[None]

Gribble stories= Awesomeness!

[None]

Sigh…

[None]

The only clip I know of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnL8NrbYTg

[None]

I am. Unfortunately, I’m not able to view the thread and upon signing up, I’m in a membership “line” that requires me to “prove” my fascination for a particular fetish. Way, way, WAY too many steps. As for the story, and why it’s gone… long story, no need to discuss, and I may repost someday.

I honestly don’t know why people are so wild for those stories.

P.S. IF I do repost, it will most likely be around the Holidays when I have time write and finish part 5 and 6, maybe even 7.

[None]

Yeah, the author is kind of a jerk. What type of discussions have been going at the process forum?

[None]

As for you comment on the link above, remember that defining “obscene” means work that is meant to appeal to the prurient interest. Lolita wasn’t published on an erotic fetish website and has been deemed, even though its nature may be uneasy, as having literary value (more on that below). When you combine the elements of the stories on Brawna, it’s intended audience, and then combine such severely underage characters in EXPLICIT sexual acts and explicit descriptions, that posted work, taken as a whole, is more than likely firmly “obscene.” If we were to take JIMP’s story, for example, and translate that into visual media, it would be considered “obscene” due to how explicit his story was.

I’ve never read “Lolita” but I have a feeling it probably wasn’t nearly as sexually descriptive and explicit as some of the stories (including mine of course) we have on Brawna.

Once again, the idea of “simulated” porn, was meant to stop a work, presenting valid artistic merit and not appealing to the prurient interest (not created to be pornographic and via i.e. the obscenity test) from being prosecuted if the work showed two adult actors (18+), playing as 16 year olds, having a moment in which sex is implied or in a BRIEF (not an explicit scene ie per 18 U.S.C. 1466 “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; ) possessing serious artistic intent and merit.

A pornographer, can’t do the same thing, involve explicit or obscene imagery (see above) with actors that look extremely young, cast them as 14 year olds in the film, and then claim “Oh, it has artistic merit!” and be completely free from questions. Sure, he’s covered his/her ass because they used actors that were 18+ but the graphic nature of the depiction in his/her film puts them in the legal crosshairs as his/her work was intended to appeal the prurient interest from the start gate and sexually explicit.

If you’ll pay attention to the article, “In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive “…obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males.”[5][6][7]”

Is it simulated? Yes. Does it involve people? No. Was it prosecutable? Yes.

Is it obscene vs a movie like say American Beauty (the one legal sources always site) or even “Lolita”? Yes. The actions in the above descriptions are tremendously explicit and are pretty much the same actions/writing that I’ve seen in the stories I’ve had issue with. Once again, if we were to take those same stories, put them to animation (involving no actors and completely “simulated”, they’d be just as problematic as the anime in the example above.

As for my work, I don’t want to post my stuff there 1. Because I don’t want my work, explicit as it is involving adults, to be associated with works involving children. It’s disturbing, disgusting, and I don’t want to converse with people who have a predilection for it.
[/b]

2. Because I know that there may be works that are legally questionable due to the obscene employment of underage characters (per these discussions), I, and I’m guessing many of you, don’t want to be associated with a site that (until proper safeguards are enacted) may have a possibility of being on the radar because such content was posted by a handful of users who screwed it for the rest of us. We don’t need to have our lives complicated because we knowingly posted or visited a website knowing that such material existed there.

Furthermore, if some nut job out there is looking to knock his socks off with stories of that content, does a google search, and Brawna comes up as a result, and he’s later arrested, well, Brawna is now on the radar.

That’s why I advocate the 18+ rule. If that type of content isn’t posted, deleted through good community effort, and as such Brawna doesn’t come up with that type of content in a search, then we don’t attract the wrong type of people here and we don’t have to worry about any of this. Hell, even SAYING 18+ takes away a lot of hassle in case a story is missed.

I don’t know how much more pragmatic and practical I can put it.

[None]

Alex…

A twelve year old, I don’t care how physically developed they are, is still a child. As for the other authors you’re mentioning, I don’t personally recall them ever fetishizing a character that young and it seems by inserting the word “pedophile” into the conversation it would seem to me, as if you’re attempting to insert words I never said or implant a “red herring”. So far, everyone who has commented on this, has stated that they’ve felt extremely uncomfortable or “sick” reading of a story fetishizing a character so young so why can’t we employ some common sense and apply that to the literature of this community and in the process do a CYA? My advocacy of the age of 18 as common sense benchmark for legal reasoning is based on federal statute as it applies to the adult film and pornographic industry which the courts have recognized as protect speech as long as it employs stars above that age and because Brawna is basically a fetish site with erotic and explicit sexual material, it might be wise to employ a similar standard and thus avoid any potential future pitfalls.

But I guess, according to many here, that makes me crazy for thinking so.

Regardless of how, Pug, or anyone else wants to argue, in the end, I still don’t understand the fascination of writers with YOUNG teenagers. While the authors you mentioned may have had 16 year old characters, none of their stories went to that extreme, and if we used Pug’s age of consent standard, then they were fine. Personally, I think that if any of us were to see a 40 year old man attempting to sexually seduce a 16 year old, most of us (not those arguing a somewhat absurd relativist viewpoint) would probably find that abhorrent as does the law. So why do people feel the need fetishize it explicity in fiction?

It can be troubling at times and people, and this community, will be judged by the company it keeps and things it users post. Hence, I’m not posting.

But hey, I guess that’s just me.

Now, I REALLY don’t know how much more I can say. I really don’t so if you all want to respond please feel free but I think my reasoning is exhausted.

With all of that said, I’d REALLY like to find a time and place to post again as I have a burning idea of where events and my characters were going. Maybe I’ll change my mind (as I said Part IV is done) but after all of this, I’m hesitant.

[None]

Pug:

One more time.. In case you missed it. Ashcroft vs. Free Speech[/i] no longer applicable as the measures in the CPPA have been changed due to the 2003 Protect Act. Simulated depictions are no longer safe.

Read it carefully beginning with 1466A.

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

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts