eurobabeforum.com

In the Nonsense forum Caroline-NL started an interesting thread:
"USA also had a 16-years age minimum for porn, 3 decades ago".

I noticed that the thread has been locked by Mr_White.

What is going on here?

Can we discuss freely at EBI the different aspects of porn, or not?

should we discuss underage issues here ?
i suggest to go to sasha or nena threads for underage lookalikes
or is it to express the fetish of usa hatred again ?

I say Caroline should be at liberty to discuss sex and porn from a feminist, historical or legal viewpoint.

I agree but I respect White's decision. It's up to him.

I dont wanted to discuss it here, but you can read the article for yourself, thats all.

Although my own personal porn preference is for young looking 18 and 19 year olds (eg Sasha) laws are there for a good reason and the line of consent has to be drawn somewhere, so i agree with this thread being locked! X

... since I see no sense in discussing something that is - by actual laws - illegal, I locked that topic.

If a huge majority of users asks for this topic to be re-opened for discussion, I´ll gladly unlock it. Or I´ll open a topic about area 51 and about aliens stealing teenage female sluts. Or eventually even both.

D´Oh!


___

@ Xenomorgue: You asked: "Can we discuss freely at EBI the different aspects of porn, or not?"

Frankly spoken, at EBI you can freely discuss different aspects of (legal) porn. Yes and absolutely. But please understand that the locked topic was - in a way - informative, but also had some huge potential to point and aim at directions which are not wanted around here. All under-18-porn is considered child-pornography by law. None of the EBI folks wants to have anything to do with this kinda bullshit. I hope we are all clear about that one, right?

Thus understood, once again: Where is the sense in discussing something illegal?

Or I´ll open a topic about area 51

PLEASE!!

Or one about Bush being the best thing that ever happened to America and why in 2007/2008 Iraq will be a democracy, there will be world peace and Osama will be in jail.

no it was a smart move Mr White. you have my vote. no need to put our business in danger because of posters, especially with that topic.

Mr_White wrote:... aliens stealing teenage female sluts.

funny i was just buying up a new domain name teenageslutsfromouterspace.com

Mr_White wrote:Where is the sense in discussing something illegal ?

Would you lock a thread on Jack the Ripper? He committed gruesome acts of murder (illegal under UK law). Discussing Jack the Ripper might seem senseless to some, and others may claim that such a discussion may well incite similar acts of violence against women.

Would you lock a thread on Guantanamo Bay? The men who are being detained there are accused of being terrorists or enemy fighters. Hence their detention is legal under US law. Discussing Guantanamo must be pointless; in fact questioning the detention and the interrogation techniques can be perceived as helping the enemy (an act of treason).

Would you lock a thread on Sharia law? A 13 year old Somali girl was raped by four men. When she reported the rape to the police, she herself was charged with adultery (illegal under Sharia law) and executed by stoning. The incident was widely reported in the western media. At ADT there was a thread discussing the incident and questioning the legality of the sentence.

Xenomorgue wrote:Would you lock a thread on Jack the Ripper? He committed gruesome acts of murder (illegal under UK law). Discussing Jack the Ripper might seem senseless to some, and others may claim that such a discussion may well incite similar acts of violence against women.

Nope. Classic topic. Plus all people involved long gone. No harrasment at sight.

Xenomorgue wrote:Would you lock a thread on Guantanamo Bay? The men who are being detained there are accused of being terrorists or enemy fighters. Hence their detention is legal under US law. Discussing Guantanamo must be pointless; in fact questioning the detention and the interrogation techniques can be perceived as helping the enemy (an act of treason).

Nope. Classic topic. Will be a goner in a couple of month anyway. Ask Mr. Barrack.

Xenomorgue wrote:Would you lock a thread on Sharia law? A 13 year old Somali girl was raped by four men. When she reported the rape to the police, she herself was charged with adultery (illegal under Sharia law) and executed by stoning. The incident was widely reported in the western media. At ADT there was a thread discussing the incident and questioning the legality of the sentence.

Nope. Unless the discussing would become ridiculous.
And btw: If already at ADT all those topics can be freely discussed, what is the sense to also discuss them here?
I would say: no sense, unless ..... maybe ....... one is ...... for some reasons ....... not allowed to take part at ADT.

To end this with my LAST statement on this topic, I only posted it, because I was angry of the accusations the US government made to the NL, because we had a 16 year minimum age until 2002, thats all.
The US government wants to shroud the fact, that this was their own minimum age until late 1979.

I only posted this article, because 2 members asked about the background AND the "Economist" is surely a reliable and serious mag, or ?
( It isnt even sold unter the counter )

No, I was never blocked or thrown out of ADT, you can still find the thread, but because the thread is much more going into detail, even talking a lot about ( in the USA ) illegal material, I havent linked it.

"All under-18-porn is considered child-pornography by law."

But laws can be changed, they were changed and they will be changed. And if you read the article in detail, the statement of the "Economist" is 100% against childporn, made at a time, where this terrible stuff was still sold openly.

PS: I dont want to discuss this any further here. LOCKLOCKLOCK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A more general critic:

But this: "Thus understood, once again: Where is the sense in discussing something illegal?" is very opportunistic, or not, Mr. White ?
At first it isnt illegal, even under US laws, to TALK about law changes or laws of the past. If you dont talk about illegal things, or - vice versa - talk about legal things that should be illegal, slavery would still be legal in the USA.

I hope the new US president will dissolve this Guantanamo military camp. If the US citizens havent talked about this, if the press hasnt reported about this and other topics, nothing will change in the future.

It is important to distinguish between:

(A) All sorts of human activities, as they take place in the real world.
(B) The legal framework pertaining to these activities.
(C) The ongoing public discourse on human activities and their legality.

I provided three examples (Jack the Ripper, Guantanamo, Sharia law) where one can easily distinguish between (A), (B) and (C) and where the majority of people will agree that the discussion is beneficial or at least harmless, since it neither encourages further criminal activity nor undermines the law or the jucidial process.

Mr_White chooses to make an exception for Caroline-NL's thread. I am not sure why, I can't follow his reasoning.
It seems to Mr_White obfuscates the matter in order to justify his decision to censor this forum.

You do NOT have to be able to follow our reasoning. You are the only one who is having problems again. Caroline did understand.

Caroline considers Mr_White's arguments for locking the thread to be very opportunistic.

Caroline points out that in a free society one should be able to discuss both legal and illegal matters, as well as the applicable laws; otherwise change would become impossible and we would still be stuck with laws that permit slavery.

Caroline and I fully agree on these matters.