Are We Outraged Yet?

thecreeper · 07-02-2005, 01:38 AM

yeah, LJ isnt exactly the best news source, so i'm not sure i can take it too seriously right now.

heX · 07-02-2005, 04:38 AM

jep must be a big liar. what a liar. stupid lying jep.

Mike · 07-02-2005, 03:56 PM

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).

heX · 07-02-2005, 10:41 PM

phhst jeps so full of shit.

Mike · 07-03-2005, 11:05 PM

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

heX · 07-04-2005, 06:40 AM

i wank it to guyswholikegirlswhothinktheguyisagirlontheinside.c om or was it .net

Plain Old Jane · 07-06-2005, 11:54 PM

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.

07-02-2005, 01:38 AM	#1
thecreeper Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 2,330	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.

07-06-2005, 11:54 PM	#7
Plain Old Jane i hate vagina Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 841	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-02-2005, 04:38 AM	#2
heX Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 937	jep must be a big liar. what a liar. stupid lying jep.

07-02-2005, 03:56 PM	#3
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	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).

07-02-2005, 10:41 PM	#4
heX Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 937	phhst jeps so full of shit.

07-03-2005, 11:05 PM	#5
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	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

07-04-2005, 06:40 AM	#6
heX Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 937	i wank it to guyswholikegirlswhothinktheguyisagirlontheinside.c om or was it .net