Thread

XXXrated-groups (dutch site - quite good too)

Angus Scrimm, 02 May 2006 00:14:15

I've only visited it a couple of times, but it's pretty good, and you can still do a lot even without forking out any dough.
It covers the full spectrum of fetishes too, Necrobabes fans like myself will like it. I only mention it though cos it's all set-up so well, none of the constant pop-up adverts (that only in turn lead to more ads) that plague so many porn sites. It's nice and sensible. And it highlights just how 'sane' we all are... the message boards don't appear to have a real pyschos!

Though I aint a member of Necrobabes - I'm too stingy to cough up! And I've not visited it much since all this censorship shit kicked-off! The bastard Government kinda put me off......

I cant remember the exact address, but www.xxxratedgroups.org is a close approximation! You can find it through the 'Dark Sites' weblisting page too.

Actually I bet you are all already there.... I bet this yesterdays news.

:-)

Teddy, 02 May 2006 01:32:41

Although the Backlash campaign (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) is about the free rights of people to view this kind of stuff if they so wish, it might not be the most helpful thing for folks to be promoting their fav sites here?!

There is a good chance that we are being watched, if not by the pro-legislation lobby and the government, certainly by the Smartgroups moderators. Problems might range from having our discussion group closed, to us being discredited as a group who are just trading notes on "extreme" porn with each other. Maybe this is paranoia, maybe not...

Cheers,
T.

Author wrote:
> I've only visited it a couple of times, but it's pretty good, and you can still do a lot even without forking out any dough.
> It covers the full spectrum of fetishes too, Necrobabes fans like myself will like it. I only mention it though cos it's all set-up so well, none of the constant pop-up adverts (that only in turn lead to more ads) that plague so many porn sites. It's nice and sensible. And it highlights just how 'sane' we all are... the message boards don't appear to have a real pyschos!
> Though I aint a member of Necrobabes - I'm too stingy to cough up! And I've not visited it much since all this censorship shit kicked-off! The bastard Government kinda put me off......
> I cant remember the exact address, but www.xxxratedgroups.org is a close approximation! You can find it through the 'Dark Sites' weblisting page too.
> Actually I bet you are all already there.... I bet this yesterdays news.
> :-)

Angus Scrimm, 04 May 2006 00:17:51

Author wrote:
> Although the Backlash campaign (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) is about the free rights of people to view this kind of stuff if they so wish, it might not be the most helpful thing for folks to be promoting their fav sites here?!
> There is a good chance that we are being watched, if not by the pro-legislation lobby and the government, certainly by the Smartgroups moderators. Problems might range from having our discussion group closed, to us being discredited as a group who are just trading notes on "extreme" porn with each other. Maybe this is paranoia, maybe not...
> Cheers,
> T.

Well, that's wasn't the intention really, I only mentioned xxxratedgroups in person, as it IMO highlights the fact 'extreme porn viewers' are not all raving nutters, just normal people with, albiet, unusual desires!

The government will doubtless have been doing thier homework also on this subject for quite some time, so I would imagine the names of any individual websites would be just yesterdays news to them.... they will most probably know them all!

But, point taken, I'll shall try and avoid anything that may sound like 'advertisting' in future!

Cheers

Teddy, 04 May 2006 01:43:31

Hi Angus,

I haven't seen the site myself, but it certainly sounds like the sort which might land you in the Beyer/Goggins/Salter concentration camp for 3 years! Any sign of these "real-time rape" videos and "females suspended from meat hooks" images? If these are REAL it is only right the PRODUCERS should be prosecuted; if they are fiction and reasonably obviously so, the HO should just fucking grow-up IMO...

Teddy.

p.s. I don't usually swear...

