should stand up openly and argue it's case in a legislature and try to openly win the debate and put legislation in place. Such "back door" tactics as you describe, wholly without judicial scrutiny, are fundamentally anti-democratic and wrong. And a very dangerous precedent.

[steve25805 126,021]

In a nutshell, our differences boil down to this.

I believe in electing governments which can make things better for the people in many ways.

You believe governments inevitably make things worse and should just stay out of the way.

Is that a fair - if over-simplified - summary?

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Ok, we live a sheltered life in the sticks. Payday lenders got a shake up here, government enforced guidelines on how much interest was allowed (used to be 30%) and made the lending companies accountable for bad lending choices. Several banks who bankrolled a few of these pulled the cash pool from under them, and they quietly went away in the night.

A few people have questioned my way of life (me and the ladies have enough to last) and basically said get a bigger house, a better car, be a party animal, but we are happy as we are. Our philosophy is if we don't need it, we don't buy it. (Tax is a nightmare, trust me, lol)

The Master Card and the Visa cards we use are technically Debit cards, it's our money, would that make a difference on buying online?

[steve25805 126,021]

EgWalrus.

I believe many problems within our societies can only be solved at the nationwide level, and that only elected governments can really organise this.

For me, a government that legislates for the greatest good to the greatest number in the fairest way, but is also democratically accountable to us, is inherently good. And most governments that are shite at solving our problems is down to us electing the wrong people whose hearts are not in it, most times.

But if you guys elect Trump, your nation will already be halfway to becoming a fascist state. He feeds off negativity and hate, and has little positive to offer.

What we are witnessing here looks like some horrendous reality show. How you guys can take this guy seriously baffles most of us here. It is as if this guy is on one big massive wind up, only to discover that the sillier he gets the more seriously he is taken.

If he wins the Presidency, the sickest joke of all will be on America.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Scot_Lover,

The issue does not effect the individual using a credit or debit card to make a purchase. It is the government trying to keep the business from having banking services, and making it difficult for them to accept credit card payments.

Thanks, another insight that makes no sense at all, lol. Why not use a 3rd party like Ozbill or CCBill then? This separates the buyer from the bank, people pay Ozbill, Ozbill take a 1% fee then pay the bank, 3rd party does not pass on the buyers info. I've used this service myself, it's easy. I even looked into making money off a similar idea but the regulations were a bit too dark for me.

I've said this before, it's a weird, strange world we live in.

[paul66 171]

the problem in our todays world, in relation of sexualiy is, that the homosexual, and feminists, get more, and more authority, while the hetoros get more and more hindrance.

In germany its soo acute, that is awfull. men can marry men, and can adopt children, I ask you , what became the adopted children, i answer you,--they became homos, because they see nothing other, and they know it not other, they think thats regular/normal,.. WTF, should this???

About the feminists,... some woman, married too, do not feel like, they want her man still, so they run to the police, and make advertiement about,.. her partner had raped her...the courts, and jugdes do NOT check, its true, or not, they almost every time, believe the woman.....so the man goes in jail/prison, often for Nothing done, in many falls the woman got the house, the money, the car, and a new lover......ooh what wonderfull society !!!

That ALL I talk about here, is against/cross the Nature, but the Govermnet nurture this shit, more, and more.

I think that is a very big problem, and Im sure it ends in a awfull desaster.

[steve25805 126,021]

the problem in our todays world, in relation of sexualiy is, that the homosexual, and feminists, get more, and more authority, while the hetoros get more and more hindrance.

In germany its soo acute, that is awfull. men can marry men, and can adopt children, I ask you , what became the adopted children, i answer you,--they became homos, because they see nothing other, and they know it not other, they think thats regular/normal,.. WTF, should this???

About the feminists,... some woman, married too, do not feel like, they want her man still, so they run to the police, and make advertiement about,.. her partner had raped her...the courts, and jugdes do NOT check, its true, or not, they almost every time, believe the woman.....so the man goes in jail/prison, often for Nothing done, in many falls the woman got the house, the money, the car, and a new lover......ooh what wonderfull society !!!

That ALL I talk about here, is against/cross the Nature, but the Govermnet nurture this shit, more, and more.

I think that is a very big problem, and Im sure it ends in a awfull desaster.

Live and let live. And we in Britain have a saying about those who live in glass houses needing to avoid throwing stones.

You see, who are we to condemn the supposed abnormality of others, when all of us here are members of a much derided sexual minority ourselves? We are, after all, pee fetishists. If we join the stampede to condemn other consenting adult sexual minorities, there will be no one left to speak up for us when the attack comes our way. Homosexuals and pee fetishists have a common enemy - the narrowminds of the prude squads in every land, who are just itching to destroy our sexual freedoms and criminalise what we love. Let's worry about this common enemy and not fight each other.

