If DU reached a larger audience, would we be shut down...?

[kentuck]

and half of us incarcerated, for sedition against the government? Free speech is a practice best talked about but not really practiced. Just another paranoid thought running through my "unpatriotic" brain...

[NorCalDem]

1. We'd all at least be in a file somewhere

the moderators would be f**ked ;)

[Seabiscuit]

27. I suspect we've all been in a file somewhere for a long time now.

The file keepers just haven't decided what to do with us yet. I mean, where are they going to incarcerate well over 60K people???

[NMDemDist2]

28. ooops!

:scared:

:hide:

:yoiks:









:rofl:

[dajoki]

48. we are on file

WP article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18protest.html?th&emc=th

[garthranzz]

2. We'd be Limbaughed and Bushwhacked

That is, treated like Kerry - have our own Swift Boat Liars, etc.

[WhiteTara]

5. glad you're not afraid and

welcome to DU garthranzz :hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

19. We already do, there is a site out there created to bash this one

I can't post the name of the site, because it's against the rules, but if you are curious shoot me a PM.

[garthranzz]

34. Um, what's a PM

:blush: Other than a post-mortem? And I think I know the site, though I haven't visited it. No need to - the MSM (i.e., Limbaugh :sarcasm:) lets me know what the Newspeakers think.

[bliss_eternal]

44. From one that knows the name of the site--

have they no original thoughts or ideas? You'd think they could find a name of their own...

:eyes:

[mikelewis]

3. Fuck em

Free speech is also a right so fuck em, let em throw me in jail.

[mongo]

14. Want to come work for me?

I can be arrested any day of the week for the heinous crime of selling a movie - any of the 1700 movies in my inventory.

[mikelewis]

16. What you selling? kiddie porn?

[mongo]

37. Uh - NO

any explicit movie is illegal under federal law and in 40 states.

[mikelewis]

43. What sort of movies are you selling?

[mongo]

45. Just your average vanilla porn, mostly

Under federal and Ohio law, I can be arrested for ANY movie with explcit sex - it would then be up to a jury (and a very expensive trial for both me and the county) to decide if the movie were in fact, "obscene".

[mikelewis]

46. Seriously? I can drive down the street and buy explicit sex...

at about 10 different sex stores. I'm from cleveland though. We live by our own set of corrupt hedonistic rules. Our motto is "Fuck Columbus and pass the bong". We have hookers and drug dealers not a five minute drive from anywhere in the city. A nudie film is small potatoes around here.

[mongo]

47. yep

Try opening an adult store in Cincinatti - see how long it takes them to come after you.

Most places don't consider it worth their time. It's expensive for a county, they have to hire "expert" witness's, etc. It also makes them look like a bunch of prudes to the general public. But Cinci has a task force just to fight the adult stores. Of course, it is totally a crapshoot as to which side will win over a jury.

But here's the law:

§ 2907.32. Pandering obscenity.

(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following:

(1) Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material, when the offender knows that the material is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly disseminated or displayed, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;

(2) Promote or advertise for sale, delivery, or dissemination; sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide, any obscene material;

(3) Create, direct, or produce an obscene performance, when the offender knows that it is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly presented, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;

(4) Advertise or promote an obscene performance for presentation, or present or participate in presenting an obscene performance, when the performance is presented publicly, or when admission is charged;

(5) Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material with purpose to violate division (A)(2) or (4) of this section.

(B) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section, that the material or performance involved was disseminated or presented for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of pandering obscenity, a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section or of section 2907.31 of the Revised Code, then pandering obscenity is a felony of the fourth degree.

HISTORY: 134 v H 511 (Eff 1-1-74); 142 v H 51 (Eff 3-17-89); 146 v S 2. Eff 7-1-96.

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

If you drill back to the definitions of 2907, you will find obscenity defined as just about anything from hustler magazine to the most nasty porno tape you can find.

Of course, it is perfectly legal for you to own. It is only illegal for me to sell it to you.

[youspeakmylanguage]

50. It doesn't just apply to porn...

There are literally thousands of laws across the country, still on the books, that could hamper the lives of ordinary citizens if enforced by the police, DA's and politicians. It's up to those people to determine which laws are enforced and when. That's how Giuliani cleaned up Time Square - by enforcing laws that were already on the books in regards to Adult businesses.

