If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   High school students under investigation for spreading nude selfies. Clearly, they do not understand the rules of BIE   (stltoday.com) divider line 158
    More: Dumbass, Fort Zumwalt East High School, high schools, Fort Zumwalt, investigation, public information, teens  
•       •       •

7612 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2014 at 10:33 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-05 02:06:32 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: mongbiohazard: So farking stupid. Charging kids with criminal offenses for pictures of each other... I wonder how long before we grow up enough as a society to acknowledge how stupid this is. It is depressing how much we still are terrified of the perfectly normal human body and sexuality. Farking religious conservatives.

I know this may be hard to believe but there are millions of adults who are not religious conservatives who don't want their children sending naked pictures of themselves to other people


But they also don't want their kids being branded sex offenders and going to prison for the crime of being a dumabass
 
2014-04-05 02:09:43 PM  

Zavulon: vygramul: mongbiohazard: So farking stupid. Charging kids with criminal offenses for pictures of each other... I wonder how long before we grow up enough as a society to acknowledge how stupid this is. It is depressing how much we still are terrified of the perfectly normal human body and sexuality. Farking religious conservatives.

markfara: Why can't we, as a nation, deal with things like child pornography without completely going off the deep end?

The problem is that if this isn't a crime, then kids will be able to freely share the CP, and if they can freely share the CP, the server can have the CP, and if the server can legitimately have CP, the administrator can view the CP and no one can do anything about it, and next thing you know, perverts and predators will be viewing the CP.

Inroads against predators have only been made with aggressive attempts at controlling the sources of CP. That is incompatible with allowing minors that much leeway.

So in order to save the children, we have to lock them up? I completely agree that child porn should not be created or distributed, and that predators need to be locked away, but treating a teenager who took a picture of themselves as a predator doesn't help. Who did they prey upon? Themselves? Aren't they then the victim? How is it justice to charge and imprison the victim of a crime?

The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.


Um... drugs, prostitution, selling your organs, etc.
 
2014-04-05 02:09:45 PM  

shtychkn: Garydrgn: I'm prob going to be getting really touchy about teenage naked pics pretty soon.


Sounds like you need 5 min. to yourself and possibly a tissue?


Well, if you really must go there it takes a lot longer than 5 min and a tissue just disintegrates.
 
2014-04-05 02:16:23 PM  

MarkEC: Unless there are new BIE senders (or new BIE pics from current senders) I think I have all the BIE that's been sent out on Fark. I wouldn't mind at all being proven wrong though ;-)

/EIP just in case.
//Absolutely love the ones who like reciprocation.


I've never gotten BIE, and I do have EIP.

/ Won't get any.
// Won't mind be proven wrong.
 
2014-04-05 02:18:50 PM  

eajc4f: undernova: The time you spent typing your snark out here could have been better spent elsewhere, perhaps texting the matter of your moral superiority to your boyfriend, who probably has plenty of BIE - but evidently not from you.

You sound desperate.


Maybe a little? You sound fat.
 
2014-04-05 02:19:46 PM  

varmitydog: One of my daughter's ended up on a webpage Link (borderline NSFW) called "hawtness"


And bookmarked.

Coco LaFemme: CruJones: Teenagers doing teenage stuff shouldn't be a crime, and it's not child porn regardless of what the law says.  Technically a pedophile wouldn't even be interested in these.

No, a pedophile wouldn't, as they are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, but in the eyes of a law, a child is any human being from the age of birth to 18.  ...  Doesn't matter that the girl is old enough to work and drive a car.


If there was just some way to make a law that knows the difference between a child and a mid-teen.

In the mean time, teach your children well.
At ten you should be explaining "No" about selfies. Show them the stories of how pictures came back to ruin people who wanted to have a future plan.
 
2014-04-05 02:21:14 PM  
Well if they charge these kids I hope they include the girls who sent the pictures to begin with.
 
2014-04-05 02:25:07 PM  
I got SFW BIE. Yay.

Am I supposed to reciprocate? It's the 7th rule, but also says don't sent unwanted...
 
2014-04-05 02:31:24 PM  
BIE?  EIP!
 