> Well, that's wasn't the intention really, I only mentioned xxxratedgroups in person, as it IMO highlights the fact 'extreme porn viewers' are not all raving nutters, just normal people with, albiet, unusual desires!
> The government will doubtless have been doing thier homework also on this subject for quite some time, so I would imagine the names of any individual websites would be just yesterdays news to them.... they will most probably know them all!
> But, point taken, I'll shall try and avoid anything that may sound like 'advertisting' in future!
> Cheers

Angus Scrimm, 05 May 2006 02:09:43

Author wrote:
> Hi Angus,
> I haven't seen the site myself, but it certainly sounds like the sort which might land you in the Beyer/Goggins/Salter concentration camp for 3 years! Any sign of these "real-time rape" videos and "females suspended from meat hooks" images? If these are REAL it is only right the PRODUCERS should be prosecuted; if they are fiction and reasonably obviously so, the HO should just fucking grow-up IMO...
> Teddy.
> p.s. I don't usually swear...

Hi Teddy,

All the still photos I have seen on it on it was beyond any doubt just actors performing or photo-manips. All video clips are either from little known horror films, or specialist made ones (using consenting actors) made by certain popular 'erotic horror' websites. There may not be any REAL rapings or pillages, but some people may have issues with copyright! But that is the nature of this beast, it is like most groups, constructed from the input of indviduals - not easy to regulate!

Also all the groups within it are self-moderated (for what it is worth) and expressly decree FANTASY ONLY, and IF EASILY OFFENDED... STAY AWAY in very large letters!

But still, the Beyer/Goggins/Salter concentration camp, would not care wether such images are real or not! They appear to want to tar all with the same brush!

Hence I have stayed away from such sites over the past few months, excepting the very occasional checking of the message boards on them!

And no material from them is stored on my hard drive!

Sensible as this new legislation will be all about possession! Unless of course the extremists wish to extend it even to THINKING about logging on to such sites!!!!

fobix, 05 May 2006 02:22:45

Angus Scrimm, 05 May 2006 02:41:56

> Sorry, I may have gotten the context wrong here, but what's wrong with people being suspended from meat hooks for real (or in simulation)?
> Phoebe with piercing-suspension-is-really-hot hat on.

Wouldn't fancy it for real Phoebe! YEEEOUCH! But harmless 'role play using meat hook alternatives' (catchy!) could be fun!

:-)

Teddy, 05 May 2006 02:51:44

Not sure...but I thought that it was mentioned in the consultation document? I presume our rulers from the HO are talking about depictions of corpses being hung-up like meat?

T.

Author wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 02:05:01 +0100 (BST)
> saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Author wrote:

> Sorry, I may have gotten the context wrong here, but what's wrong with people being suspended from meat hooks for real (or in simulation)?
> Phoebe with piercing-suspension-is-really-hot hat on.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFEWqf+1vzgRTK71/IRAiNNAJwOST7lB+NPFvwsg5a2vsnHQFZpdgCgz1Na
> YpfDQ2fKNd8+Ndb0cUmR1SY=
> =/42+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 10:19:31

rosalee, 05 May 2006 11:58:14

It comes down to them attempting to censor desire on the grounds of taste.

Ginny

-----Original Message-----

demolitionred@yahoo.com [mailto:demolitionred@yahoo.com], 05 May 2006 11:58:14

Sent: 05 May 2006 10:15

Yes it was.

Which was bizarre timing as on the eve of the publication there was ascene
featuring two women who had been tortured and left hanging on a meat hook on
the bank holiday detective series.

The problem here is the pornographic test.

Empress stah can do it cos its entertainment as can Channel 4 and ITV.

But we souldn't look at it if the intent of the producer was manufacturer
was to produce porn....

This appears to eb where the Home Office have drawn the battle lines.

Awaitingh confirmation, have people got suggestions on our plan of attck, on
how we persuade them, ministers and the general public why this has to be
prevented?

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4693

zak, 05 May 2006 19:42:25

Original Message:
-----------------

Phoebe Tunstall foibey@gmail.com, 05 May 2006 19:42:25

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 5 May 2006 02:05:01 +0100 (BST)
saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > Hi Angus,
> > I haven't seen the site myself, but it certainly sounds like the sort
which might land you in the Beyer/Goggins/Salter concentration camp for 3
years! Any sign of these "real-time rape" videos and "females suspended
from meat hooks" images?

