The U.S. government doesn't kill dissidents, it imprisonsthem. In your first case, the guy killed three FBI agents. Sure, AmNASTY International disagrees, but they have hated everything American since their foundation, so I don't give a shit what they say as they are not a neutral source.
Next, was Abraham Lincoln from 1864. That was 144 years ago. No one that was alive then is alive today.
Still even if I let your two examples stand, compare them to what happens to the people of Cuba. Read my sig for an example.
Then again, if you think Cubans are treated by their government so much better than Americans, you are free to move there. Better make sure you've made up your mind as they probably won't let you leave if you change it.
the government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
Government is not concerned about everyone's security. This government, the Bush admin, is concerned about giving businesses large contracts and making people afraid.
When the government fears citizens you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.
Falcon See, here I am talking about the actual job of government, including all US governments, and here you break into your left-wing, anti-Bush propaganda bullshit. No real facts to speak of, just saying "what Bush wants". How do you know what Bush wants? Can you read his mind? No? Then it's just your opinion that you don't even attempt to back up.
Please, take your Communist bullshit to the Daily Kos because it really doesn't belong here.
Keeping Cuba locked down is critical to our ideological bullshit. Maintaining the embargo encourages others to do so, which depresses Cuba and causes them to be less successful, which we get to blame on ideology and use as a reason why we must go on a holy war to spread Democracy throughout the world (perhaps we should start here first, eh?) Is the US the only country in the world that trades. The US is ONE country. Are you saying that the US is so powerful that if we don't trade with you, your economy has no chance to do well, even if ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD will trade with you? Hell, they can even buy American goods through third party countries if they so desired. In other words, maybe, just maybe, it really is their ideological bullshit that causes them to fail because it sure as shit ain't the US embargo. Unless, of course, you buy into Castro's bullshit.
We don't actually want Democracy in Cuba, or we WOULD HAVE opened up to them. The real issue is that our government fears free speech. That may have worked in 1969. Now-a-days, it's too little too late. First, the candidate that will claim to do it will piss off all those Cubans in Florida, causing that candidate to lose Florida. No candidate wants to do that. So if you want to blame anyone for the embargo, blame the CUBANS in Florida. Next, it wouldn't matter. If trading with Canada, and Brazil, and Venezuela and every other country on earth hasn't helped Cuba, trading with the US wouldn't either!
Cubans can actually get health care... And they get what they pay for... well, unless they are an affluent party member or good friends with one, of course. Sorry, but regardless of what Michael Moore tells you, health care in Cuba is dismal.
According to Cuban supporters, there is no restriction to visit websites, the real problem is that the whole country have a very limited bandwidth so most pages doesn't load at all. And this limitation is thanks to the US who put a ban on export of goods and services to Cuba. The main problem I see is that they are using mostly unlicensed copy of windows, since Windows licenses can't be acquired in Cuba. Every other country in the world trades with Cuba. Because the US doesn't, they can't get broadband? Can they not get broadband from Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Aruba, St. Martin, Africa, China, Japan, Panama, Vietnam, N. Korea, or S. Korea?
Is the US so powerful that a country can barely get by without US trade?
America certainly has no morales anyway, their treatment of Cuba over the past 50 years has been disgusting!! War on terror, what the fuck are they doing in Cuba......Scumbags!! Wake up and stop listening to your bullshit controlled media. I usually don't respond to AC's, but this load of bullshit has to be stopped.
First, the US policy towards Cuba is set by... wait for it... CUBANS! Yes, that's right! If it were not for the Cubans in Florida and the importance of their vote, the US policy towards Cuba would certainly be different today.