2014-04-05 02:31:56 PM  
Got BIE once, and you know what? Rest of that day was awesome. Started horrible, just became awesome.

There must have been some magic in that BIE I found...
 
2014-04-05 02:32:14 PM  

Jekylman: Zavulon: vygramul: mongbiohazard: So farking stupid. Charging kids with criminal offenses for pictures of each other... I wonder how long before we grow up enough as a society to acknowledge how stupid this is. It is depressing how much we still are terrified of the perfectly normal human body and sexuality. Farking religious conservatives.

markfara: Why can't we, as a nation, deal with things like child pornography without completely going off the deep end?

The problem is that if this isn't a crime, then kids will be able to freely share the CP, and if they can freely share the CP, the server can have the CP, and if the server can legitimately have CP, the administrator can view the CP and no one can do anything about it, and next thing you know, perverts and predators will be viewing the CP.

Inroads against predators have only been made with aggressive attempts at controlling the sources of CP. That is incompatible with allowing minors that much leeway.

So in order to save the children, we have to lock them up? I completely agree that child porn should not be created or distributed, and that predators need to be locked away, but treating a teenager who took a picture of themselves as a predator doesn't help. Who did they prey upon? Themselves? Aren't they then the victim? How is it justice to charge and imprison the victim of a crime?

The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.

Um... drugs, prostitution, selling your organs, etc.


The issue of personal possession and use of drugs has been hashed out enough on Fark, so I'm not going to start that up again :)

As far as prostitution goes, that has the same contradictory interpretation problem. If (and this is a big if) an act of prostitution is fully voluntary on the part of the prostitute, then who have they victimized? Only themselves, if you can even call that victimization. If the prostitute was exploited or forced into prostitution then there's certainly a crime, but it's been committed against the prostitute, not by them.

Selling organs is a different sort of thing, so I don't think it makes a good example. There's always a middle man who is exploiting the donor, sometimes in collusion with the recipient.
 
2014-04-05 02:42:31 PM  
First rule if I ever give my kid a cell phone:  physically break the camera.
 
2014-04-05 02:43:44 PM  

Zavulon: vygramul: mongbiohazard: So farking stupid. Charging kids with criminal offenses for pictures of each other... I wonder how long before we grow up enough as a society to acknowledge how stupid this is. It is depressing how much we still are terrified of the perfectly normal human body and sexuality. Farking religious conservatives.

markfara: Why can't we, as a nation, deal with things like child pornography without completely going off the deep end?

The problem is that if this isn't a crime, then kids will be able to freely share the CP, and if they can freely share the CP, the server can have the CP, and if the server can legitimately have CP, the administrator can view the CP and no one can do anything about it, and next thing you know, perverts and predators will be viewing the CP.

Inroads against predators have only been made with aggressive attempts at controlling the sources of CP. That is incompatible with allowing minors that much leeway.

So in order to save the children, we have to lock them up? I completely agree that child porn should not be created or distributed, and that predators need to be locked away, but treating a teenager who took a picture of themselves as a predator doesn't help. Who did they prey upon? Themselves? Aren't they then the victim? How is it justice to charge and imprison the victim of a crime?

The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.


I don't think the person who took the picture of themselves OR the person they sent it to should be prosecuted or criminalized.

However, I think if the recipient then sends it to others, the recipient should be prosecuted for that distribution. I don't think current laws are adequately written to do this very well.

Note: yes, minors SHOULD know better; parents SHOULD be raising and supervising their children better; and a teen sending a picture to their significant other that magically makes its way around the school is the most foreseeable outcome BUT

Why do any of those 3 things change how the situation is handled?
 
2014-04-05 02:43:55 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Anyone want to see my spectacular tits?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[www.wildlifetrusts.org image 445x286]


That's just for you, FARK.  I'd never share them with anyone else.  Pinky promise.


Your tits would be even better if they faced in the same direction.
 
2014-04-05 02:43:55 PM  

payattention: Contrabulous Flabtraption - I know this may be hard to believe but there are millions of adults who are not religious conservatives who don't want their children sending naked pictures of themselves to other people.