Most politicians, if they have an ounce of sense in their heads, know that people enjoy porn, even if they refuse to admit it publicly (which includes so-called enlightened progressives and DUers). This includes many so-called fundies and (to a much lesser extent) the feminists that rant and rave about it. Therefore obscenity laws are rarely enforced, even if a DA could easily get a jury of little old ladies to deem "Knockin' That Ass #15" obscene in their community. There would be an underground backlash and the politicians know it, even if they don't like it. They would be voted out of office in a heartbeat, even by the same people that may applaud their efforts publicly.

On the same token, though, the community at large wants their porn hidden. That's why Giuliani got away with what he did - people wanted Times Square cleaned up. That's also why it's so huge on the Internet - people (think) they have a completely anonymous outlet to live out their craziest fantasies.

The status quo will go on - the porn will remain in the shadows and in the outskirts and industrial parts of town, while the fundies and feminists continue to rant against it fruitlessly.

[mongo]

52. Nice post

And right on track.

even if a DA could easily get a jury of little old ladies to deem "Knockin' That Ass #15" obscene in their community.

Actually, my first ammendment lawyer says that blue collar little old ladies make favorable jurors to the defense on obscenity cases. They have been around the block, as it were, and look down on government intrusion into private life.

It's the upstanding business owner that is a bad juror. Even if he comes into the store every Saturday night...

[youspeakmylanguage]

53. It's sad...

...that even on a progressive and "enlightened" message board such as DU you and I have to keep coming back and making the same points over and over again. I'm getting tired of it, myself. The latest episode was the "Hot Coffee" BS surrounding the "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" video game.

There are people, even here, who would support gutting the first amendment just to placate their own irrational fears and deep-seated prejudices and hang-ups.

[peacefreak]

23. I feel the same way.

I'm a bookseller & I told someone yesterday that I stand by the First Ammendment every single day I work. (see sig. line)

[tmooses]

4. I always feel like I'm on some "suspicious persons" list, but I really

DGAF.

[havocmom]

6. Larger audience? The whole world can check in any ol time

Well, maybe not viewers in China or North Korea.

Rest assured, many folks keep watch on us. Ever google your screen name? AND those hits don't include official law enforcement

Say good-night, Agent Mike :hi:

[applegrove]

7. I think most of the groups on the ACLU list had at least one crime

comitted by them in the past.

Clad we are moderated.

[bliss_eternal]

8. When watching Biography

I sometimes crack up at how many people that were the early 'activists' in our country were thought of as 'anti-government.'

A few of these (including an actress named Bea Richardson) had a pathetic, little file kept on her activities, which consisted mostly of performances consisting of her own poetry, dramatic readings, and some civil rights activities, like marches, etc.

Her 'file' was a few letters profiling her events. Not much else.

Can't say that I would trust this bunch to not have a more substantial tracking process...

[pretzel4gore]

12. the 'Duty of Civil Disobedience'

is one of the signal political essays from US political history...henry david thoreau saw officialdom and bureaucrats as intrinsicly untrustworthy; that was w/out factoring in power hungry politicians directing them in secret!

[expatriot]

9. We'd be added to the conservative list of liberal boogeymen

Moveon, ACLU, etc.

[TwilightZone]

10. Define "larger".

DU's audience is larger than you may think. The number of registered members who post is a much, much smaller figure than the total audience. A lot of people browse it often and rarely (or never) post.

[kentuck]

13. By "larger", I mean...

large enough to impact the poll numbers of those in the White House or to have a major influence on the electoral process. At least, if they thought DU was that influential, they would come after us, I do not doubt. At this time, they might think we are a small, inconsequential group of leftists and conspiracists sometimes mentioned by Limbaugh and a few other right-wing voices...but not influential, in their opinion... in my opinion...:)

[mikelewis]

