Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Porn 2.0: What Happens When Free Porn Meets Social Networking

By Sunny Freeman, The Tyee. Posted July 10, 2007.


With sites like YouPorn, the amateur porn phenomenon is growing, often fueled by "private" sex tapes. While some are hailing the democratization of the porn industry, others are concerned about privacy violations.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sunny Freeman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

She's naked and posing suggestively, but otherwise she doesn't resemble the average Playboy model. Yet this "ex-girlfriend" has been viewed by 138,629 people on YouPorn, the new, German-based Internet aggregator of amateur-generated porn.

She's not the only one to have a former lover post her most intimate moments for the world to google. There are over 250 ex-girlfriends currently featured among the tens of thousands of sex videos on YouPorn.

About 15 per cent of women have knowingly made sex videos, according to a recent poll in Cosmopolitan magazine. If true, that's how many are at risk of having an ex post x-rated files of them on a porn-sharing site.

Unlike Paris Hilton, the average YouPorn star probably won't become famous, except unwittingly to his or her next potential boss or partner. And it's likely he or she will suffer a loss of privacy that could hurt her reputation, relationship and career.

As sites like YouPorn and PornoTube that mesh community aspects of social networking with completely free-of-charge pornography rise in popularity, so too do the associated copyright and privacy infringements.

Right now, the law is lagging behind in redressing the harm done to victims of "porn 2.0."

And with the rapid expansion of this new technology, concerns over the impending social, economic and legal implications are probably the only thing uniting conservative lawmakers and traditional pornographers.

The problem with free

Every day, there are 266 new porn sites on the Net. Every second, 28,258 users are viewing porn.

New aggregators like YouPorn and PornoTube make it easier for a new audience to find free Internet porn, previously often only accessible to "techies" who knew how to use often illegal file sharing methods like Bit Torrent.

"I never get free porn. I'm not good with all that Internet stuff, the passwords, the searching. I just buy it," said one 43 year-old Vancouver man an interview for this article. But he said he would go to YouPorn instead if it was just all in one spot and free, and says that due to this technology, he will almost certainly view more porn than before.

X-rated' Facebook

He's not attracted to the social networking side of YouPorn, but many people are. One of the best things about these YouTube-like services, says an avid fan, is they allow you to both chat with other posters online and read their profiles. "It's like Facebook with an x-rated edge."

Porn 2.0 sites mesh tagged content, discussion groups and user comments and ratings to form a community where users can easily explore and share different fetishes and fantasies.

Without that community aspect, the allure of YouPorn diminishes, says Fredrick Lane, author of Obscene Profits, a study of the success of online pornography. "It's easier for voyeurs to indulge in fantasy and exhibitionists to expose themselves without violating the law. It's like an electronic peeping Tom."

There are even several Facebook groups for fans of online porn. Members of the PornoTube Appreciation Society, for example, post messages like "Work is going down the tube! The PornoTube!"

Porn goes democratic

Free porn on the web is nothing new. But aggregating it into one searchable database a la YouTube is. That free porn revolution highlights the democratization of sexuality, says Lane.

When porn first emerged in mainstream society, he says, a few magazines like Hustler and Playboy determined social norms of sexual attractiveness: "5'10" and blonde." Now, fans have access to a wide variety of sexual preferences and experiences.

But not everyone in the porn world is turned on by recent developments. In fact, the ease of posting porn online is causing a panic among some adult film producers, who spend big budgets on big stars, only to have those posted and viewed for free, or only to see viewers turn to free, amateur porn instead.

Initially, the Internet increased pornography sales, by providing users with easy and anonymous access. U.S. revenue reached a record $2.84 billion in 2006.

But after years of fairly steady increases, sales and rentals of porn videos dipped from $4.28 billion in 2005 to $3.62 billion last year, according to estimates by AVN, an industry trade publication.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: youporn, pornotube, porn 2.0

Sunny Freeman is on staff for The Tyee.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Welcome to the 21st century
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're all going to be on google soon enough.

