War on Porn's first Attack

[Taverner]

Red Rose Stories Closed by FBI
By Jayson Romaine
Friday, October 7, 2005

PITTSBURGH — Online erotic stories host Red Rose Stories announced on its site Friday that the FBI had forced it to shut down.
According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

According to Rosie, who runs the site, such topics have opened the door to her prosecution.

“Trust me on this. I found out the hard way. I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Rosie told XBiz via email. “I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room.”

Rosie said officials came to her house when she was not home and seized a number of items.

The men in black took all of my computer equipment and many of my diskettes, and have access to all my files and site information,” she wrote. “I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a dead site.”

Rosie said that chat services on the site, as well as some parts to its forum, would remain open, and suggested subscribers contact the Pittsburgh FBI office if they “want to ask the feds for a refund.”

As of this writing, calls by XBiz to the office were not returned.
<SNIP>

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10680

[RandomKoolzip]

1. I'm a big fan of porn, but if there was kiddie porn on their site.....

Let 'em burn in hell.

[Taverner]

2. Define Kiddie Porn

The article mentions that there were no photos whatsoever on the site - by this definition Nabaokov's Lolita would be obscenity.

[Shell Beau]

3. I think discussion about sex with children or anything in that

nature would qualify. At least to me. You don't want to create a safe haven for child molesters to go and chat!

[Taverner]

5. Well at what point do you draw the line?

Photos and videos can be prosecuted because actual children were harmed in the production of them.

However, do the same rules apply to fiction? If so, would Vladamir Nabaoov's classic "Lolita" be considered obscene because of it's content?

If the prosecution against this site sticks, than "Lolita" will be a banned book.

[Shell Beau]

7. I just don't see it as a positive thing to have potential

pedophiles having a place where they can discuss their fantasies. It is sick really.

[Taverner]

8. But once you set a legal precedent....

It carries over to all literature...

[philosophie_en_rose]

53. I'm all for cracking down on sex offenders.

But I don't think that banning a website will prevent them from discussing their fantasies amongst themselves.

To the contrary, I think that it's almost better to have these places, so that people that appear to be planning actual crimes can be reported. (I don't mean that in a 1984 way, but in a "there's a crime in progress" way.)

I'm not sure what goes on in these websites. O8) However, unless there is a causal connection between what happens on the site and an actual crime against a person - I don't see that banning websites has anything to do with decreasing child abuse.

[Zuni]

23. Literature that has some value is one thing

a forum for discussing kiddy-diddling fantasies is another

[JVS]

42. If literature needed value to be protected by the 1st amendment...

we could easily fit a copy of every legal book into one house

[Zuni]

46. I am talking about kiddie porn forums online

even if it is just "penthouse letters" stuff with no pics----I don't see why that is legal.

I am not talking about adult pornography of any type. Hell, I enjoy some porno myself. But pornographic discussion forums of kiddy diddling I think are abhorrent and cross the line into encouraging illegal, felonious behavior, which is not protected by free speech

[JVS]

51. I can make one very good practical argument for its existence aside from..

the first amendment.

If this is left legal, it would probably be easy for law enforcement to keep track of who tends to read a lot of it and keep an eye on them.

[Zuni]

52. good point

[khashka]

29. Shell Babe....

I don't know this site or what they were posting. But..... a few years back a woman was prosecuted for writing a story (less a story than a diary entry) of losing her virginity when she was 17..

Kiddie Porn!

Obviously she was underage.... but....


But it was about a young woman exploring her sexuality. Is that beyond the bounds of the pale. I say "no". It was an intimate and sensitive portrayal about a young woman exploring her desires and what resulted from that. Should that be prosecutable?


Theoretically, written descriptions of sex with children are protected. As are, thanks to the Supreme Court, virtual images of sex with children. If a real child isn't violated, does it count? I'm not sure.... a part of me says yes, a part says no. If no real child is harmed, is there harm? I don't know... but I know it makes me angry and sick.

I think we need to reevaluate our ideas of kiddie porn -the term implies small children, but isn't always legally used to mean that. Whe need to define terms.

My case - I had sex with a 17 year old young man. Was that abuse? He paid me for it. Did I abuse him? I also was once sent pics of infants being penetrated by older men (by accident, I assume - I figure it's because I've been openly and politically gay) - I turned over every pic to the local FBI and all info I had of where it might be e-mailed from. Result? Nothin'.


There are child predators out there. And every parent should know that and do everything to protect their kids. But there is no child porn commercially available anymore - except for the USPS.