Then tell them not to do it. Or are you saying you cannot control your child? Either you lay down the law and your kids obey it or you turn them in, or you accept that this is going to happen from time to time and it is not in the best interest of anyone, especially your own child, to make this yet another easy way to populate the private prison system, which makes more money with more inmates, and therefore needs more crazy laws to make sure that income is not threatened.

Secret Agent X23 - But the problem is, Guy A is going to look at a picture and consider how the girl is posed, the lighting, the contrast and whatnot. Meanwhile, next door, Guy B happens by coincidence to look at the same picture, and he immediately yanks his pants down and goes to work on himself like one of those machines at the hardware store that shake up paint cans.

And, since there is really nothing we can do about Guy B, let's just make everything is illegal and that way no matter what Guy B does, we can incarcerate him. And Guy A, because he is looking a the same picture... and Guy C, who just happens to have a magazine with a similar picture in it... and Guy D, who is the father of the girl and he did nothing to stop her... and Guy E, who is related to the girl and...

/I farking HATE puritianical bullshiat... especially when it comes to the exposure of skin... amazing how only 50 years ago we boys and girls were skinny-dipping in the river and running around naked in our own backyards. And, for those of you who think something has changed in those 50 years, you are right... what changed is the ability to apply common sense to our society... it seems to have been completely removed...


So if you tell your kids something g, they magically won't make the wrong choice later?

You should blatheringly stupid.
 
2014-04-05 02:44:55 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: First rule if I ever give my kid a cell phone:  physically break the camera.


Oh, and BIE.  You're safe with me...
 
2014-04-05 02:48:26 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Dr Jack Badofsky: First rule if I ever give my kid a cell phone:  physically break the camera.

Oh, and BIE.  You're safe with me...


Or, EIP.  Whatever.  Dammit.
 
2014-04-05 02:54:12 PM  
Whomever the generous person was, thank you! :)
 
2014-04-05 02:58:19 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: First rule if I ever give my kid a cell phone:  physically break the camera.


Better yet, get them something like the Samsung S125g. No camera or browser.
 
2014-04-05 03:01:24 PM  

mariner314: I got SFW BIE. Yay.

Am I supposed to reciprocate? It's the 7th rule, but also says don't sent unwanted...


So did I!
 
2014-04-05 03:03:28 PM  
I kinda liked the old days when BIE was a thing.

Yes, its a bit silly given the preponderance of boobs on the internet.  But its still nice to get a little surprise in the email.
 
2014-04-05 03:05:12 PM  

VladTheEmailer: I kinda liked the old days when BIE was a thing.

Yes, its a bit silly given the preponderance of boobs on the internet.  But its still nice to get a little surprise in the email.


It sure is, and I sure did!  TYVM whomever you are...
 
2014-04-05 03:11:09 PM  

Zavulon: Jekylman: Zavulon: 
The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.

Um... drugs, prostitution, selling your organs, etc.

The issue of personal possession and use of drugs has been hashed out enough on Fark, so I'm not going to start that up again :)

As far as prostitution goes, that has the same contradictory interpretation problem. If (and this is a big if) an act of prostitution is fully voluntary on the part of the prostitute, then who have they victimized? Only themselves, if you can even call that victimization. If the prostitute was exploited or forced into prostitution then there's certainly a crime, but it's been committed against the prostitute, not by them.

Selling organs is a different sort of thing, so I don't think it makes a good example. There's always a middle man who is exploiting the donor, sometimes in collusion with the recipient.


I can't argue these on the merits, but I will say that our legal system seems perfectly well suited to punishing people for committing crimes against themselves.
 
2014-04-05 03:13:53 PM  

VladTheEmailer: Coco LaFemme: Anyone want to see my spectacular tits?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[www.wildlifetrusts.org image 445x286]


That's just for you, FARK.  I'd never share them with anyone else.  Pinky promise.

Your tits would be even better if they faced in the same direction.


And one seems to be bigger than the other.
 
