[cyricc]

I registered to say that your series was easily the most well-written and interesting that I have ever read in the fmg genre, and I had lost hope of ever seeing it again… until a routine google search turned up this thread today. Now that you’re (hopefully) here, I can’t help but ask whether you’ll ever repost them, if not on brawna, then elsewhere? I still regret not saving myself a local copy while I had the chance!

[Pug]

And once again Captain Mal posts his assertions and storms off without actually either backing up his argument with facts or letting anyone else make theirs.

He’s a good writer – but
A- in months of hearing this tirade (Over and Over) I’ve yet to hear him actually state which stories on Brawna he’s talking about.
B- amongst his tirades he’s made it quite clear that his objection is actually against any story which doesn’t recognizes the *exact* same age of consent he does, whether it’s from a different state or a different country
C- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this since Red Rose stories, that actually making (CGI) images is perfectly legal, overturning a federal law covering exactly that – so his assertion is based in fictional *imagery* being legal, but fictional text being illegal.

He’s a good writer, but if he want’s to have a hissy-fit because Crzyfcks from Brazil and has a different cultural context, fuck’em – I’ve had it up to here with his screaming fits. At least Crzyfck isn’t screaming about his moral superiority while writing fetish porn.

Pug

[Pug]

And yeah guys – you probably *have* read some of the stories he’s referring to. I can almost guarantee it.

It just wouldn’t occur to you those were even possibly what he was talking about.

Pug

[FlakBait]

Gentlemen, personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. If you want to discuss a subject discuss it, if this devolves into a bait and flame war this thread will be locked.

[blah8884]

And once again Captain Mal posts his assertions and storms off without actually either backing up his argument with facts or letting anyone else make theirs.

He’s a good writer – but
A- in months of hearing this tirade (Over and Over) I’ve yet to hear him actually state which stories on Brawna he’s talking about.
B- amongst his tirades he’s made it quite clear that his objection is actually against any story which doesn’t recognizes the *exact* same age of consent he does, whether it’s from a different state or a different country
C- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this since Red Rose stories, that actually making (CGI) images is perfectly legal, overturning a federal law covering exactly that – so his assertion is based in fictional *imagery* being legal, but fictional text being illegal.

He’s a good writer, but if he want’s to have a hissy-fit because Crzyfcks from Brazil and has a different cultural context, fuck’em – I’ve had it up to here with his screaming fits. At least Crzyfck isn’t screaming about his moral superiority while writing fetish porn.

Pug

Though I am a bit disheartened to hear that you’re leaving again, I do hope to see the stories elsewhere.

And a little off topic, but Pug, is Crazyfck still around? Sent a msg on deviantart and its been a long time since I’ve seen a response. I’m still hoping to see some closure or at least, more tantalizing stories from him. Send him my regards if he’s around!

[None]

He’s a good writer – but
Pug, first, I’m not sure what the Crazfck reference is about. That is from left field man.

Pug: “A- in months of hearing this tirade (Over and Over) I’ve yet to hear him actually state which stories on Brawna he’s talking about.”

I cited the stories above on this very thread.

Pug: “B- amongst his tirades he’s made it quite clear that his objection is actually against any story which doesn’t recognizes the *exact* same age of consent he does, whether it’s from a different state or a different country.”

Laws of the United States where the site is hosted and operated. I also think that most of the Western World generally recognizes the same standards.

Pug “- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this since Red Rose stories, that actually making (CGI) images is perfectly legal, overturning a federal law covering exactly that – so his assertion is based in fictional *imagery* being legal, but fictional text being illegal.

This is incorrect. The Red Rose case occurred in 2008, this is AFTER the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition. As to Ashcroft, you and I discussed this in detail and I went through the potential legal reasoning, a legal reasoning, I might add, that was almost employed in the case above AFTER the Ashcroft ruling.

Now, Pug, on this thread, I haven’t attacked you, I merely answered the poster’s question. Could you please stop resorting to ad hominem?

In the end, you may call it storming away, but I’m tired. I’m tired of having to fight every time I explain in my “rants” why I’m not posting and my assertion for some modicum of an easily met, common sense standard. I think it’s sad that I need to even have this conversation about explicit stories featuring young children here, in this posting community. I just don’t understand.

But this is my final post here I believe.