[paul66 171]

For better understanding, my post above:

I do not mean bisexual girls/woman, thats the dream of every (hetero) man.

I talk about the gay sissys, thats puky, and exact these "it" became more and more influence in buisiness, and politic, because that the Hetros got more and more HINDRANCE.

Im a man Live and let Live, but its no more live when its forbidden for a man to approach at woman/girl, without the court sentenced the man for insult on sexual base, or sexual harrasement, thats eaten, and been eaten......

on the othe side the gay sissys adopt suckling babys, and for sure they became sissys,... yes and that is legal, and natural???

I agree in th most points with steve, except peeing is a fetish,. I study for a very long time girls and woman, and almost ALL of them enjoy, peeing in different kinds, specialy pee where they not should, so maybe for a man its a fetish, for females it CANT be Niche, beause almost of them enjoy it,.. so its regular/ normal.

for that its insignificant, the Girls/woman agree, or not, we all, know it.

[steve25805 126,021]

Your clarification does not alter my original response by one single iota.

Who are we to condemn gay men based upon personal tastes? Especially if we love gay women? And are ourselves members of a much derided sexual minority?

Male homosexuality may not be your thing. It isn't mine either. But lets not go around joining the morality fascists in attacking them. Because once they are taken down they may come for us next!

If the morality fascist narrowminds target gays and we join in, then hooray, if we succeed they might be driven underground. Then they might go after the BDSM community. And if we join in or simply stand aside, they too might be driven underground. Then the day will come when they will come after us! And who will be left to speak up for us then?

All consenting adult minorities should stand shoulder to shoulder against narrowmind repression and oppression, and in defence of our consenting adult sexual freedoms, regardless of our personal tastes regarding what each other is into. We must all stand together or risk being taken down one by one.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

I don't agree with you on kids growing up in a gay relationship, be it male/male or female/female. I know one family that is a lesbian relationship, 4 girls aged from 18 to 22, 1 set of identical twins, the others born a year apart. (met them through one of my ladies support groups). Only one of the girls has shown any lesbian tendencies, and this is even in doubt, she has had both, boyfriends and girlfriends, a better term would be bisexual. The other 3 have moved on with their lives, all in normal relationships, all happy, no worse for being bought up in an all female household. One thing I did pick up is that they are more caring to their partner, Maigh pointed this out, women seem to have an instinctive way of just knowing what works and what doesn't. Maybe this is a one off, no idea, my ladies are bisexual, if I was not around, they would be happy with each other, but that is not what this is about.

Here, gay people are supported, not treated any differently from anyone else, but there are support groups that help them live their lives as normally as possible. These are all non profit, no one is exploiting their life style preferences, there are there to help. I can't speak of what happens in other countries, but from my involvement with what happens here, they are still people.

[steve25805 126,021]

I have no issue with the private choices that others make, but I do have a major problem with the demands that society change and accept every choice. For example, marriage, in my opinion, is between one man and one woman. I really do not care if two guys, two women, or three men two women and a pony want to live together (note sarcasm, not promotion of bestiality) but I do have a problem with the idea that societal norms should change to redefine marriage.

I really have a problem with the idea that someone who opposes something because they think it is morally wrong can be forced to participate in the event. If someone does not want to bake a cake for a homosexual "wedding" those getting "married" need to find another baker, not demand that the person opposed give up their moral beliefs. The same thing applies to any business that does not want to provide goods or services supporting something they oppose.

Right now the demands for "equality" are actually demands for acceptance, and an attempt to force people to violate their own personal beliefs. There is a backlash against this, and that is part of the reason that people are starting to stand up against political correctness.

To me it is about freedom.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender. No one will force you to. But if someone else chooses to, should that not be their choice?

When it comes to something like churches being forced to conduct gay marriages against the tenets of their faith, then yes you might have a point. But if two gay people want to marry, and other people or organisations are happy to conduct the ceremonies, how does that harm anybody else?

[steve25805 126,021]

Being that it's never wise to openly disagree with a moderator on any forum, I've been quiet. But this I can't help but respond to.

If the business decides it has a problem with providing a service for, say, African-Americans (or any other race they don't like) should it be considered okay to refuse service? It seems to me as if you'd like to see the return of Jim Crow laws and just include more than just people of certain ethnicities to discriminate against.

You've basically just stated bigotry is okay because it's someone's right to be a bigot if they choose to be. Perhaps I've missed something here?

