Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Upload Pics On Board Will Be Disabled Soon!, READ THIS NOW!

[spto]

Wow didn't know the new restrictions were due to right wing conservative interferrence. On the one hand I understand why they'd show this kind of concern but on the other hand in my short time of being here there has been no behavior that indicates unlawful and illegal activity.

I just hate it when politics and judgemental freaks have to rain on everybody's parade. We're all adults here. (or at least we try to act like adults LOL) and I think if any problems ever crop up it would be dealt with in a swift and firm manner.

ah well.....

This truly sucks.

[ddd35]

My Advice to all would be to start right click and saving all the pussy pics and sex shots you can of the lovely RMM ladies as they will prolly not be repeated in the new ImageHost Linking process.....

And there can still be pics and what not, just the LINKS of the pics on here will show up..... Correct me if I am wrong Freak but Pussy shots will still be able to be seen..... only if they are linked throught the Image  Linking.

You can thank all of the Bleeding heart fucking "religious" Right who put pressure on site owners like Freak to censor and who think that staring at a pussy is a Sin but fucking a young boy in the ass is AOK
( and I know you moral majority fucks are reading this site or you wouldnt be fucking around causing problems )

But if God didn't give us an urge when we saw someone of the opposite sex...  why bother creating tits, ass, pussy, or cocks.  Why not just have us procreate with a cloud of fucking spores.  

Cavemen just had to smell a pussy and instinct took over ( no pun intended ) His cave cock got hard and over the course of a few million years we get to hop online and stare at tits and ass on a computer.

The Bible has been translated so much by Old bastards that got their fuck on 10 ways from Sunday when they were young but now they can't get it up they want to impose "Sins" for getting hard cock or a wet pussy.  Lust is a natural human feeling not a fucking Sin.  But what can ya do.

If you guys and girls wanna keep the site up and running we should self censor our pussy and sex pics on here and start using the image host for any future posting.

There wont be any more pussy or fucking pics on the forum end unless it is in the form of a link in your post. All other posted as such will be deleted Im sure. Again Correct me If I am wrong Freak.

agreed On all counts C man

[Gnappster]

Wow didn't know the new restrictions were due to right wing conservative interferrence.

Who else could it be?

[spto]

Who else could it be?

I choose to blithely ignore them. You are right tho, it truly only could've been them.

[Assfucker]

Due to legal reasons beyond my control, we will no longer be allowing people to upload pictures to the board, since this site is supposed to be "R" rated, and you guys are uploading some seriously hot XXX here.

So..... instead of uploading em to the board, please use a free image hosting place, such as my personal fave:

http://imagevenue.com/host.php

you simply upload the pic there, and it gives you the code to place on the board to link to that picture.. basically you can't "embed" the pic here, you need to have it as a link such as this:

pic of my hot girlfriend

the service is cool, you can resize the pic, and upload 5 at a time, you don't need to register, and mazimum file size per image is 1.5mb (more than here) and you can upload like 5 at a time.

just remember use the first box on the page that just gives you the "URL" to the pic and then click the "http://" button on the board and paste that URL in there with text linking to the pic.

Please use this service, I want to keep the board open against my attorney's advice, and this is the only way to do it!

pussy







Dood, that chick is hot

[Mr_Trent]

Judge Blocks Web Porn Law

"PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized websites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards."

The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a US$50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other websites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than websites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a U.S. Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over one million random web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.

To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.

The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. "

http://technology.canoe.ca/2007/03/22/3805612-ap.html


I wonder if this will have any effect on the happenings here right now?

[spto]

One would hope so.

[cangirl18]

1.  I don't see why it would, that image upload service is better and faster than posting em here.

2.  Of course I have an attorney

3.  it could be if I could get 2 photo ID's and model releases from every X rated pic uploaded (never gonna happen)

4.  I don't own that site anymore, and I know who does, and that site is gonna be changing very very soon.

1. I'm not a fan of the new hosting service, honestly.
2. Everyone should.
3. I have a driver's license and passport handy. Lemme know.
4. Thank god you don't run that site. I was losing confidence in ya.

[Gnappster]

Judge Blocks Web Porn Law

"PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized websites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards."

The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a US$50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other websites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than websites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a U.S. Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over one million random web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.

To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.

The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. "

http://technology.canoe.ca/2007/03/22/3805612-ap.html
I wonder if this will have any effect on the happenings here right now?

I don't think john's concern is so much with kid's accesing this site as it is the people who post here.
If you've watched copious amounts of porn movies like me you'll notice that at the end they have have a screen that says all people appearing were at least 18 at the time of shooting and they have records to prove it. With a site such as this, the logistics of such a thing is pretty tough to regulate.