BREAKING NEWS RE: EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE LAW (14th Amendment).
The New York State Senate has tonight, on June 24th 2011, finally passed an equality in marriage act. Gratuitous sex discrimination based solely on gender or on gender orientation will hereinafter be illegal in New York State. Apparently some loopholes were carved out which would prevent bigots who cite religion as a pretense from being prosecuted for continuing acts of discrimination and hatred. Although not all church weddings will be available, officially performed and recognized marriages performed by public officials will be recognized in New York State in approximately 30 days. Governor Andrew Cuomo is set to sign the bill. New york becomes the sixth State in the country to recognize LGBT marriages.
YouTube has severe problems with rampant false flagging of videos and they don’t have enough unprejudiced humans in their employ to review and unflag all the unjustly restricted videos. Innumerable videos are getting false flagged as “inappropriate” based on politics, theology and personal taste by prudes and bigots who have found false flagging to be an effective tool for suppressing expression which doesn’t conform to their own narrow-minded agendas.
Months ago two of my videos were false flagged and YouTube started to require viewers to log in in order to view the videos which were wrongfully put on restricted status.
Two of the auto-generated statements made by YouTube with respect to two of my videos are blatantly false.
Those two false statements are:
1) “This content may contain material flagged by YouTube’s user community that may be inappropriate for some users.”
2) “potentially inappropriate content,”
Contemporaneously, images of me male modeling ladies full brief panties, back view, stopped showing up on image searches.
Although YouTube’s lawyers may have been trying to cover themselves against libel claims by using the words “may” and “potentially”, the statements are still false and indisputably constitute sex discrimination.
Google’s YouTube may CONSIDER THIS AN APPEAL and request to have an UNPREJUDICED human restore both videos to unrestricted status.
One need only to view the YouTube videos by Victoria’s Secret, the YouTube No Pants Subway Ride 2011 by Improv Everywhere, and the numerous other videos of women in their ladies panties on YouTube to see that placing the two videos of me male modeling pink nylon panties on “Restricted” status is a blatant act of sex discrimination.
The falsely flagged videos in question of me (a man in panties) are embedded below:
Transcript: “The ladies full brief nylon panties that I’m wearing right now are Vanity Fair’s Memoir Rose Style 13001 Lace Nouveau full brief nylon panties. I love these panties and the color especially, which I wish that they still made. Um, as you can see, the gusset has a straight across rear seam, unlike the classic vintage Vanity Fair Style 13001 briefs which were manufactured years ago. These are my favorite panties.”
Transcript: “I guess you can see why so many women call me Panty Buns. Um, I’m male modeling a pair of Vanity Fair full brief nylon panties. They’re Lace Nouveau Style 13001 in Memoir Rose. I love being seen male-modeling ladies panties as a world famous male panty model. So you can just share it with every adult woman you know, um, and let me know what you think. You can let me know what you think at http://www.full-brief-panties-male-modeled.blogspot.com“
What is really peculiar is the difference between Google’s publicly stated goals of freedom of expression and in opposition to censorship and their current flagging system on YouTube and Google Image Search.
The United Nations has on it’s website “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, which the U.N. adopted on December 10, 1948. Google has pointed out that recent censorship attempts sought to violate Article 19 of that document and quotes it as saying: “Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Despite having decried this kind of censorship, Google’s YouTube Community aids and abets censorship when it comes to the false flagging of YouTube videos. Google’s flagging system allows a minority of extremist prudes to effectively censor whatever they don’t like. Those who have their photos and videos false-flagged have no adequate recourse. Ergo, Google’s own policy enabling the false-flagging of videos as “potentially inappropriate” violates the very rights they claimed to support when they cited Article 19 of the United Nations “Declaration of Human Rights”.
As of this date YouTube continues to have an unmanageable problem with political operatives and bigots false-flagging every video they don’t like and not enough unprejudiced reviewers to correct all the false flagging. When free expression and due process are increasingly subordinated to systematic attacks by a group of ideologues and there is inadequate capacity (not enough unprejudiced human reviewers) for appeals and redress, then perhaps Google and YouTube should consider eliminating the entire system of flagging. It appears the system only works for those who like to false-flag.
the content on this site constitutes free speech and expression protected under the Ninth, Fourteenth, and First Amendments to the of the United States. This site is not commercial, is not a business, does not sell any service or product or anything at all, does not receive or solicit any compensation.
ALL PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF ME MALE MODELING LADIES FULL BRIEF PANTIES ARE FREE AND ARE RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN for any and all purposes with the sole exception that any attempts to restrict the rights of others to publish and share them shall be null and void.
Net neutrality demands that dominant internet presence may not be used to stifle or censor unpopular views, images and videos. These photos and videos are to remain forever in the public domain. For YouTube to require the public to acquire a YouTube channel and log into it in order to view any of my videos violates net neutrality and infringes on the rights of the public to peruse that which is in the public domain. Additionally to the false-flagged status is an example of market dominance being abused to restrict access to public domain material in furtherance of sex discrimination. Part of the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular expression and insure that it can be seen and heard. It would be nice to think that large corporate media owners might reconsider their opposition to having a free press.