[Lingster]

The last time Captr complained about this, I gave him editorial privileges on Brawna.org. He can unpublish or delete any story he sees fit. But he hasn’t logged in with that account in a long while, having created a second account shortly after the fact.

I do not actively edit Brawna.org. There are several dozen users who are “trustees” – they can flag offensive content and effectively unpublish it.

I do not actively follow email to the Lingster account. I check it once or twice a month and even with the filters I employ, 90% of it is spam. I have automated processes that watch the sites and let me know if they go down, so that I can log in and restart the server.

There are several admins here at Amaz0ns who watch the forums. They do a good job.

I am not interested in spending much time administering these various sites. I set them up years ago when I had a lot of free time. These days I have almost no free time.

[Pug]

He’s a good writer – but
Pug, first, I’m not sure what the Crazfck reference is about. That is from left field man.

i . . . am amazed that you don’t. It was everywhere – Crzyfck is from Brazil, and has written stories having (From U.S. perspective) younger characters.

Since Google has never (To the best of my knowledge) answered any inquiry, a this point the reasonable assumption is that people complained to Google.

Pug: “A- in months of hearing this tirade (Over and Over) I’ve yet to hear him actually state which stories on Brawna he’s talking about.”

I cited the stories above on this very thread.

Fair enough – I did try and get that out of you before and could not. I let that buried frustration blind me to the fact that this time you did cite one of the stories. I searched and did find that the story makes the character age as 12.

And frankly that hit my ‘ick’ factor sufficiently that I don’t want more information, but I’ve never really been a JP fan anyway. But ‘ick’ is not a justification for censorship.

Pug: “B- amongst his tirades he’s made it quite clear that his objection is actually against any story which doesn’t recognizes the *exact* same age of consent he does, whether it’s from a different state or a different country.”

Laws of the United States where the site is hosted and operated. I also think that most of the Western World generally recognizes the same standards.

As per our prior discussion – you’re wrong. I just can’t say it clearer than that. In the United States itself the age of consent varies by 16 to 18 . . . if you assume the other party is an adult. In ‘civilized Europe, Spain has the lowest at 13, while in South America it goes as low as 12 – which is really the bellwether worldwide today.

Georgia raised it’s age of consent to 16 . . . in 1995. Until the 1920’s the age of consent across the United States ranged from 10 to 12.

Pug “- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this since Red Rose stories, that actually making (CGI) images is perfectly legal, overturning a federal law covering exactly that – so his assertion is based in fictional *imagery* being legal, but fictional text being illegal.

This is incorrect. The Red Rose case occurred in 2008, this is AFTER the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition. As to Ashcroft, you and I discussed this in detail and I went through the potential legal reasoning, a legal reasoning, I might add, that was almost employed in the case above AFTER the Ashcroft ruling.

A- Brawna’s TOS disclaims specifically against ‘obscenity’; a specific, and very hard to prove charge. Lolita doesn’t warrant it, nor do a lot of other things.
B- The Red Rose case never went to trial.
B(1)- The red rose case had a much larger chance of being declared flat obscenity. Enough for the lawyers defending her to recommend accepting a plea deal.
B(2)- Evidently not *that* good – they were *offered* a plea deal.
So . . . is there a legal risk to Brawna about carrying such material? Yes. JimP’s story could be declared Obscene.
Is there a *likely* risk? No – the definition of ‘Obscenity’ is one the courts are loathe to invoke, and what JimP has isn’t even close to that standard. If the case law changes so drastically that JimP’s stories meet the legal definition of Obscene . . . then it’s not going to be subtle and stick there – Star Stones will be Obscene too My Bavarian Assignment well be Obscene, most of MarkNew will be obscene, and all of Crazyfcks writing will be Obscene.
C- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
Their is nothing in this to make me think Red Rose would have lost their case. Ican see why they didn’t risk it, but read the decision.

Now, Pug, on this thread, I haven’t attacked you, I merely answered the poster’s question. Could you please stop resorting to ad hominem?

In the end, you may call it storming away, but I’m tired. I’m tired of having to fight every time I explain in my “rants” why I’m not posting and my assertion for some modicum of an easily met, common sense standard. I think it’s sad that I need to even have this conversation about explicit stories featuring young children here, in this posting community. I just don’t understand.