They say your name needs to "google well" these days because HR departments are using it to check out your Myspace or whatever else they can find to try to dig up some dirt.

I suppose this site is the ultimate in "not googling well" other than perhaps showing up in a sex offender database.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Because, of course... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Nothing wrong with it
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even you make it sound like it's something dirty. It's not.

We've only got a short time on this dirt ball and an even shorter time where we are young, fit, and healthy so we might as well make the most of it. I feel really bad for the person that dies without doing anything with their life.

No travel, no booze, no drugs, no sex, no exotic food.

Just school, college, debt, work, death. Sounds like the conservative agenda.

Back in the day they at least expected you to shack up with some chick and produce a couple of kids. That's unnecessary these days with labor coming in from Mexico/China/India/Russia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nothing wrong with it Posted by: JCrowe
» RE: Nothing wrong with it Posted by: Cruella
RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: JCrowe on Jul 10, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a bit confused as to why you'd want to date people you loathe and have no respect for. Doesn't it ever get boring?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: skybluesky on Jul 10, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NoWhereMan, I don't doubt that these "girlfriends" you speak of exist, but this cannot be said of a great deal of women. A home video, even if a partner consents to it, should not be public domain unless a release form has been signed. It is a sad day when women are commodified and objectified by low life ex-boyfriends as if the mainstream media isn't doing it enough.

I hope you can find a girlfriend whom you can respect, but judging by your comments, you aren't going to attract a woman. Have fun with your "girlies."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends... Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends... Posted by: dover23
RE: Personal integrity?....No, scum
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jul 10, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vanity is a human universal.

None of that prevents you from being a total scum for publishing the pictures against their wishes. That violates an essential human trust.

It also makes relations between men and women (well, homosexuals have the same issues) just that much less trusting and more difficult. Thanks a lot. I'm just glad I'm out of that particular game (married a long time).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: angryyoungwoman on Jul 10, 2007 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why is everyone trying to help this guy, explain to him why relationships totally lacking in respect are wrong? He's obviously never going to understand it--he's determined not to understand it. He needs some professional help--forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free porn? Click here!
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your article is just plain wrong when it says that without these sites only techies were able to get free porn. The internet is full of free porn, much of it very hardcore. No-one should be publishing porn without The express written, sober consent of everybody featured in that porn. Obviously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clever trick. Good post, that Posted by: oregoncharles
» uh oh.....is that me on there? Posted by: psychochurch
Rationalizing A Moral Judgment
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 10, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Undoubtedly there are some people damaged by exploitation by the porn industry. But not all models are exploited or demonstrably damaged.

There undoubtedly are cases where pornography had a deleterious effect on its consumer, but most pornography consumers are not demonstrably damaged.

I realize that some people say that all pornographic models and consumers are degraded, exploited or in some way damaged by the production and consumption of pornography. But I don’t agree. There is no convincing evidence for that.

The principle energy against pornography is the same as it is against all other so-called vices like gambling, recreational drug use, promiscuity and prostitution: an arbitrary moral judgment against these and related behaviors inculcated by the dominant culture. No other reason.

However, you can’t very well make that your public argument - that it’s just plain wrong – because most people don’t care what someone outside of their moral milieu disapproves of. Muslims disapprove of naked-faced women. Playboys disapprove of virginity. So what?

You have to give reasons – use reason – and show that your position is logical, even if it isn’t, even if your arguments are specious. So, we say that pornography promotes sexual violence or pedophilia. We say that marijuana has no medicinal value, but that it is a gateway to worse things. We say that access to contraceptives promotes promiscuity and that access to clean needles promotes IV drug abuse.