Next, you call the US scumbags and accuse the US of having a controlled media. I'm sorry, but this has to be BY FAR the most idiotic and 100% ignorant thing I have heard all year. We are talking about the US and Cuba and you claim that THE US MEDIA IS CONTROLLED!??! REALLY?!!?? OMFG! I can't believe you are so fucking ignorant to say such thing. I mean, if we were talking about the US and Britain, maybe, but frakking Cuba!??! Finally, exactly ZERO US citizens have been murdered by their government due solely to their political beliefs. Can you say that of Cuba? We don't know BECAUSE THEIR PRESS IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED! Yet, somehow, WE are the scumbags and Castro, somehow, is not. Now, read my sig:
let's say a group in Afghanistan are using the webcams to track US troop movements and MSN messenger to pass data and orders. What are "the webcams" ?
Sorry, it was originally "the Internet", but I edited and didn't remove the "the".
... These are just a few examples of where I think the Prez should allow censorship of Internet activity. Those are just a few examples of where you haven't thought through the effectiveness of censorship. The really motivated people won't be stopped at all, they will just use less obvious means of communication. If they can't post on myspace, they will just use some other website in another country or they will use hijacked websites which they can switch between faster than the censor-hammer can knock down. There are a million ways to communicate over the net the only effective method of censorship is to turn the net off. True, but our US companies shouldn't be the ones helping them do it. Also, there are ways around the locks on my front door, but that doesn't mean I don't lock it when I go to work.
Knowing how a security system works is not the same as having the keys to that system. If you had said, "Great, tell me your IP address and what versions of what operating systems and daemons you are running," then that would be more analogous. Fine, I'll grant that one, however...
Asking when he works and when his wife and kids are home is just being a dick and you know it. He doesn't have the same kind of security a water processing plant should and he never claimed he did. You've proven nothing. Knowing when the guard is on break or where he is at a given moment is exactly the same thing as knowing when this person, the guard for his house, is home or where he is at any given moment. While he is concerned about his family and secures it, the government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
So, while giving out his movements threatens his family's security, giving out the plans to the water plant security system threatens his family as well, and mine, and yours and everyone else's.
Security through obscurity is in fact extremely effective, hence the reason people use camouflage, hide their military movements, encrypt their communications, hide their passwords, etc. Right, and when you allow someone to post things like security guard shift changes and movements, you are allowing someone to remove your camouflage, show your military movements and so on.
Seriously, what is the difference between hiding your military movements and trying to hide your guard changes/movements?
Why is he allowed to waive a person's rights for national security purposes?
National security is HIS problem, not the individual's problems. The constitution doesn't limit the right to expression, assembly, and so on, on the condition that it be used to protect national security. If he can't protect his country without infringing on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of individuals, then well, sucks to be him. I can has new country, pleeaz.
The individual is more important than the government, not the other way around. The government can die, for all we care - it can be replaced by another piece of paper quite easily. I hope you are not serious. I would say that being in jail a violation of a person's rights. I would also say that arresting someone who was going to set off a nuke in DC would be protecting national security. Are you saying that the US gov't should ALLOW me to set off that nuke as to not violate my rights?
Well, national security can be important, believe it or not. If somebody posted the floor plan and guard rotations for a large water processing plant, would you really want a law that said nobody could tell them to take down the information? Actually, I would. What you're defending is the real-world version of security through obscurity. If knowing the floor plan and guard rotations of a water plant is sufficient for a person with ill intent to gain access, then the security situation at this water plant is insufficient. Physical security must be designed just like computer security: it works even against someone who knows exactly HOW the system works. Great, then you won't mind giving me your IP address and root/Admin password. I would also like the hours you work and when the wife and kiddies are home alone.
Would that list of "repressive regimes" include the good old USofA? In in the good old USofA and I'm not repressed. Are you? If you are, please call 911 or your local news affiliate because that kind of shit is not allowed here.
So you would rather they continue to support oppressive regimes than try to be progressive and move away from those policies and do so through passage of laws explicitly prohibiting support?
You clearly don't like what they did before so why the hell are you whining about them trying to rectify that and ensure it happens less in the future? It's like your'e bitching for the sake of bitching. He's just trying to justify his blind hatred of all things American. Until he can find a country that has done no wrong, I just block his kind out and remind myself that he is free to leave, unlike those in, say, Cuba.