2014-04-05 03:16:56 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: VladTheEmailer: Coco LaFemme: Anyone want to see my spectacular tits?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[www.wildlifetrusts.org image 445x286]


That's just for you, FARK.  I'd never share them with anyone else.  Pinky promise.

Your tits would be even better if they faced in the same direction.

And one seems to be bigger than the other.


I think both conditions are indicators of a heightened risk for teh bewbie cancer.

/nice tits, tho
 
2014-04-05 03:29:09 PM  

HeartlineTwist: Zavulon: vygramul: mongbiohazard: So farking stupid. Charging kids with criminal offenses for pictures of each other... I wonder how long before we grow up enough as a society to acknowledge how stupid this is. It is depressing how much we still are terrified of the perfectly normal human body and sexuality. Farking religious conservatives.

markfara: Why can't we, as a nation, deal with things like child pornography without completely going off the deep end?

The problem is that if this isn't a crime, then kids will be able to freely share the CP, and if they can freely share the CP, the server can have the CP, and if the server can legitimately have CP, the administrator can view the CP and no one can do anything about it, and next thing you know, perverts and predators will be viewing the CP.

Inroads against predators have only been made with aggressive attempts at controlling the sources of CP. That is incompatible with allowing minors that much leeway.

So in order to save the children, we have to lock them up? I completely agree that child porn should not be created or distributed, and that predators need to be locked away, but treating a teenager who took a picture of themselves as a predator doesn't help. Who did they prey upon? Themselves? Aren't they then the victim? How is it justice to charge and imprison the victim of a crime?

The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.

I don't think the person who took the picture of themselves OR the person they sent it to should be prosecuted or criminalized.

However, I think if the recipient then sends it to others, the recipient should be prosecuted for that distribution. I don't think current laws are adequately written to do this very well.

Note: yes, minors SHOULD know better; parents SHOULD be raising and supervising their children better; and a teen sending a picture to their significant other that magically makes its way around the school is the most foreseeable outcome BUT

Why do any of those 3 things change how the situation is handled?


I think we're in agreement here. Third parties that keep and/or distribute pornographic pictures of minors are clearly committing a crime against the subject of said picture.
 
2014-04-05 03:34:40 PM  
My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?
 
2014-04-05 03:34:58 PM  

Jekylman: Zavulon: Jekylman: Zavulon: 
The problem is that the legal system is not equipped to handle the idea of people who commit crimes against themselves. We've ended up with this self-contradictory interpretation where the same person is both the criminal and the victim. If we want a justice system that's worth a damn, we can't do that kind of thing.

Um... drugs, prostitution, selling your organs, etc.

The issue of personal possession and use of drugs has been hashed out enough on Fark, so I'm not going to start that up again :)

As far as prostitution goes, that has the same contradictory interpretation problem. If (and this is a big if) an act of prostitution is fully voluntary on the part of the prostitute, then who have they victimized? Only themselves, if you can even call that victimization. If the prostitute was exploited or forced into prostitution then there's certainly a crime, but it's been committed against the prostitute, not by them.

Selling organs is a different sort of thing, so I don't think it makes a good example. There's always a middle man who is exploiting the donor, sometimes in collusion with the recipient.

I can't argue these on the merits, but I will say that our legal system seems perfectly well suited to punishing people for committing crimes against themselves.


From a pragmatic standpoint you're correct. What I should have said is that the system is not equipped to handle it in an internally consistent manner. All it does right now is ignore the hard questions and exploit dumb kids for easy convictions.
 
2014-04-05 03:36:42 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?


Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here
 
2014-04-05 03:37:52 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?

Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here


I give up!
 
2014-04-05 03:58:34 PM  

Secret Agent X23: SpdrJay: Nudity is not pornography.

Well, the two are not synonymous.

But the problem is, Guy A is going to look at a picture and consider how the girl is posed, the lighting, the contrast and whatnot. Meanwhile, next door, Guy B happens by coincidence to look at the same picture, and he immediately yanks his pants down and goes to work on himself like one of those machines at the hardware store that shake up paint cans.