Sorry, I may have gotten the context wrong here, but what's wrong with
people being suspended from meat hooks for real (or in simulation)?

Phoebe with piercing-suspension-is-really-hot hat on.

Nothin g, that I can see, so long as the hooks were sterile before they
were put through the skin.
Oh, and if anyone would like a nice image of two or three women hung upside
down from meat hooks, I have plenty, in hard copies, of an artistic shot at
which I assisted (and published) a couple of years ago. All models remain
alive and well and found the experience very entertaining.

Z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

zak, 05 May 2006 19:50:47

Original Message:
-----------------

demolitionred@yahoo.com, 05 May 2006 19:50:47

Teddy wrote:
> Not sure...but I thought that it was mentioned in the consultation
document? I presume our rulers from the HO are talking about depictions of
corpses being hung-up like meat?
> T.

Yes it was.

Which was bizarre timing as on the eve of the publication there was ascene
featuring two women who had been tortured and left hanging on a meat hook
on the bank holiday detective series.

The problem here is the pornographic test.

Empress stah can do it cos its entertainment as can Channel 4 and ITV.

But we souldn't look at it if the intent of the producer was manufacturer
was to produce porn....

This appears to eb where the Home Office have drawn the battle lines.

Awaitingh confirmation, have people got suggestions on our plan of attck,
on how we persuade them, ministers and the general public why this has to
be prevented?

Well, we can try to explain, in words of one syllable, yet again that
anyone who is sexually aroused by hanging on meat hooks would be wanking
themselves silly in front of said drama sequence/various medieval
paintings/an Amnesty International campaign while people who don't find
*that* stuff sexy would be left unmoved by any such image whether you affix
a label (to the same image) saying "Ban This Filth", "Help Us Stamp Out
Torture" or "Hot Sexy Hanging Action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 22:26:45

Who to? and how? Not many people are listening to us right now. I think we need to find more chat rooms, sites etc to poublicise the campaign on at the very least...

Angus Scrimm, 06 May 2006 01:39:32

Author wrote:
> Who to? and how? Not many people are listening to us right now. I think we need to find more chat rooms, sites etc to poublicise the campaign on at the very least...

Well, there are indeed such message boards on the sites I mentioned in the first. Indeed, it is from one of these I learned about 'Backlash' myself!

Trouble is, we could be just preaching to the already converted on such sites, but certainly awareness of our cause could still be widened!

Alan, 07 May 2006 16:55:29

It occurrs to me that the primary goal of the HO is already coming to pass IE that of chilling the whole extreme porn scene in the UK. Just why do these HO reaks get off on suppressing other people's sexual interests. It used to be gays and now they can't persecute them anymore its people like us who are in their sights

It also ocurrs to me that trying to ban stuff freely available in other EU states might be incompatible with free trade laws?

Re the HO, cops etc keeping tabs on us "pervs" Probably yes they are but I am not going to destroy my collection. If it came to the crunch I'd fight the CPS all the way to Strasborg and damn the cost to the tax payer. I refuse to be f*cked over by goggs and co. This whole vicious proposal just has to be fought tooth and nail or eventually they'll be criminalising anything not passed by the BBFC because that is their real objective and that was blabbed out by some MP or other at the start of all this crap.

Al feeling more angry every day that passes!

Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: demolitionred@yahoo.com, 07 May 2006 16:55:29

> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: XXXrated-groups (dutch site - quite good too)
> Teddy wrote:
> > Not sure...but I thought that it was mentioned in the consultation
> document? I presume our rulers from the HO are talking about depictions of
> corpses being hung-up like meat?
> > T.
> Yes it was.
> Which was bizarre timing as on the eve of the publication there was ascene
> featuring two women who had been tortured and left hanging on a meat hook
> on the bank holiday detective series.
> The problem here is the pornographic test.
> Empress stah can do it cos its entertainment as can Channel 4 and ITV.
> But we souldn't look at it if the intent of the producer was manufacturer
> was to produce porn....
> This appears to eb where the Home Office have drawn the battle lines.
> Awaitingh confirmation, have people got suggestions on our plan of attck,
> on how we persuade them, ministers and the general public why this has to
> be prevented?
> Well, we can try to explain, in words of one syllable, yet again that
> anyone who is sexually aroused by hanging on meat hooks would be wanking
> themselves silly in front of said drama sequence/various medieval
> paintings/an Amnesty International campaign while people who don't find
> *that* stuff sexy would be left unmoved by any such image whether you affix
> a label (to the same image) saying "Ban This Filth", "Help Us Stamp Out
> Torture" or "Hot Sexy Hanging Action.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