So to the average Chinese resident, services like YouTube will just disappear. Then they'll see a story on the gubmint-run news saying how the West cut off all those sites because they hate the Chinese and don't want them to succeed.
And we're going to convince them otherwise... how again? I believe you misunderstand the goal of this bill. The goal is TO stop companies like Google, YouTube or Yahoo from helping repressive regimes (the Chinese in your example) censor information to the average citizen. Of course, we can't stop the Chinese gov't from doing it, but we can stop Google from doing it for them.
Will Cisco be penalized for helping create the "Great Firewall of China" in the first place? No. You can't pass a law illegalizing a previously committed action and the prosecute for that action. That would be like changing the speed limit on a street from 70 to 35 and giving tickets to everyone that drove 60 on that street yesterday.
So, in other words, the bill would prevent US companies from helping censorship in countries other than the US. Awesome. An example of why I think the point of allowing the US Prez to allow censorship is, let's say a group in Afghanistan are using the webcams to track US troop movements and MSN messenger to pass data and orders.
Another example would be using the web to follow or report on NYPD officers to plan when to plant a bomb or whatever.
Finally, let's say someone stole the plans to the F22 fighter that exposed a way to detect it via radar and wanted to post the information on their MySpace page from an Internet Cafe...
These are just a few examples of where I think the Prez should allow censorship of Internet activity. Generally, censorship is a bad thing, but not always. On RARE occasion (Very RARE), it's necessary.
The time it would take to cross the galaxy is chump change compared to evolutionary timescales. How big is the Milky Way ? 100 000 light years across.
Assuming we sent out our fastest ship to date back when the mammoth walked around Michigan, we would not even been to our nearest star system by now. The universe is BIG place. Even if the very first human somehow built and launched a ship that could travel half the speed of light, he would not have made it across the milky way by now!
Suppose we find trilobite skeletons on Mars... and the next day an alien ship enters our system. In his work, those two are contradictory events. They cannot happen in the same universe. But there are all kinds of ways they COULD happen. Actually, if we find trilobite skeletons on mars, that would mean to those poor little trilobites that an alien ship (ours) just entered their system and has already negated his theory.
Why would anyone waste their time navigating a 3D image of the ocean ?... just curious... I would think that the bigger question is how difficult it must be to keep that think updated... you know, with the waves and tides constantly moving and all it would be out of date right after you mapped it!
Wait, does that mean a Microsoft product is actually better?
(I'm being serious, too, I've never used LN but I use Outlook on Exchange at work and Outlook with a PocketPC at home, and think it's great for the most part.. though I use Thunderbird for personal mail.) Unfortunately, yes! Exchange is better. Lotes is that bad.
The problem with the email side is that it treated your email like any other DB. Lotes was marginally OK as a database client if you had time to wait. When you're looking at your email through the same mediocre client (for 1995, anyway), it sucked!
, If I contacted places like Google, MSN, the university, and MySpace, what are the odds that they would give me access to any of his accounts? There was a situation similar to this where a soldier died in Iraq or Afghanistan and had emails to his parents on his Yahoo Mail account that were not sent yet. His parents wanted access to those emails but Yahoo refused to give the password up. I'm not sure how that one ended, but I believe that Yahoo gave in once the press got involved. Maybe google will help me out here.
No one gets hurt if I roleplay rape or knifeplay with my consenting adult partner.
Right. So? WTF does that have to do with anything that we are talking about. Are you just making shit up? WhoTF mentioned anything about you and your "partner"?
And even if we do induldge in S&M, that's none of your business, and not what I consider "violent", but it will be caught by this law. The only "sick fucks" are people who have a perversion about locking people up for three years because they don't like what they get up to or fantasise about in private.
OK, you just showed that you have not been paying attention. We are talking about people watching videos of rapes. WTF does that have to do with what you do with whoever in your basement? No one is saying that you can't do S&M with your willing partner. We're saying you can't make a video of a rape (real or acted) and make it publicly available. If you want to do that in the privacy of your own home, have at it. So put the red ball back in your mouth and stick that strawman up your ass, leather boy.
