TheTestTube.com  

Go Back   TheTestTube.com > TTT News > Site News
User Name
Password
Home FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Site News Front page articles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2005, 01:38 AM   #1
thecreeper
Administrator
 
thecreeper's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 2,330
thecreeper is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to thecreeper
yeah, LJ isnt exactly the best news source, so i'm not sure i can take it too seriously right now.
__________________
good-evil.net - ahh, wade boggs...goes down smooth.
thecreeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 04:38 AM   #2
heX
Member
 
heX's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 937
heX is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to heX
jep must be a big liar. what a liar. stupid lying jep.
heX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 03:56 PM   #3
Mike
Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 489
Mike is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike
I just haven't heard it anywhere, and when I checked the other day, Google news and Fark had nothing. Though it's customary to blame everything on the person or persons you don't like, I haven't heard any speeches or anything from Bush about this, and I think that it'd be pretty important news ... Also, congress has the power to legislate ... not Bush's administration ... so I don't really see the connection to Bush's cabinet.

I just did another quick Google News search for:
Bush porn ban
Bush porn restriction
Bush porn limit
Bush porn limitation

Nothing related to this came up.

For "Porn Content Regulations," two articles came up, one from RedHerring and the other from P2Pnet, neither attached this to the Bush administration, though, P2PNet thought that it gained popularity because former Attorney General John Ashcroft was against internet pornography. It's an update to the 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, passed before the internet, and internet pornography, was in wide-spread use. The websites can still display what they want, but they have to keep records of those who they have ... which they should be doing anyway. State gov't can ask specific websites for proof of specific actors and actresses, and if they don't turn that over, then they have to remove that content. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me ... and it's probably more likely that Gay.com was trying to make a political statement, rather than actually having federal or state heat to remove their pictures... because it takes longer than 5 days for a new regulations to go into effect (the date the regulations were passed, compared to the date of this thread).
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 10:41 PM   #4
heX
Member
 
heX's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 937
heX is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to heX
phhst jeps so full of shit.
heX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 11:05 PM   #5
Mike
Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 489
Mike is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike
nah, Jep's alright ... it's websites and sources that try to actively create falsehoods to get a message accross. Gay.com probably wasn't being forced to remove any material, the webmasters or people who run it probably read that article, put blame in the Bush administration, and then made those pictures to garner support.

Jep's just looking to wank and is pissed that he can't wank it to that pic. I would be too ... if I wanked it to ... Gay.com
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 06:40 AM   #6
heX
Member
 
heX's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 937
heX is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to heX
i wank it to guyswholikegirlswhothinktheguyisagirlontheinside.c om or was it .net
heX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2005, 11:54 PM   #7
Plain Old Jane
i hate vagina
 
Plain Old Jane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 841
Plain Old Jane can only hope to improve
Send a message via AIM to Plain Old Jane
edited for content

I recall saying no porn.


forum topic/discussion:

try actually reading the article, the number of the beast is 2257, suits filed in the tenth circuit court of appeals. Yea, its a lil hard to find, but its out there, this one is a good laugh, its a program to file all the records for porn: http://www.2257tool.com

Stop being a little bitch, hex.
__________________
Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites.

Last edited by GT2000 : 07-08-2005 at 02:52 AM.
Plain Old Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright

Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!