That’s why we’ll never get beyond this point in my lifetime. Many will say, “Dammit, porno just is harmful, that’s obvious, and that’s all there is to it”, and a few will say the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ationalizing A Moral Judgment Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: One third of users... Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users... Posted by: Tombo
» RE: One third of users... Posted by: skybluesky
The Left has to eschew the idea that it has a political obligation to discuss Porn. It doesn't!!
Posted by: yellow on Jul 10, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Porn is just not an interesting or important topic. Very little is gleaning from these endless discussions that seem to go back and forth from "we can't allow censorship" to "...but it's degrading to Wimmyn" with an occasional "what about gay and lesbian erotica" thrown in to expand the scope of this admittedly strained topic.

It is obvious why most women resent porn. They feel that they are being forced to compete with an unrealistic ideal contrived by male fantasies. They also feel porn breeds unrealistic expectations with regard to performance, appearance, size and stamina. It is also addicting. People can become somewhat damaged if they are overly obsessed with porn. Of course, if this is the case, the person was probably damaged to begin with and the porn was only a catalyst for his/her malaise.

Overall Porn is pretty harmless for normally healthy folks who just want to spice things up a bit. Aside for the obsessive and outraged feminazi fanatics, who think porn is the most powerfully dangerous political statement since Mein Kampf, most men and women simply shrug it off. I have always disagreed with the late Andrea Dworkin (whose early books were actually interesting) and Catherine MacKinnon about the subject and think their energies are misplaced. Besides there are more important things to worry about these days. Most people who really hate porn have issues and are just acting out. Porn is here to stay and why not? Its not really harmful. And it is getting more popular. My advise to feminists is just get over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reading comprehension? Posted by: maddy
Illegal?
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 10, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"often illegal file sharing methods like Bit Torrent."

bit torrent is a completely legal tool. it's how whatever is transferred across it that must pass a litmus test. sharing out the latest michael moore flick to all your friends? bit torrent is still legal, but if you don't have the rights to do so, the activity isn't.

sharing out a home video of your dog humping your least favourite relative's leg? that's legal as can be.

Sunny Freeman shoulda proofed his/her copy--or, at least buy a clue and know what he/she is talking about first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Illegal? Posted by: OrsonWells
This really made me sick
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have posted on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I like your idea, but.... Posted by: supercrisp
» Already exists, actually... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Just more mainstreaming of the porn aesthetic...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 10, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm okay with sex and with porn. Hell, I've worked for a vendor at a fetish fair a few times. Though porn is not really for me... its sorta like watching baseball rather than playing. But I question if the desire to be a part of this sort of thing comes from a pre-existing desire, or a desire stoked by not just the presence of porn but the mainstreaming of the porn aesthetic. I also wonder how this links into the ideas of incorporating consumers into advertisement through things like branding, street teaming, viral marketing, etc... because frankly, sex sells. You even have groups like PETA cashing in on the porn aesthetic. Then there is American Apparel, whose ads have up until recently looked like amateur porn vid-caps.

If we are going to discuss the prevalence of amateur porn, lets also discuss why it exists in the first place and what it means in a broader cultural context. I know thats a rather open ended and broad discussion to have... but I think it would be an interesting and beneficial one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» As did you... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Excellent points. Posted by: Coleman
Hmm...
Posted by: bemf on Jul 10, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what is particularly problematic about the site is the presence of videos that are described as "rape" scenes, videos in which the subjects are clearly drunk and could not have given meaningful consent, videos that are recorded from hidden cameras, and videos that advertise "underage" women. Moreover, with all the videos, I think there are very serious issues about consent. I'm no fan of pornography in general, but at least "the industry" involves some level of consent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One has to wonder... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: One has to wonder... Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One has to wonder... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Privacy wanes... Be realistic about people's behavior
Posted by: youngdem on Jul 10, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many public figures have found out, that naked snapshot of you at 21 will surface eventually. Such is life. People need to be aware that this can and does happen, and not just to celebrities. On the other hand, now that people's personal lives are increasingly open, employers and schools need to start re-considering what is normal behavior. As long as the cameras don't show any illegal behavior, I'd ask them to cut people some slack. Before disregarding a potential employee based on a red-faced photo of them doing a keg stand at a party in college, think long and hard about what you and your friends did, and how glad you are that there's no photographic evidence, whether it was illicit, or merely silly and embarrassing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: boysen on Jul 10, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is difficult for me is that it is almost impossible to tell what is consentual and what is not when you are in the world of pornography. Note, for example, the prevalence of Russian or Asian Teens in internet porn. There is a high likelihood that some of the young women being filmed are part of large scale human trafficking (slavery) operations that are capitalizing on desperate young women in areas of the world where there are few opportunities. And why would men be creating this kind of industry? Supply and demand. High supply of cheap labor, high demand for porn products - products consumed by men in industrialized nations, primarily white, middle class men.