So? Is murder wrong? Says who? What about stealing? How about fucking that 10-yr old girl down the street if she's willing? How about exposing yourself to children? Are these all not moral situations?
These are not issues of taste - these are issues of non-consensual harm towards others.
So if the 10-yr-old down the street consents, you're OK with it? How about if I take naked pictures of that 10-yr-old and post them on the MySpace page I made for her? Is that OK? No one is hurt, right? That is your determining factor if something should be illegal.
Evidence, please, not speculation. We're talking about locking people up here.
Sure. Unfortunately, I could find no studies done on people who watch rape videos. I guess even the most open minded research never thought that people would be so fucking sick as to want to watch rape videos, much less defend that behavior. Most of what I could find dealt with video games and movies but the premise is the same: Here is one on video games. Here is another. Here is one that deals with violent videos. I believe even you will agree that rape is a violent act and we are talking about rape videos. I believe a rape video would qualify as a violent video by any definition. Here is another.
However, since you are probably going to call foul because there are no actual RAPE stories here, I went ahead and found one. I had to wade thought a swamp of virus infecting sites to find it (literally! "You must download this.exe media player to watch this video...") Anyway, here is the link. Here is a quote:
I went to a porno bookstore, put a quarter in a slot, and saw this porn movie. It was just a guy coming up from behind a girl and attacking her and raping her. That's when I started having rape fantasies. When I saw that movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse from my childhood on up... I just went for it, went out and raped." Rapist interviewed by Beneke, 1982, pp. 73-74.
Unfortunately, many of these sites lump violent films with porn. Now, there is nothing wrong with porn. I love my porn. Now sick fuckers like these are going to end up taking it away because they want to watch rape flicks and act it out on real people. It's really sad when people like you want to let them. I hope it's out of ignorance. I really hope you genuinely thought that watching rape videos would somehow h
First, I think that "furry porn" is hideous. You have to be a sick fuck to enjoy that sort of thing and really should get help, in the form of a bullet induced head wound. Furry porn is not violent. It may be vile, but if that's your thing... then that's your thing. What's the worst that can happen? You prevent your wife/partner from shaving? So what? No one gets hurt. Some guys like big women. I find it nasty, but if they can find a big woman who is happy to please them, then I'm happy for both of them.
Who makes the call of what's sick and what's not? Now, rape videos is a bit different. Someone who enjoys that is someone who enjoys seeing someone else hurt and violated in the worst way possible. There's something wrong with that. Sorry, but there is. No one is arguing that rape is OK, why should fantasizing about it be OK? It goes far beyond schadenfreude to want to watch a rape.
Your problem with the law is about how its boundaries cannot be defined. Exactly
Personally, my problem with the law is that it would allow someone (government? a panel of psychologists maybe? parents? religious figures? anyone?) impose upon others their taste and convictions. So? Is murder wrong? Says who? What about stealing? How about fucking that 10-yr old girl down the street if she's willing? How about exposing yourself to children? Are these all not moral situations? Sometimes a line has to be drawn over what is right and what is wrong. I don't know where that line is, but rape videos is on the other side! I'm a fairly liberal guy. Porn should be free (none of the PPV crap!), pot should be legal, prostitution should be allowed and no one should tell consenting adults what they can do in their bedroom. However, I understand that freedom is not absolute.
You wanna stop rape? Why not increase the penalties for violators? Why not dispatch more police on the streets instead of having them sit in hiding around speed traps? Why not revoke laws that prohibit people from carrying weapons they can use to defend themselves from attack? Use the same process we use to prevent general anarchy to weed out those in society that ARE actually suseptible to violence AND CHOOSE to act them out knowing the consequences I agree with ALL of these!
You know, instead of forbidding people to freely engage in fantasy if they so choose, regardless of how sick anyone thinks it is. So is child porn OK?