What people fap to should not connote what pornography is. If we did that then almost all pictures could be considered porn. There are whole sites dedicated to people who get off on pictures of clothed people -- by that I mean they upload literal pictures of clothed people which they have gotten off on. Sadly, what has been seen can not be unseen. What we need is a set standard where pornography is clearly defined and trash the local community standards BS. At least that way we would have some legal consistency.

Also, if you're going to charge a kids as adults for a picture of themselves then you can't consider the pictures child porn anymore; you have basically claimed they are an adult under the law, thus the picture is of one now of a legal adult.
 
2014-04-05 04:03:50 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?

Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here

I give up!


Behold the power of the Fark filter.
 
2014-04-05 04:06:18 PM  
I sent a few 35mm pics of girlfriends through the one hour photo hut when I was in high school, never got arrested or charged with child porn.

America's panties are really in a bunch these days.
 
2014-04-05 04:12:54 PM  
BIE is a myth. They don't exist. I've been here over 11 years but I've never received any requested BIE w/EIP. :-(

My birthday was last Wednesday the 2nd and Fark was nice enough to put a red banner across the top wishing me a happy birthday but it would be really nice if I got some BIE.

Here's a challenge to all legal-aged Farkettes. I say BIE Is a myth. Prove me wrong. EIP.
 
2014-04-05 04:27:37 PM  
I got BIE once and it really made my day.
EIP
 
2014-04-05 04:38:33 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: anfrind: Finally, there's the legal theory that allowing possession or distribution creates a market for child porn. Which kind of makes sense, but I've also heard that a market for child porn still exists today even though it's totally illegal, so in that context I'm not sure that the laws are working correctly.

I think thats the only one I can see harm in. But this shouldnt justify criminalizing these kids.


If I may play devil's advocate for a moment: What if we took the exact opposite approach, and made it both perfectly legal and socially acceptable* for teens to make and distribute pornographic selfies?  Basically, try to flood the "market" so that the value of a random teenager's naughty pictures drops to practically zero.  With any luck, the criminals who currently make "professional" child porn would then go bankrupt.

* at least inasmuch as it is already socially acceptable for adults
 
2014-04-05 04:40:28 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?

Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here

I give up!


You gave me a LOL on this lazy sat afternoon.
 
2014-04-05 04:48:13 PM  

ShatteredMinds: Secret Agent X23: SpdrJay: Nudity is not pornography.

Well, the two are not synonymous.

But the problem is, Guy A is going to look at a picture and consider how the girl is posed, the lighting, the contrast and whatnot. Meanwhile, next door, Guy B happens by coincidence to look at the same picture, and he immediately yanks his pants down and goes to work on himself like one of those machines at the hardware store that shake up paint cans.

What people fap to should not connote what pornography is. If we did that then almost all pictures could be considered porn. There are whole sites dedicated to people who get off on pictures of clothed people -- by that I mean they upload literal pictures of clothed people which they have gotten off on. Sadly, what has been seen can not be unseen. What we need is a set standard where pornography is clearly defined and trash the local community standards BS. At least that way we would have some legal consistency.


Well, okay, but the dictionary definition of pornography is that it's material intended to cause sexual arousal. So if no one's fapping to it, I'm not sure what reason there would be to call it porn--or if you do, it seems it would be failed porn.

If you want to ditch that idea altogether and form a new basis of what porn is considered to be, fine. But in that case, what sort of idea to you start with?
 
2014-04-05 04:50:17 PM  
Nudity doesn't make pornography, context does.
 
2014-04-05 04:54:34 PM  
The day I received BIE for the first time was a great day.

/EIP
 
2014-04-05 05:18:07 PM  
This is beyond stupid.

Why can't we have harsh penalties for adults that victimize children without creating high school witch hunts across the country?

High school students are sexually active and make poor decisions. That's a well known fact of life. How is ruining kid's lives by putting them on a sex offender registry going to benefit anybody?
 
2014-04-05 05:21:24 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?

Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here

I give up!


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-05 05:48:58 PM  

LeroyB: BIE is a myth. They don't exist. I've been here over 11 years but I've never received any requested BIE w/EIP. :-(

My birthday was last Wednesday the 2nd and Fark was nice enough to put a red banner across the top wishing me a happy birthday but it would be really nice if I got some BIE.