Teddy, 07 May 2006 23:16:41

Thoughts interdispersed...

Author wrote:
> It occurrs to me that the primary goal of the HO is already coming to pass IE that of chilling the whole extreme porn scene in the UK. Just why do these HO reaks get off on suppressing other people's sexual interests.

I think you might well be right. Whether this "chilling off" will protect folks from retrospective prosecution, we will see...

> It also ocurrs to me that trying to ban stuff freely available in other EU states might be incompatible with free trade laws?

The material in question is already illegal to publish and distribute in the UK, which are probably more pertinent issues where free trade laws are concerned. You could argue that the OPA is ALREADY out of step here...

> Re the HO, cops etc keeping tabs on us "pervs" Probably yes they are but I am not going to destroy my collection. If it came to the crunch I'd fight the CPS all the way to Strasborg and damn the cost to the tax payer. I refuse to be f*cked over by goggs and co. This whole vicious proposal just has to be fought tooth and nail or eventually they'll be criminalising anything not passed by the BBFC because that is their real objective and that was blabbed out by some MP or other at the start of all this crap.

Did you ever write to Gormless in the end? This twit certainly hasn't replied to my letter. I agree that a very wide "rubicon" will be crossed by legislation such as this, and even more oppresive and tendentious restrictions could easily follow...Strasbourg, are you ready for all this?!

> Al feeling more angry every day that passes!

Keep hope alive; there are others who share your concerns on this.

T.

Paul Tavener, 11 May 2006 18:56:39

Author wrote:

> I think you might well be right. Whether this "chilling off" will protect folks from retrospective prosecution, we will see...

I am reasonably certain that retrospective prosecution is explicitly prohibited under the Human Rights Act. It would not be possible for them to change the law and then prosecute people for activities which were legal at the time.

Of course if you are still in possession of extreme material after the law was changed then that would be a different story.

Angus Scrimm, 11 May 2006 20:04:53

Right on Teddy and Paul!

Goggins can shove his Christian prejudices up his christian arse!

Why should we stop visiting any sites which are still legal at the moment? Just visiting the site doesn't mean you have to download anything (apart from all the crap that automatically goes in the Temporary Internet Folder) and anyway, I like checking out the messages boards just a much as anything else! Though I suppose Goggins would consider even message boards 'pornographic'.

And it wont stop with extreme porn. After Goggins destroys extreme porn in the UK (a big 'if' that), he will move on to ALL porn - even the Sunday Sport will be rendered illegal, even good old Page 3's in the Sun! Then ALL films with even any even remotely violent scenes in them..... then all computer games as they are mostly violent!

Very soon the only legal thing in this country will be the bible!

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > I think you might well be right. Whether this "chilling off" will protect folks from retrospective prosecution, we will see...
> I am reasonably certain that retrospective prosecution is explicitly prohibited under the Human Rights Act. It would not be possible for them to change the law and then prosecute people for activities which were legal at the time.
> Of course if you are still in possession of extreme material after the law was changed then that would be a different story.

Teddy, 12 May 2006 01:23:04

Article 7 of the ECHR, I believe. Not a convention, as a whole, which the proposals have much regard for; but I agree that such a thing would be as difficult legally as it would be egregious morally.

T.

> I am reasonably certain that retrospective prosecution is explicitly prohibited under the Human Rights Act. It would not be possible for them to change the law and then prosecute people for activities which were legal at the time.
> Of course if you are still in possession of extreme material after the law was changed then that would be a different story.