At least if a person (perhaps you'd call them a rapist-in-waiting or a sick fuck) is getting off to a fictional reenactment they're not out in public actually victimizing women. For that moment, sure. Eventually seeing it in a Flash window won't cut it anymore. It increases the odds that eventually, they will venture out and try the real thing. See my dieter in a bakery example a few posts up. Also read how it may desensitize someone to the horrors of what rape is all about. One other thing that no one has brought up and another reason why this should not be outlawed... some people might enjoy fantasizing about being on the receiving end of a rape. They may have hang ups about their sexual desires and want the decision to be taken away from. A rape would relieve their sexual stresses and it would not be their doing so they've committed no sin. While I find this disturbing, I don't find any harm in it because this person is not at all likely to go out and force someone to rape them (if that's even possible).
Finally, in response to your title... "Who made you the judge": No one. I'm not a judge. I'm just using my free speech rights to explain why I think it should be illegal and why I think it can't be. And while I'm not a judge, I am a voter. Provided that workable legislation could be passed, I will use my voting rights to push for a candidate that supports it, provided that candidate is not a douche bag otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Next, was Abraham Lincoln from 1864. That was 144 years ago. No one that was alive then is alive today.
Still even if I let your two examples stand, compare them to what happens to the people of Cuba. Read my sig for an example.
Then again, if you think Cubans are treated by their government so much better than Americans, you are free to move there. Better make sure you've made up your mind as they probably won't let you leave if you change it.
the government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
Government is not concerned about everyone's security. This government, the Bush admin, is concerned about giving businesses large contracts and making people afraid.
When the government fears citizens you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.
Falcon See, here I am talking about the actual job of government, including all US governments, and here you break into your left-wing, anti-Bush propaganda bullshit. No real facts to speak of, just saying "what Bush wants". How do you know what Bush wants? Can you read his mind? No? Then it's just your opinion that you don't even attempt to back up.
Please, take your Communist bullshit to the Daily Kos because it really doesn't belong here.
or good friends with one, of course. Sorry, but regardless of what Michael Moore tells you, health care in Cuba is dismal.
The main problem I see is that they are using mostly unlicensed copy of windows, since Windows licenses can't be acquired in Cuba. Every other country in the world trades with Cuba. Because the US doesn't, they can't get broadband? Can they not get broadband from Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Aruba, St. Martin, Africa, China, Japan, Panama, Vietnam, N. Korea, or S. Korea?
Is the US so powerful that a country can barely get by without US trade?
Wake up and stop listening to your bullshit controlled media. I usually don't respond to AC's, but this load of bullshit has to be stopped.
First, the US policy towards Cuba is set by... wait for it... CUBANS! Yes, that's right! If it were not for the Cubans in Florida and the importance of their vote, the US policy towards Cuba would certainly be different today.
Next, you call the US scumbags and accuse the US of having a controlled media. I'm sorry, but this has to be BY FAR the most idiotic and 100% ignorant thing I have heard all year. We are talking about the US and Cuba and you claim that THE US MEDIA IS CONTROLLED!??! REALLY?!!?? OMFG! I can't believe you are so fucking ignorant to say such thing. I mean, if we were talking about the US and Britain, maybe, but frakking Cuba!??!
Finally, exactly ZERO US citizens have been murdered by their government due solely to their political beliefs. Can you say that of Cuba? We don't know BECAUSE THEIR PRESS IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED! Yet, somehow, WE are the scumbags and Castro, somehow, is not. Now, read my sig:
Sorry, it was originally "the Internet", but I edited and didn't remove the "the".
...These are just a few examples of where I think the Prez should allow censorship of Internet activity. Those are just a few examples of where you haven't thought through the effectiveness of censorship. The really motivated people won't be stopped at all, they will just use less obvious means of communication. If they can't post on myspace, they will just use some other website in another country or they will use hijacked websites which they can switch between faster than the censor-hammer can knock down. There are a million ways to communicate over the net the only effective method of censorship is to turn the net off. True, but our US companies shouldn't be the ones helping them do it. Also, there are ways around the locks on my front door, but that doesn't mean I don't lock it when I go to work.