(Think about that..... your tax money is going to distribute the only commercially available child porn? Do you feel good about that?)


I don't want to minize the sexual abuse of children - it's rampant and evil and wrong. But much less from shadowy sick people than one of their own parents.


And maybe I just made myself some enemies - so be it.


Khash.

[Shell Beau]

31. There is a fine line between what is considered

sexual abuse and not. Obviously a gal (or guy) losing their virginity and talking about is not abuse. I am more concerned with pedophiles discussing their sick perversions of what they have done or would like to do to an innocent, young, and unwilling child. It is hard to distinguish what that line is, but there is a point where the line is crossed and I don't want there to be a safe haven where sickos go and discuss their fantasies. How can we determine was is okay and what isn't? I haven't a clue. That is the tough part. I certainly don't want any innocent people getting in trouble for silly things. And kudos to you for turning over the baby porn. That is just SICK!!!!

[khashka]

38. I agree with you

But I think as a society we need to discuss it. I've seen cases where children where terribly hurt (why I quit my profession and chose (temporarily) poverty. (I couldn't listen to another child describe what Daddy did to them, dispassionately, no tears and then go home without murder in my soul.))

On the other hand I've also heard people in their twenties claim that in their early twenties they were "child molested". No, if you do it in your twenties and continue for years - that's not child molestation - just a bad relationship.

This is a serious topic and it needs discusssion, but right now no discussion is possible. Everyone has drwn lines in the sand.

(I had a "relationship" with an older man when I was 14. He refused to ever have sex with me - He didn't want to influence me, hurt me, whatever? Was that abusive? Probably not. Still.....)


I don't know what the answers are.... but I know there are questions we must address. Together. Not easy questions and not easy answers.

In the US, 18 is the age of consent. In England (I might be out of date) it's 14 for a lesbian relationship, 16 for a heterosexual relationship, 21 for a gay male relationship. Does this make any sense?

I don't know the answers, but I know we should be asking questions.....

(Little kids - no fuckin' way, EVER!!!!!! But teens (not my type at all) is much more difficult. At what age can a teen make a choice? Is that the same age for all? It's not personal - I date guys 10 to 20 years older. But we need to discuss this issue and we can't. Even by bringing up the age of consent I brand myself as a pedophile! Gerontophile, maybe :) All I want is an honest discussion.)

Khash,

[Shell Beau]

40. Plus all teens mature at a different rate.

It should be discussed. We as a society do need to discuss it. We should ask any and all questions just to get it all out there. The England consensual age differing for gay's and hetero's makes no sense to me at all! :shrug:

[RandomKoolzip]

4. I'm sure there were no Nabokovs dwelling on that site.

"Lolita" isn't strictly porn, it's literature with erotic overtones. The stuff on porn sites is porn.

[Taverner]

6. My point is there is no legal test for literature v porn

And as a result, if the charges against this site stick, than Lolita is not protected speech - and will be rendered obscene by the court.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. I'm not seeing a slippery slope here.

According to another poster I saw in GD, people were using the site's forum to pass kiddie porn pics to each other. If that's not prosecution-worthy, I don't know what is.

[Taverner]

11. Now THAT would be prosecution worthy

And I can fully get behind that

However, prosecuting merely on the text I have a problem with.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Ditto, ditto & ditto. (nt)

[Cats Against Frist]

37. What are the possibilities of getting a "legal test?"

that distinguish child erotica and Lolita -- just curious. I don't even know if it can be done, in a way that would be consistent. I've read the first 10 or so pages of Lolita, probably about 40 times -- they are so amazingly beautiful. And, isn't it obvious that there is a difference between Lolita, and still images of a grown human penetrating infants? Can we describe, in words, some of the differences?

[Beware the Beast Man]

22. I agree with you 100%, but that's the magic of loopholes.

Technically, no real-life children were abused or exploited in the making of those stories, but it's still way fucked up. It would be one thing if this was a regular porn site featuring stories portraying consenting adults- if that were the case, I would be much more up in arms. When you put children in the mix, whether it be fictional or otherwise, not so much.

[Zuni]

25. I agree

giving pedophiles a forum is almost consenting to their behavior by default

[Zuni]

24. I think any intelligent person can tell

when they are reading literature or reading some perverted kiddy-diddling sex fantasy

[Qibing Zero]

39. There we go again,

assuming the people in charge of these things are intelligent, or that somehow intelligent people will be able to hold them accountable for their unintelligent actions.