Marie Harrington, 12 May 2006 02:24:33

I think it kind of misses the point too. The campaign is about your freedom to view what you want to view. Legally. The fact that the site is hosted abroad, or that material criminalised by the bill could well still be available from foreign sites is irrelevant. You will be committing an offence if you access the site if these proposals go through. It doesn't matter where the site is hosted from.

The campaign is about that, not about ways to access stuff that's been criminalised, or that sites may continue to exist (although the closure of sites is an important issue). The technical availibility of the material is not the main point, your legal rights and freedoms are.

:Best wishes, Romola

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Teddy, 12 May 2006 02:34:33

I totally agree with you, Romola; the proposals are to be unequivocally opposed by those who value freedom and privacy.

But it is understandable that there will be those whose minds are wandering towards what the situation will be IF the legislation gets through to become law.

T

Author wrote:
> I think it kind of misses the point too. The campaign is about your freedom to view what you want to view. Legally. The fact that the site is hosted abroad, or that material criminalised by the bill could well still be available from foreign sites is irrelevant. You will be committing an offence if you access the site if these proposals go through. It doesn't matter where the site is hosted from.
> The campaign is about that, not about ways to access stuff that's been criminalised, or that sites may continue to exist (although the closure of sites is an important issue). The technical availibility of the material is not the main point, your legal rights and freedoms are.
> :Best wishes, Romola
> ---------------------------------
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

fobix, 15 May 2006 17:20:21

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 5 May 2006 02:37:17 +0100 (BST)
saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:

> Wouldn't fancy it for real Phoebe! YEEEOUCH! But harmless 'role play using meat hook alternatives' (catchy!) could be fun!

and Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>Not sure...but I thought that it was mentioned in the >consultation document? I presume our rulers from the HO are >alking about depictions of corpses being hung-up like meat?

There are a fair number of piercing performance groups who suspend people by real hooks in the skin for live shows. They showed a number of them a couple of weeks ago including some British groups in a Channel 4 art documentary. It's not unimaginable that someone might want to put a bit of a morbid slant on the imagery involved (using makeup, etc) and then release images of it. To be honest I don't see why that would be a problem (other than bothering people who get squeamish about blood being shed, who frankly don't need to look at it).

I'm just saying that it's not inconceivable that such images exist, and even if they do they shouldn't really make any difference. I'd wager that anyone involved in anything involving real flesh hooks is going to be a piercing enthusiast who'd be doing it with or without being paid to do appear in porn.

Phoebe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEWrRh1vzgRTK71/IRAlUcAKCWWzxmyySNBaox4+zCgLzyj/YntgCgzk3B
+y2vpFxxn2lMgaL6xOiOWIc=
=L/rf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Angus Scrimm, 16 May 2006 03:00:27

And not only that phoebe, but seasoned practitioners of this hook suspension are damned good at doing it safely too, even with real peircings!

Wouldn't quite fancy real meat hook treatment myself, but simulated (using harnesses etc - then subject to a bit of photo-manipping to make it look more real) I'd be OK with.

Regardless of whether or not I'd fancy it, it SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL!!!!!!

rosalee, 16 May 2006 13:20:05

Exactly. It's not so much the images that they have a problem with, but
their context and the fact that some people are getting off on them. If
they get their way, we may end up with a situation where more people are
turning to scenes of real torture eg Amnesty posters, to get their kicks
because the porn images that involve consenting models are illegal to
possess.

I'd just add that I don't personally have a problem with someone wanking
over an Amnesty poster. I think it's irrelevant. They're not influencing
or altering anything. That poster is in existence anyway to serve its
intended purpose.