If you had said, "Great, tell me your IP address and what versions of what operating systems and daemons you are running," then that would be more analogous. Fine, I'll grant that one, however... Asking when he works and when his wife and kids are home is just being a dick and you know it. He doesn't have the same kind of security a water processing plant should and he never claimed he did. You've proven nothing. Knowing when the guard is on break or where he is at a given moment is exactly the same thing as knowing when this person, the guard for his house, is home or where he is at any given moment. While he is concerned about his family and secures it, the government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
So, while giving out his movements threatens his family's security, giving out the plans to the water plant security system threatens his family as well, and mine, and yours and everyone else's.
Seriously, what is the difference between hiding your military movements and trying to hide your guard changes/movements?
National security is HIS problem, not the individual's problems. The constitution doesn't limit the right to expression, assembly, and so on, on the condition that it be used to protect national security. If he can't protect his country without infringing on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of individuals, then well, sucks to be him. I can has new country, pleeaz.
The individual is more important than the government, not the other way around. The government can die, for all we care - it can be replaced by another piece of paper quite easily. I hope you are not serious. I would say that being in jail a violation of a person's rights. I would also say that arresting someone who was going to set off a nuke in DC would be protecting national security. Are you saying that the US gov't should ALLOW me to set off that nuke as to not violate my rights?
Thank you for your cooperation.
You clearly don't like what they did before so why the hell are you whining about them trying to rectify that and ensure it happens less in the future? It's like your'e bitching for the sake of bitching. He's just trying to justify his blind hatred of all things American. Until he can find a country that has done no wrong, I just block his kind out and remind myself that he is free to leave, unlike those in, say, Cuba.
And we're going to convince them otherwise... how again? I believe you misunderstand the goal of this bill. The goal is TO stop companies like Google, YouTube or Yahoo from helping repressive regimes (the Chinese in your example) censor information to the average citizen. Of course, we can't stop the Chinese gov't from doing it, but we can stop Google from doing it for them.
Another example would be using the web to follow or report on NYPD officers to plan when to plant a bomb or whatever.
Finally, let's say someone stole the plans to the F22 fighter that exposed a way to detect it via radar and wanted to post the information on their MySpace page from an Internet Cafe...
These are just a few examples of where I think the Prez should allow censorship of Internet activity. Generally, censorship is a bad thing, but not always. On RARE occasion (Very RARE), it's necessary.
Assuming we sent out our fastest ship to date back when the mammoth walked around Michigan, we would not even been to our nearest star system by now. The universe is BIG place. Even if the very first human somehow built and launched a ship that could travel half the speed of light, he would not have made it across the milky way by now!
(I'm being serious, too, I've never used LN but I use Outlook on Exchange at work and Outlook with a PocketPC at home, and think it's great for the most part.. though I use Thunderbird for personal mail.) Unfortunately, yes! Exchange is better. Lotes is that bad.
The problem with the email side is that it treated your email like any other DB. Lotes was marginally OK as a database client if you had time to wait. When you're looking at your email through the same mediocre client (for 1995, anyway), it sucked!
It's why we called it Scrotus Goats!
Google is your friend! Here are some links to the story:
Slashdot
Another Slashdot.
The Conclusion to the story.
No one gets hurt if I roleplay rape or knifeplay with my consenting adult partner.
Right. So? WTF does that have to do with anything that we are talking about. Are you just making shit up? WhoTF mentioned anything about you and your "partner"?
And even if we do induldge in S&M, that's none of your business, and not what I consider "violent", but it will be caught by this law. The only "sick fucks" are people who have a perversion about locking people up for three years because they don't like what they get up to or fantasise about in private.
OK, you just showed that you have not been paying attention. We are talking about people watching videos of rapes. WTF does that have to do with what you do with whoever in your basement? No one is saying that you can't do S&M with your willing partner. We're saying you can't make a video of a rape (real or acted) and make it publicly available. If you want to do that in the privacy of your own home, have at it. So put the red ball back in your mouth and stick that strawman up your ass, leather boy.