But this is my final post here I believe.

My frustration with you does not (IMO) qualify as an ad hominem. You have every right to not post your story anywhere, for any reason. And just as I would if I say a man storming out of an art gallery because his painting was in one wing of a museum that also exhibited that stupid ‘piss christ’ in another — it’s simultaneously
A- within your rights,
B- childishly pigheaded,
C- advocating censorship.
D- Hypocritical as hell

Just because you’re within your rights to say “If you’re going to display porn I find offensive, I’m taking my porn and going home” doesn’t mean you get some points for taking a moral stance for the purity of fictional characters everywhere.

At the end of the day, you want to label a highly-specific interpretation of a moral code, based on rules that have varied tremendously over the world and even here within the last century, and impose it as ‘common sense standard’ with which to censor peoples writing.

I have a common sense standard too. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Pug

[None]

“The last time Captr complained about this, I gave him editorial privileges on Brawna.org. He can unpublish or delete any story he sees fit. But he hasn’t logged in with that account in a long while, having created a second account shortly after the fact.”

That was years and years ago and I’ve never been able to delete. I tried it once to no avail. My previous account was the account here, on Amazon’s that I had changed, not Brawna.

Pug, the whole “obscenity” angle has been argued before and I think I laid it out quite well in contradiction to your main points. As for the age of consent in other countries, fine, I will concede to that point but it’s U.S. standards I’m focused on.

Pug: “B- The Red Rose case never went to trial.” I already stated that.
Pug: “B(1)- The red rose case had a much larger chance of being declared flat obscenity. Enough for the lawyers defending her to recommend accepting a plea deal.” Perhaps you’re right but we can’t be certain.

Pug: “. then it’s not going to be subtle and stick there – Star Stones will be Obscene too My Bavarian Assignment well be Obscene, most of MarkNew will be obscene, and all of Crazyfcks writing will be Obscene.” Actually, I believe that materials featuring adult situations are now being considered merely “indecent”. Marknew’s story’s, my stories, and your stories featuring adult situations (mine don’t feature anything “obscene” unless elements of femdom and adult intercourse is now being considered obscene which they aren’t under the law) are protected speech unless they meet the definition of “obscene” utilizing the Miller Test. While some people may not like or want to read something that I wrote, they involve adult situations.

Pug: “And once again Captain Mal posts his assertions and storms off without actually either backing up his argument with facts or letting anyone else make theirs.”

How many conversations have we had about this where I’ve provided case law, legal reasoning, references and let you speak? My disagreements with you has not prevented you from making your points. How could I stop that?

With that said.. I’ll post some more legal references in response to your following quote:

Pug: “I have a common sense standard too. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Supreme Court has put limits on this in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484-85 (1957) (“mplicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. . . . [We therefore] hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” This facet of Roth was NOT overturned by later cases. Later cases only added a rubric for determining “obscenity” based on contemporary community standards, community standards which you, on this very thread have admitted created an “ick” factor with your person and which you allowed for the opportunity that the story in question, might be considered obscene.

As for Ashcroft vs. Free Speech, I finally have an answer for you on that one. After the ruling on Ashcroft, the government enacted 18 USC 1466A which made such visual depictions (even simulated) prosecutable. This was passed AFTER Ashcroft. The statute is here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

So you’re contention to counter me with Ashcroft, is now MUCH shakier. The following should clarify everything I’ve been saying. Please read and reconsider your use of Ashcroft in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States

As for hypocrite, I’m not a hypocrite. Yes, my stories are pornographic but they are pornographic with an ADULT nature. It would only be hypocritcal of me if I had written stories featuring severely underage characters and THEN said “Remove them!” I’ve never supported stories of that nature so there is nothing hypocritical regarding my concern over them.

So there you have it.

[demented20]

This topic got under my skin the last time. Captr took down his stories because he doesn’t want them associated even remotely with stuff he thinks is just not cool to post. He has a line and those stories cross it. I can respect that he took a stand, even a small one and took down his material. Arguing the legality and all that is just foolishness. There are plenty of things that are legal that people turn their noses up at. I think Captr has explained a principled stance about as clearly as a principled stance can be explained. Sometimes they don’t make sense to anybody except the person. It’s really not a big deal.

[Author]

Posts