To reduce the argument to a discussion of ex-girlfriends or pro-pornography 'empowered' women is to miss the real damage being done - to miss the elephant in the room. It also takes the focus off of the non-target group - men. Men make the vast majority of pornography, they consume it and they make money off of it. You can talk about all the 'co-eds dancing their way through college that you want, but that is the insignificant minority in an industry that reduces women to body parts and leaves women in a second class role in our society. The owner of the club - is HE making more than the women? Picture the men that are paying for those co-eds. They're NOT freaks, or perverts or miscreants - they're businessmen with disposable income, they're fathers and bosses, lawyers, politicians, working class stiffs.

They have some drinks, drop some cash and go home to their wives. The next day they play golf with the boys and then go to the office - where they see the women they work with - and because of last night, they get to look at their secretary OR THEIR BOSS as just another 'piece', just like the co-ed on stage the night before. One aspect does not exist independent of the others. And the demands on women, reinforced by women and men, to fit a sexual type-casting system in our culture - is driven by porn.

You can't talk Playboy without Female Trafficking. You can't talk about 'basement porn' without talking about the fact that TIME WARNER, AT&T and GM makes BILLIONS off of pay-per-view and cable pornography in living rooms and hotels all over the world. Rupert Murdoch and Bush 43 talk out of one side of their mouths about the 'moral depravity' in the culture, but get the REAL economic and social benefits of the industry they pretend to detest.

Watch "The Girls Next Door" - wow, look at those well off women, classy photos, clean living - nothing wrong there, right? Now look at Mr. Heff - he OWNS 3 women. 3 women work diligently to keep him happy all the time. Or The Bachelor, where one man gets to pick from 20 women competing for a chance to get hitched. AWESOME. What a great model for every young American boy to aspire to. Not only that, what a great model to feel Entitled to as a man. Now go back to work, where your boss might be a woman - now look at Hillary Clinton. Think there might be a taste of backlash in porn? Where what Really sells - is cruelty toward and domination of women.

Where what is created and bought by men routinely has women on their knees.

Of course, that's just one man's opinion. And I can't speak from 'outside' the system - I am a part of it. I am contributing to it, whether I like it or not.

A wise man I know talks about the fact that we don't need LESS sex in our culture - we need MORE - and to go along with it, we need HONEST education and honest discourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You don't think much of women? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» just out of curiosity... Posted by: ethanay
This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: Chuck0 on Jul 10, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is typical, or should I say "Typeeical", of how the left just doesn't get porn. The production of pornography has been democratized going back at least 10 years if you count the Internet, much further back if you count amateurs making their own videos. In fact, adult bookstores in the early 1990s frequently had sections devoted to the "amateur" genre.

This article just misses the fact that people have been making DIY porn for a long time. Labeling it "Porn 2.0" is just silly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This article is just plain wrong Posted by: albrechtkrausse
a note on the poll
Posted by: sss4r on Jul 10, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess we can assume the poll in Cosmo mag is not scientific?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 15% of Cosmo readers Posted by: fanny666
Porn is good..
Posted by: messedup on Jul 10, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keeps me off the streets, out of the bars, and disease free, but I still like the real thing once in a while. Porn is also good for learning how to orgasm but some people (women especially), will just never figure that out. Once a guy figures these things out, he's always got women by his side (go figure), and that's probably the guy taking all the videos and pictures!