Feel free to disagree with any mod when it comes to expressing an opinion on anything - especially in this subforum which exists for no holds barred debate.

In any case, I too am a mod, but I agree with what you have said here, and tend to think that a business's right to discriminate on any basis whatsoever that it chooses, is not something that any free society can allow. Because the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against trump any business or organisations supposed "right" to discriminate without a very good and justifiable reason, eg a supermarket banning someone who was previously caught shoplifting.

People can choose whether or not to set up and run businesses. But that comes with obligations to the rest of society to function fairly and decently to all paying customers. If one's personal prejudices makes it impossible for one to adhere to those obligations, then they may choose not to run that particular business. As individuals we are all free to choose whom we talk to or associate with for whatever reason, no matter how base. But when it comes to running a bussiness, certain obligations should always be part and parcel of that.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Getting back to unacceptable business thing, is Facebook and Twitter an American company? You would expect the "government" to put pressure on these to stop the Isil (Isis) recruitment, sucking poor deluded people into their cause, but no, can't do that. Our government has made noise to both of them to stop them from suckering people into it here (60 cases so attributed to Facebook alone), but nothing is done. Harmless pee sites get run out of business, yet Facebook and Twitter practically support terrorism.

If these people do leave the country to fight for Isis and try to return, they are charged, 10 years in the pen, one girl left here with her boyfriend and when she got there was expected to provide favours for up to 20 men. Tried to get out and as was never heard from again.

[steve25805 126,021]

Getting back to unacceptable business thing, is Facebook and Twitter an American company? You would expect the "government" to put pressure on these to stop the Isil (Isis) recruitment, sucking poor deluded people into their cause, but no, can't do that. Our government has made noise to both of them to stop them from suckering people into it here (60 cases so attributed to Facebook alone), but nothing is done. Harmless pee sites get run out of business, yet Facebook and Twitter practically support terrorism.

If these people do leave the country to fight for Isis and try to return, they are charged, 10 years in the pen, one girl left here with her boyfriend and when she got there was expected to provide favours for up to 20 men. Tried to get out and as was never heard from again.

Well yes, that is illustrative of the totally fucked up priorities of our societies. Facebook, for example, even bans consenting adult nudity. But it sees no problem whatsoever in showing videos featuring minors being tortured to death!

There is, for example, a video on Facebook - a site openly available to anyone aged 14 or over, and regularly accessed by those even younger than that - showing a screaming 16 year old girl being burned alive by vigilantes in Guatemala. Damned good job her breast never became exposed during her hideous death, because this would then have made it far too shocking to show! *Very heavy sarcasm alert*

[steve25805 126,021]

I must disagree. Opening a public business implies some sort of duty to actually serve the public, instead of randomly choosing who or what based on irrelevant criteria.

One word about government: Governments in capitalistic countries generally do not intervene unless the free market has failed to regulate itself. The fact that these laws were passed indicates that the free market has failed in this regard. There are often no other competing businesses and barriers to simply opening another business. Sometimes this is due to a high cost of doing business, a market that cannot support one more business, or even collusion. Regardless... The statement of open your own business is a naive solution at best. It's another excuse to justify bigotry.

Since we both have repeatedly stated our differing opinions, I'm finished here. There's no point in beating a dead horse as they say. I'm sure you'll agree that this discussion is going nowhere.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. A private individual may choose with whom to associate with or not on any basis whatsoever, however high or low. That's his prerogative. But running a business impacts much more upon wider society and brings with it certain obligations to that society. Those who cannot be content with those obligations need not run a business. That's a personal choice, not a personal necessity.

As for Egwalrus, he and I have frequently had similar disagreements, since long before this forum even existed. Back on PS we often had similar little ding dongs. And it always ended in much the some way - one or other of us recognising that neither of us were going to change the other's opinion by one single iota, and simply suggesting that we agree to disagree.

Which is always what pretty much happened in the end.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Most places I've been to, be it a bar or restaurant, usually have some disclaimer indicating that the management have the right to not serve anyone at anytime. In a pub for instance, if you're obviously legless and can't stand, no one will sell you another drink. This usually turns to violence when the refused drunk arcs up and lashes out at anyone. Several people have died in such places over the years. A restaurant can refuse you if you don't meet their dress code, or again, if you're pissed, even McDonalds and KFC refuse to serve people at a drive through (people walking up to the drive through window, cited as a health and safety regulation)

Been following this thread since it started, and have realised one thing, we live in a good part of the world, lol, and have some insights on what kind of things governments are doing to their own people. We made this tree change about 6 years ago and all 3 of us do not miss the city, fine to visit every now and then, the rest we just watch on the news. Thanks guys, been interesting.