So? Is murder wrong? Says who? What about stealing? How about fucking that 10-yr old girl down the street if she's willing? How about exposing yourself to children? Are these all not moral situations?
These are not issues of taste - these are issues of non-consensual harm towards others.
So if the 10-yr-old down the street consents, you're OK with it? How about if I take naked pictures of that 10-yr-old and post them on the MySpace page I made for her? Is that OK? No one is hurt, right? That is your determining factor if something should be illegal.
Evidence, please, not speculation. We're talking about locking people up here.
Sure. Unfortunately, I could find no studies done on people who watch rape videos. I guess even the most open minded research never thought that people would be so fucking sick as to want to watch rape videos, much less defend that behavior. Most of what I could find dealt with video games and movies but the premise is the same:
.exe media player to watch this video...") Anyway, here is the link. Here is a quote:
Here is one on video games.
Here is another.
Here is one that deals with violent videos. I believe even you will agree that rape is a violent act and we are talking about rape videos. I believe a rape video would qualify as a violent video by any definition.
Here is another.
However, since you are probably going to call foul because there are no actual RAPE stories here, I went ahead and found one. I had to wade thought a swamp of virus infecting sites to find it (literally! "You must download this
I went to a porno bookstore, put a quarter in a slot, and saw this porn movie. It was just a guy coming up from behind a girl and attacking her and raping her. That's when I started having rape fantasies. When I saw that movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse from my childhood on up... I just went for it, went out and raped." Rapist interviewed by Beneke, 1982, pp. 73-74.
HERE is another.
Unfortunately, many of these sites lump violent films with porn. Now, there is nothing wrong with porn. I love my porn. Now sick fuckers like these are going to end up taking it away because they want to watch rape flicks and act it out on real people. It's really sad when people like you want to let them. I hope it's out of ignorance. I really hope you genuinely thought that watching rape videos would somehow h
Sometimes a line has to be drawn over what is right and what is wrong. I don't know where that line is, but rape videos is on the other side! I'm a fairly liberal guy. Porn should be free (none of the PPV crap!), pot should be legal, prostitution should be allowed and no one should tell consenting adults what they can do in their bedroom. However, I understand that freedom is not absolute. You wanna stop rape? Why not increase the penalties for violators? Why not dispatch more police on the streets instead of having them sit in hiding around speed traps? Why not revoke laws that prohibit people from carrying weapons they can use to defend themselves from attack? Use the same process we use to prevent general anarchy to weed out those in society that ARE actually suseptible to violence AND CHOOSE to act them out knowing the consequences I agree with ALL of these! You know, instead of forbidding people to freely engage in fantasy if they so choose, regardless of how sick anyone thinks it is. So is child porn OK? At least if a person (perhaps you'd call them a rapist-in-waiting or a sick fuck) is getting off to a fictional reenactment they're not out in public actually victimizing women. For that moment, sure. Eventually seeing it in a Flash window won't cut it anymore. It increases the odds that eventually, they will venture out and try the real thing. See my dieter in a bakery example a few posts up. Also read how it may desensitize someone to the horrors of what rape is all about.
One other thing that no one has brought up and another reason why this should not be outlawed... some people might enjoy fantasizing about being on the receiving end of a rape. They may have hang ups about their sexual desires and want the decision to be taken away from. A rape would relieve their sexual stresses and it would not be their doing so they've committed no sin. While I find this disturbing, I don't find any harm in it because this person is not at all likely to go out and force someone to rape them (if that's even possible).
Finally, in response to your title... "Who made you the judge":
No one. I'm not a judge. I'm just using my free speech rights to explain why I think it should be illegal and why I think it can't be. And while I'm not a judge, I am a voter. Provided that workable legislation could be passed, I will use my voting rights to push for a candidate that supports it, provided that candidate is not a douche bag otherwise.