[Zuni]

47. I think one can tell the difference between literature, no matter how

terrible and disgusting and an online discussion board about porking little kids

[jmowreader]

56. Lolita has been banned about a million times already

[Texasgal]

10. Those bastards!

Why can't we just have our PORN and read it in peace??? :P


What's next? Our VIBRATORS??? JEEZ LOUISE! :P

[CanuckAmok]

15. sex toys ARE already illegal in some states.

I forget which states, but it's true.

[Shell Beau]

16. I think MS is one of those states. I could be wrong, but

I know there have been some busts on sex shops here.

[Texasgal]

20. Say it isn't so!!!

I mean... how in the hell can we have fun? :cry:

[youthere]

21. Do NOT say that...even in jest...

:scared:

[Texasgal]

27. Get a grip....

I am certainly in no way defending child pornography, nor bestiality, but HONESTLY if I wanted to read about an orgy or S&M I should have that right! The morality police are getting waaaay out of hand in my opinion.

But..really... did my post in ANYWAY seem to advocate child porn?

Give me a little more credit than that...please. :eyes:

[youthere]

32. I was talking about banning vibrators...

sorry...should have been more clear.

[Texasgal]

33. Oh.

Sorry for the shitty post then!!

:hi:

Your right... we can't "kid" about banning our sexual aids, it may come true one day! :)

Again...mea culpa on the post.

[youthere]

50. No problem...LOL..

My fault for not expressing enough horror at the idea! LOL!

[khashka]

54. Hate to break the news to you Texasgal

But in Texas, yes - vibrators and dildos.

Ownership is legal, dealing is not. If you own more than five (I've got lots more) then it's possession with intent to sell and it's ILLEGAL!

Khash.

[Mad_Dem_X]

12. Bestiality - whether written or shown

is DISGUSTING and WRONG. You can argue all you want about kid porn, but stuff that deals with animals should be prosecuted. Period. :grr:

[Shell Beau]

13. The same goes with kids but more so. Both are disgusting!

[Taverner]

14. So you are arguing that there is such a thing as an "illegal idea"

This is where Scalia and Thomas want to go....

[southlandshari]

35. Yikes!

I'm with you, Taverner. Thoughts can't be legislated nor regulated - no matter how ugly one person's thoughts and ideas may be to another.

Interesting thread, darlin'!

:hi:

[WCGreen]

17. The slippery slope is well lubed tonight.....

How much longer until the veils appear....

How much longer before rape is no longer prosecuted cause "she was askin' fer it"...

How much longer will the responsibilities of the individual be totally usurped by the government....

How much longer until the Handmaiden is no longer a tale, but a reality...

[Taverner]

19. Exactly!

The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, determined that there is no such thing as an "illegal idea." This is the crux of modern First Ammendment rights.

Kiddie porn could be determined illegal because it harmed the minors being filmed. Written porn, however, was not because it did not.

[Splatter Phoenix]

34. ThoughtCrime.

I can fantasize about whatever I want, but the instant I ACT on it and it's illegal, I've waived the right not to get punished.

This is not 1984, people. Thinking is not illegal.

[Shell Beau]

36. Thinking and writing are two different things.

Some things could possibly be perceived as a threat.

[Initech]

18. This proves it - our government is no better than the one we're fighting!

The Ameritaliban strikes again!

[Fox Mulder]

26. I can understand shutting down a site with beastiality/children porn...

but why shut it down for the other things???

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Two words:

Legal precedent.

[Initech]

41. I was thinking of two other words:

Slippery slope.

[TimeChaser]

48. "but why shut it down for the other things???"

Because those are seen as squicky fetishes to most people. Particularly scat and ws.

Frankly, if it's stories, I don't care what people write about.

[ChoralScholar]

43. If anyone wants to see for themselves

what was on the site...

You can go to:

http://web.archive.org

and plug in the home page:

http://www.red-rose-stories.com/redrose1.html

[tjdee]

44. Will they prosecute site visitors?

I'm wondering how far they'll go with this thing--because I think it sets an important precedent for any "dangerous" site.

Very interesting.

[ChoralScholar]

45. I dunno.. you aren't looking at the 'site' anyway.

You're just looking at a copy of a site retrieval that took place over a year ago.

But... who knows...

[gmoney]

49. Boy, I feel safer already...

:sarcasm:

[Akoto]

55. "The only legal sex stories are ..."

"... those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room."

Sounds like a Republican's idea of hardcore porn, alright. :P