17. Actually, IMO we are the future of democracy...

With the power of the internet, centralized government really is passe. There's no reason every person can't simply log on and voice thier opinion or cast a vote for an issue. Senators and President's could eventually be lobbying us for thier bills to get passed. Look how powerful "Bloggers" have become. They have brought down Dan Rather and exposed Jeff Gannon. This is from both sides of the political divide so it works for both ideologies. The one thing that will really tip the tide is when Freepers and DUers decide to start talking civilly and try to reach an understanding on issues. Imagine that, speaking civilly to a freeper and actually trying to compromise. Now, if that were to happen and deals were struck that both sides agreed on and somehow the government started using those solutions, well, guess what folks, it would completely redefine our democracy. It has already started. John Conyers blogs regularly and so does Kucinich, I believe. I know he has a forum but I think he leaves most things up to Mrs. Slate. Regardless, every candidate runs a website and tries to capitolize on the access the internet affords them. For them it's a cheap way to disseminate large amounts of info at the speed of light. For us, it's a means of influencing thier decisions by deluging them with mass mail. Imagine Barbara Boxer's email box on Jan 6th, 2005. I bet she had to have thousands upon thousands of e-mails asking her to stand up to contest the election. She probably would have done it anyway, she's fiesty, but having Washington damn near shut down with calls and emails helped out a whole bunch, I'd bet.

They could try and throw us in jail for sedition but it would be a complete waste of time. Were already more powerful than either of us realize, us or the government. They could throw 1 of us in jail and 10 would pop up in different parts of the country. Also, how long would it take to find out a Blogger roundup was taking place? How long would it be before Conyers or Boxer is raising holy hell about it on the floor of the House or the Senate? Are they going to throw all of us in jail? What would be the criteria? IMO, Bush is a criminal and a treasonous cock-sucker. I believe all this to be true, is this sedition? I have reasons for all of these beliefs: 9/11, Iraq and Jeff Gannon. If they want to arrest me and put me on trial, I'll gladly explain to a jury why I think this way. So Fuck em.

[wli]

20. which is why they're gearing up to censor the internet

Neokkkonservative Republikkkan *JESUS* we can't have people thinking commie pinko red "insufficiently pro-war" thoughts now, can we?

Surely, they must be given a knock on the door at 3AM and thoroughly lobotomized, castrated, and sold to the highest bidder as prison labor and sex slaves by the Homeland Offense Gestapo!

Yep, that's pretty much what they've got in mind. Run. Now. Where I have no idea.

[mikelewis]

21. If you have no where left to run, what do you do?

You got two choices, lay down and take it or stand up and resist it. It's your choice, just as much as how you choose to resist it. You can resist it by picking up a gun or you can pick up a stack of pamphlets and go tell people the truth. You can pick your own poison, either could cost you something but I think the best choice is always the last choice. And please don't keep spreading that paranoid nonsense. If they indeed are coming at 3 am, thier punishment would be a blessing. I for one would not want to be conscious if Bush became dictator. I think I'd fuckin volunteer for the lobotomy.

[wli]

22. I've got bad news for you

He's already dictator. He's merely not had to cancel an election yet.

I think when it comes down to death at the hands of the Homeland Offense Gestapo burning myself to death in a protest sounds completely reasonable (and probably less painful than what they'll do to me for being "insufficiently pro-war").

[mikelewis]

32. That's not only stupid and paranoid, it's insane

You need to seek some professional help. I believe the election was stolen. I believe we were openly lied to about Iraq. I believe Bush and company carried out the attacks of 9/11 and the rest of the terror campaign that was waged against us in 2001 & 2002, however, I am not afraid of them nor do I believe they are going to turn into the Nazi's of the 40's. There is nothing reasonable about burning yourself to death in protest, it serves no purpose. If you want to sacrifice your life for the cause, devote it to making the world a better place. Go clean up a park or help the needy. Do something that would help your fellow man. Don't commit a crime of self-loathing and call it protest, it's serves noone's interests but your own.

[wli]

36. the idea was that it would be less painful than being tortured

As far as turning into the Nazis of the 1940's, they're not far from it at all. They will, of course, have their own unique character. Still, I'm not waiting for them to set up an Abu Ghraib in my back yard and dump me into it before calling them what they are. And being dumped into one of those torture chambers is a fate worse than death.

The parallels to Nazi Germany are unmistakable. The Reichstag Fire analogue, the "protection of the people" legislation revoking civil rights, and the fostering of hate against a particular ethnic group. And frankly, the US' human rights record was really bad even before BushCo's coup d'etat on the grounds of mass imprisonment alone.

The Nazi moniker for these thugs is not a "stretch" at all.