Here's a challenge to all legal-aged Farkettes. I say BIE Is a myth. Prove me wrong. EIP.


Oh my. BIE Fairies do exist.  Thank you. :-)
 
2014-04-05 06:01:22 PM  

Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: Bagpiper's Underwear: My Boobies ever (honest) after lurking for a decade!

Hoping a wonderful Farkette will reward me with BIE. EIP, of course.

/ slashie
// am I doing this right?

Autocorrect fail! Should have said, "My Boobies ever..."

/apparently not doing this right
//don't hate me...I'm new here

I give up!


Read this
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2014-04-05 06:21:16 PM  
Because it's Caturday :)

/eip svp
 
2014-04-05 06:25:11 PM  
Only one Farkette in the entire thread contributes to BIE. What has Fark become?
 
2014-04-05 06:29:37 PM  

Secret Agent X23: Well, okay, but the dictionary definition of pornography is that it's material intended to cause sexual arousal. So if no one's fapping to it, I'm not sure what reason there would be to call it porn--or if you do, it seems it would be failed porn.

If you want to ditch that idea altogether and form a new basis of what porn is considered to be, fine. But in that case, what sort of idea to you start with?


Well, first things first, I think that pornography should be covered under the First Amendment, and that it's not is just the members of the high court trying to push their moralistic BS onto the rest of us. It's a puritanical leftover that our society would be better off without. Of course I believe that exploiting children should be illegal, but that's a separate issue and could be covered without making it revolve around the sexual/nudity issues. But, if I did have to define pornography I would call it explicit sexual material that has no provable artistic, moral, or social value.

America's obsession with sex, sexuality, and nudity is a problem. What we need is to normalize it. Remove the puritanical and hyper sensitivity our society heaps onto those things. Casual nudity in TV shows, commercials, magazines, and so on would help us get over our biases. Once we take a healthier attitude towards nudity we can then truly look at what the real problems are. Its funny that we allow kids to watch violence all day every day and expect it to have little effect and in no way alter the way they see it. But, see one boob or a penis and they'll automatically turn into corrupt rapey immoral sex monsters. We've skewed our views so bad that we censor things for adults just in case a kid might see it and somehow tarnish them for life.

If we had half a brain we would force the government to stop censoring what we can or can't see and put the controls back in the hands of the people. It would be simple to embed a digital signal that TVs could interpret and block content that the viewer doesn't want displayed or heard. The TV itself would create censor bars and beep out foul language as the owner wished with no need for censors or regulators to "protect" us from "harmful" content. We've just given our rights, our ability to think, and any concept of personal responsibility up in the hopes that the government will do/be those things for us. I'm not anti-government but I do think that moralizing isn't a job I want the government doing. Hell, gay marriage, abortion, and many other things wouldn't be a problem if the government would just get out of the moralization business.

/Sorry, just putting some thoughts down
//was longer and more coherent the first time but browser crashed and had to start over
///third slashes for the charm
 
2014-04-05 06:38:55 PM  

LeroyB: LeroyB: BIE is a myth. They don't exist. I've been here over 11 years but I've never received any requested BIE w/EIP. :-(

My birthday was last Wednesday the 2nd and Fark was nice enough to put a red banner across the top wishing me a happy birthday but it would be really nice if I got some BIE.

Here's a challenge to all legal-aged Farkettes. I say BIE Is a myth. Prove me wrong. EIP.

Oh my. BIE Fairies do exist.  Thank you. :-)


But did you follow rule #7?
 
2014-04-05 06:42:38 PM  
BIE?  EIP.
/late to the party
//nothing to add to the discussion =(
 
2014-04-05 06:50:45 PM  
ShatteredMinds:
...stuff, snipped because it's right above this...

I'm going to agree with you all down the line, with this difference: I would add (and I think you implied this, but I'd state it explicitly) that I don't think something should have to have "provable artistic, moral, or social value" in order to avoid censorship or legal issues. We don't apply that standard to any other form of entertainment, or to any other genre, so why impose it on sexual content?
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report