Thanks for the tips on the new porn sites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Smartest comment here Posted by: Bobsays
it's about owning your own image
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 10, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this age of Big Brother next door the average person has lost the right to not be photographed, filmed, or spied upon. Posting a film of someone else without their knowledge is a violation of that persons individuality and privacy.

Because commercial interests wish to track you, and hey it's a great way for governments and security police to watch you, your image is traded and used ... and you've no say in this.

People need to understand that their image is theirs... no one has brought up this simple right, a right we as free individuals will need if we are to survive a world where who you are isn't determined by you, but what all those millions of cameras in your home, iPhone, car, highway, street, sees.

And hey, so you think I'm not watching you through the camera on your computer? Think again.

Demand your image be your own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soon, Big Brother will be watching YouPorn, too.
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 10, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being an open-minded senior citizen who was in college when Playboy first hit the stands, I enjoyed the article as an interesting commentary on modern American morality.

My feelings changed, however, after reading the last sentence which said, “Now lawmakers need to catch up with tech-savvy Internet users, and deal with the potential emotional and psychological damage lurking for ‘ex-girlfriends’ around the world.”

Isn’t that called “censorship?” And what about the idea that individuals should be reponsible for their actions including reckless behavior -- such as making sex tapes without thinking of the consequences?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking the profit out of porn
Posted by: Whitecliff on Jul 10, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream porn industry is in trouble, BIG trouble. (Porn companies losing massive market share to internet porn; DVD sales falling precipitously)

YouPorn.com is excellent because it takes the profit out of porn. It allows amateurs to upload their own material so that the world can see REAL people having sex instead of these disgusting California fake-porn types.

YouPorn.com is a revolutionary idea, and I look forward to the impending bankruptcy of America's 'mainstream' porno industry. Only a moron would pay for porn in the 21st Century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The democratization of porn Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: The democratization of porn Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
there's no profit in rape, yet rape is epidemic
Posted by: anotherday on Jul 10, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pornography is in many ways more like rape than sex, from the outright rape of girls and women that frequently happens in pornography production, to women paid to 'pretend' they're being raped, to rape and synonyms for rape dominating the titles of mainstream porn flicks.

If the pornography in these sites is supposed to represent something new and different in pornography then they are failures according to what popped up on my computer when I checked them out today. "New and improved!" is the come-on for every new product introduced to a given market. Napster sure as hell hasn't made the music industry more democratic or made talented musicians more popular than ex-strippers singing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It is interesting... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: It is interesting... Posted by: FireKittie1982
» I'm well aware of them... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Money for nothing, sex for free Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: Money for nothing, sex for free Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» NO DEMOCRACY IN PORN Posted by: Just Curious
» Hmm... in what ways??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Tch! Tch! Much ado about nothing.
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jul 11, 2007 10:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now, the law is lagging behind in redressing the harm done to victims of "porn 2.0."

Absolutely NO CASE was made for "harm done to victims of porn 2.0." This article is dangerous in the noise it makes (like sucking through ones teeth) about the harm. The writer is flailing around for more legislation. Good God! We are over come with legislation. The absurd and enraged suppression demanded by writers and responders on this subject makes my skin crawl.
We are the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to our attitudes about sex. Let innocence have its day. Repress with legislation when we can find excessive victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

porn 2.0 will figure itself out
Posted by: Joe on Jul 12, 2007 5:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
once again know it all liberals have the answers. their favorite word regulation popped up already. let it mature people. people aren't dumb and don't need you or the government's assistance.

this may be a surprise to some liberals but everyone is not a victim.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

impeachment
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]