Ginny

-----Original Message-----

missdemeanour@mail.free-online.net, 16 May 2006 13:20:05

[mailto:missdemeanour@mail.free-online.net] On Behalf Of
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
Sent: 05 May 2006 19:46

Well, we can try to explain, in words of one syllable, yet again that
anyone who is sexually aroused by hanging on meat hooks would be wanking
themselves silly in front of said drama sequence/various medieval
paintings/an Amnesty International campaign while people who don't find
*that* stuff sexy would be left unmoved by any such image whether you affix
a label (to the same image) saying "Ban This Filth", "Help Us Stamp Out
Torture" or "Hot Sexy Hanging Action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4706

Graham Marsden, 16 May 2006 13:31:03

Hi there,

zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:

> Oh, and if anyone would like a nice image of two or three women hung upside
> down from meat hooks, I have plenty, in hard copies, of an artistic shot at
> which I assisted (and published) a couple of years ago. All models remain
> alive and well and found the experience very entertaining.

I've also seen several pics of Indian Fakirs hanging from hooks through
the skin on their backs, but, of course, they're not "erotic" (well, not
from my POV!)

Cheers,
Graham.

Angus Scrimm, 16 May 2006 22:12:46

Interestingly enough, I had a good old mooch through load of relevant message boards last night... spent hours reading through them, and no-one mentions the subject of our despotic government trying to ban possession of extreme porn! Surely there not all non-UK residents on those boards - or do they not even know what is going on right under their noses?!!!!

A good poke in the ear with a phallic symbol is needed to wake em all up!

Roel, 16 May 2006 22:35:15

saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:

> Interestingly enough, I had a good old mooch through load of relevant
> message boards last night... spent hours reading through them, and
> no-one mentions the subject of our despotic government trying to ban
> possession of extreme porn! Surely there not all non-UK residents on
> those boards - or do they not even know what is going on right under
> their noses?!!!!

And even if they were all non-UK residents they should know what's going
on. If this gets through in the UK, it is not unlikely other countries
will follow.

Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)

Angus Scrimm, 18 May 2006 01:02:55

Author wrote:
> saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Interestingly enough, I had a good old mooch through load of relevant
> > message boards last night... spent hours reading through them, and
> > no-one mentions the subject of our despotic government trying to ban
> > possession of extreme porn! Surely there not all non-UK residents on
> > those boards - or do they not even know what is going on right under
> > their noses?!!!!
> And even if they were all non-UK residents they should know what's going
> on. If this gets through in the UK, it is not unlikely other countries
> will follow.
> Roel
> --
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)

Indeed. And as far as I know Canada is not exactly a porn friendly country.... also quite a few US States have cracked down too, judging by the warnings issued on some sites!

Teddy, 18 May 2006 01:15:49

Canada had the case of "Dr Don" a few years ago, whose site featuring fictional special-effects of people being shot offended a few sensibilities, apparently. Maybe the establishment over there hadn't been to the cinema or switched on the TV lately...

T.

> Indeed. And as far as I know Canada is not exactly a porn friendly country.... also quite a few US States have cracked down too, judging by the warnings issued on some sites!

Amelie, 18 May 2006 09:56:53

I was quite shocked yesterday by my first viewing of A Clockwork Orange.
Surely some of those scenes were far worse than anything we produce!

If they are legal, gang rape, murder and total delight in acting
sociopathically, I can't see what the problem is!

----- Original Message -----

, 18 May 2006 09:56:53

To:
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:10 AM

> Canada had the case of "Dr Don" a few years ago, whose site featuring
> fictional special-effects of people being shot offended a few
> sensibilities, apparently. Maybe the establishment over there hadn't been
> to the cinema or switched on the TV lately...
>
> T.
>
>> Indeed. And as far as I know Canada is not exactly a porn friendly
>> country.... also quite a few US States have cracked down too, judging by
>> the warnings issued on some sites!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4808
>
>

Angus Scrimm, 18 May 2006 18:43:15

There is one difference between Dr Don's depictions of shootings and Hollywood's depictions of shootings - and that's the amount of clothing involved!

Nothing like a mix of flesh and violence to get the anti-porn fascists jumping up and down in their cages is there?

Oh, there is a second difference too, the major film producers are often very influential and financially powerful, so could have easily urinated all over the Canadian goverment.... but Dr Don is just a small, private enterprise..... an easy target for big cowards to lash out at!