owes a debt of gratitude to people like Hefner, Goldstien and Flynt...

I like this:

As Jimmy Breslin once said, there are four people in the past 35 years who have effectively protected the First Amendment rights of reporters who bring the news to you: Al Goldstein, Ralph Ginzburg, Lenny Bruce, and Larry Flynt. "I know you don't want to meet them," Breslin said, "but you owe them."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-edison/sex-magazines_b_1130693.html#s521770&title=Larry_Flynt_and

I've become firmly convinced, the vast majority of those opposed to porn, either from the left or the right, have just got sexual hangups. Sure they'll deny it, hiding behind any number of rationalizations...but why else would they care what consenting adults do or view behind closed doors?

Like, when porn was verboten but lynchings were wholesome entertinment.

The whole narrative is predicated upon the idea that "ooooh, things are sooo awful now, and getting WORSE!" except, theyre not.

Stupid, clearly misogynist slurs against the likes of Hillary Clinton are taken, totally without evidence, as evidence of the deleterious effects of "pornification".. Because, you know, all those many times that women were serious presidential contenders in the 1950s, (back when FILTH was CENSORED as it SHOULD BEEEEEEEE!!!!!!) or Secretary of State, you know, that never happened.

...


Meanwhile, society gets more progressive by every social yardstick. And violent crime is down. Free communication, including widespread availability of consenting adult erotica on the internet, hasn't led to the collapse of civilization or anything else- much to the chagrin of the bawling censorship babies, banging their plastic spoons on their high chairs, and shrieking into their porridge over their complete inability to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

Guess which juror I was?

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:53 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

And along with the hand wringing, there is pining for "the good old days"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=1504

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/? com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This pic was used by some DUers to ridicule and belittle other DUers during the primaries before the 2008 election. At that time, it was alerted on and often hidden, due to the nastiness, since some would like to keep such ugly behavior aimed at conservatives and republicans, and restrict such behavior when its intended to slam DUers. I am alerting in the hope that that spirit of reserving such levels of hostility for people who aren't fellow DUers.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:05 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Yaaayyyy! I get to adjudicate a porn patrol alert. I couldn't agree more with the post and less with the alert. Guess who this is? Hint - he has you all on ignore. Bwahahahaha
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Frivolous alert, and I believe the alert had more to do with Warren's post than the picture.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well written post, I like it. Use of crying baby picture is not nasty or OTT.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

and I seriously doubt the pic was the real reason for the alert. I believe jurors #1 and 3 are much closer to the truth.

I'm a woman, and completely agree with Warren's post.

to ridicule anyone.

but, whatever. Obviously, it wasn't the specific picture that bothered the alerter, but the content of the post. A little intellectual honesty would be nice.

Whatever indeed.

Okay, well done, Kojak.

If you REALLY want to prove me wrong, get cracking on finding the posts on DU where that photo was used to ridicule people for... what, I don't remember.

But either way, the logic of the alert is like this:

Say someone used this image to make fun of someone once, here, and the post was hidden:



So therefore ANY post using that image to say anything, about anything, should ALSO be hidden.

It's faulty logic, but then, that never seems to stop some people.

And now, that post can't be hidden by a better-crafted alert. Oh, well.

I don't care if it's hidden or not.

Just pointing out how often some folks insist they are right when they don't have the first clue what they are talking about.

the group or the spirit of the SOP, by, for instance, minimizing a group member's experiences, devaluing their contributions by implying they have a limited knowledge base pertaining to a subject, or otherwise engaging in confrontational behavior with group members, you can and will be blocked from the group.

Consider this your warning.

I made my point. If you feel you have one to make in return, go for it.

As long as we are into nit picking.

I suspect that will apply until i'm dead, when I dont think I will care at all.

And simultaneously less progressive by every economic yardstick.

I agree with your basic point, only controversial speech needs protection.

Although Jon Stewart can say the "F" word, he can't tell you what the private contractors operating in drone bases on US soil are doing.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/64-drone-bases-on-us-soil/

I think that making everything transactional has done great harm, and I think it's easy to make the case that porn attempts to do exactly that, in a macro economic sense, to intimacy.

I guess my thing is "no logo", including on sex. Porn bugs me for this reason. Commoditization of that which shouldn't be a commodity.

I think increasingly concentrated corporate ownership of certain things (like mass media outlets, for one, or banks) is unequivocally a bad thing. However, I do think ground-up communication has become, conversely, more democratized and free via things like the internet.

There are several trends playing out, many at cross purposes. Interesting times.

There was also a cultural revolution. The book burners weren't just suppressing porn. They were suppressing music, literature, art, and ideas. Porn just happened to be the book burners primary target.

Much to the chagrin of folks who claim to believe in freedom but like to qualify it with "but but but"

I took a look at what might have prompted you to start this thread, and I noticed her pics weren't posted and all the other ones at the OP's link were (all supposed examples of the "pornification" of politics, whatever the hell that means, sounds RW to me))..hmm..I'll rectify the situation:

Ah, Obama girl.

maybe I need to rethink my "trendy, viral pop culture phenom? Fucking ignore" reflex.

That said, that's a nice shot.

So far this thread has survived 9 juries. Can we make it 10?

What's wrong with this thread?
Leave it alone and it will sink out of sight soon enough.

Wow.

Wow. Some people need to get a life.

Just sayin'

that's two data points. More than enough to draw a conclusive trend line!

And I love everyone! Everyone!