[mikelewis]

40. Agreed but to douse yourself in gas and ask for a bic is..

nuts, no matter what bullshit they try to pull.

[wli]

41. okay, that was an excess of hyperbole

[Gronk Groks]

11. We may have files...

...but they haven't revoke our right to free speech...

...yet !!!:eyes:

[whistle]

15. How much larger.....150,000, 1.5 million, 15 million?

[AAARRRGGGHHH]

18. We would all get drafted.

Two birds, one stone.

[JNelson6563]

24. No, here's why

We have enough posters here who post slop that make us all look like morons.

Let's see, we have swooning posts, circular firing squads, me-posts that are incredibly stupid which indicate some feel all of DU is their personal lounge and all manner of things that are worthless squeezing out some really great, informative posts.

I am so grateful to those who post the really worthwhile info and I suppose we should be grateful to those who waste the incredible amounts of bandwidth with their nonsense. It provides decent cover at least.

Julie

[kentuck]

25. Excellent point, Julie !

:)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

29. Open up your mind just a little more and let a little light in...

and notice that the premise of the thread was that if we were " a little larger", would we still have the freedom of speech you mention?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

31. Well, that 's a more rational answer...

to the original post. Thanks.

[musical_soul]

33. Nah.

We have something called freedom of speech. I'm amused that we would be able to tick off so many freepers and they not be able to do anything about it.

[Joey Liberal]

35. Fuck the Republicans

[earth mom]

38. You're not paranoid...

I've been thinking along the same lines and I know I'm NOT paranoid-lol! :tinfoilhat:

The question is how big of an audience does DU or sites like Michael Moore or the Huffington Blog or Rigorous Intuition have to have in order to get THE TRUTH OUT to everyone in this country?

At a certain point, I really don't think "they" will be able to stem the tide of public knowledge or opinion...the momentum will just be too great. Though, I have no doubt they are trying right now to stop it and that is what scares the bejezus out of me and gives me many sleepless nights. I think we would be seeing many more people speaking up if they weren't so afraid....

Maybe it IS time to move to Canada... :scared:

[kentuck]

39. But the blogosphere is so decentralized....

It would probably be futile to go after just one...Somebody else would just take their place....at this time, anyway.

[JDPriestly]

42. Why?

Because we are exercising our rights under the Constitution?
Because we believe in keeping Social Security?
Because we want to rid the government of corruption?
Because we see through the Bush administration's lies?
Because we want fair elections?
Because we poke fun at the high and mighty?
Because we want to use American military power wisely?
Because we want equal opportunity?
Because we oppose discrimination?
Because we oppose violence?
Because we oppose all terrorism not just certain terrorism?
Because we oppose exploitation of the weak by the strong?

Why would anyone want to shut us down?

It is inevitable that extremists will try to voice their opinions on a website like this, but the DU moderators shut them down pretty quickly. And sure, we offer a lot of wild conjecture, but it is harmless. I doubt that any of us know any top secret information, so there is no danger of our revealing any of that.

We are actually pretty mainstream, at least from the point of view of California. Most of us are Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Clark, Bayh, etc. supporters. That's absolutely middle of the road if the 2004 election results are anywhere near accurate. Relax.

[youspeakmylanguage]

49. It's sad, but the reality is a larger audience simply doesn't exist...

The vast majority of people in this country simply don't care or don't have the mental capacity to understand or discuss politics. Many of them will simply keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.

The vast majority of Americans don't know who political bloggers are or what they do. They don't know or care about Kos, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Atrios, etc. A lot of them don't even know or care who their senators and representatives are. They certainly don't vote.

Even those on the other side that choose to harass us don't really represent a huge majority of conservatives, either. I think a majority of Americans may identify with socially conservative issues out of a mix of cultural ignorance and religion, but they have no interest in us, Free Republic, or anyone that would sit behind a computer keyboard for hours, typing out messages on a messaging board.

In short, we're important in the realm of political activism and discussion, but not so important outside of it.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. I wish they would try to shut us down. You cant buy publicity like that.

That's exactly why they wont dare try to mess with DU and why they dont do one tenth the things they would like to do. Because when they get caught, it causes a whole lot of publicity that is good for the enemies they are trying to discredit. Just look at Wilson.