Tags: #false flagging, #full briefs, #man in panties, #sex discrimination, #weird news, #funny, #viral video, #share this #violations of net neutrality
Beware! The prudes are coming and the tidbits below are just a tiny sample of the issues they hope to use to take power.
The effects of the multi-pronged election strategies by the far right wing to get a stranglehold on government have become much more visible in the wake of the primary elections held on Tuesday, September 14th, 2010. Along with the usual suppression and disenfranchisement techniques and there were also more conversions to the less transparent or verifiable computerized voting in this Primary Election - shades of things to come as history’s lessons go ignored. There were also the effects of the Supreme Court having further weakened or obliterated campaign finance regulations that were like swiss cheese to begin with. Another large factor was undoubtedly the discouragement evident nation-wide which reduced voter turnout. With all this as a backdrop the stage was set for the far right to trot out the “hot button” or “wedge issues” that it knew would energize its base and get them out to the polls. Rather than have you too focused on the fact that you are “losing your jobs, your houses and your civil rights” they pound away at the issues of “abortion, affirmative action, economy, immigration, and marriage equality” to divide the feminist movement and then conquer at the polls.
We can see this strategy at work in the campaign of Christine O’Donnell, who, as the president and founder of the S.A.L.T. (Saviour’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth) , argues that masturbating is committing adultery. She claims that people can’t masturbate without lust in their hearts and that lust outside of marriage is committing adultery. She also argues for a literal interpretation af the Bible’s Book of Genesis and the teaching of creationism in the schools.
Here is an embed of that YouTube video of Christine O”Donnell arguing that masturbation is adultery. It had been aired on MSNBC and uploaded by tpmtv as seen on talkingpoints memo dot com
In keeping with Orwellian tradition, the “Tea Party” claims to be the cure for the very ills they and their ilk have been bringing down on us for decades if not centuries. Be wary of authoritarians promising freedom and rich people promising empowerment.
Since so few people are taking note of the Comment Policy I am presenting it again as a main page post.
Simply comment on the topic of the post and don’t include links to illegal stuff. How hard is that?
Comments on this website are moderated. If you have made a legitimate comment and it has not yet been posted, THANK YOU for your comment! Please be patient as it sometimes takes me a while to get to them. Please do not SPAM. Unfortunately I often have to delete more than 150 spam comments per day. I love getting genuine non-spam comments, even nasty ones. To increase your chances of getting your comment posted please note:
Legitimate comments get great latitude since censorship is deplored here. Offensive and derogatory comments do get published including colorful language.
Promotion of illegal stuff is not allowed unless, in the sole discretion of the administrator it is Constitutionally protected free expression and the laws are unconstitutional.
The same goes for links. Please do not submit URLs for illegal activity.
SPAM gets deleted. If your comment does not have some relation to the post under which it was submitted it will be deleted. Some self-promotion is okay, but comments with little or no content and tons of links and html are more likely to be deleted.
Generic comments are spam. Generic comments and comments unrelated to the posts will be deleted and/or marked as spam.
I reserve the right, as administrator, to edit SPAM and fuck around with it or add editorial comments to any pro-censorship political hackery. With that said,
This is a free speech site and chances are your non-spam comments will be published. Good commenters are more likely to get links. Thank you for your patience.
August 22nd, 2010 is National Go Topless Day. Last year it did not seem there was much prior notice about it but there were plenty of articles posted after the fact. Most of the articles, like the one in the Daily News titled: “Topless women march in Central Park for right to bare breasts” chickened out and did not publish the photos of female nipples (men have photos of their nipples in the media all the time). Note: Baring Breasts Is Legal Here (and Should Be Everywhere).
On July 7th of 1992 New York State’s highest Court. the Court of Appeals ruled in NY v Santorelli (80 N.Y.2d 875 600 N.E.2d 232) that laws prohibiting exposure of breasts were unconstitutional as they were based on gender and were not substantially related to any important governmental objective. All laws prohibiting the public exposure of female breasts were struck down since they contained “clear gender-based classification, triggering scrutiny under equal protection principles (see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397). This case is still the precedent in the State of New York. Bare Breasts are Legal.
GoTopless.org cites information provided by LegalFreedom.com as a source for its list of“10 successful cases recognizing women’s right to be topless in certain states or cities”
United States District Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs are seven same sex couples married in Massachusetts and three survivors of same sex spouses, also married in Massachusetts. The Defendents included United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
In last two sentences immediately preceding the Conclusion of the ruling, wherein the Defendent’s (Justice Department’s) Motion to Dismiss was Denied and the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgement was Allowed, the ruling reads as follows: “And, where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different in relevant respects from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan had stated that as Soliciter General she supported the government’s (Defendent’s) side of the case which defended DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act). She could have declined to answer because it is a matter which may make its way to the Supreme Court, but she chose to answer. How does one interpret that?
In an article entitled: Girls flock to trampy prom dresses Annie Karni of the New York Post used the words “stripper” “slutty” “shocking” to describe the current fashions. These slurs came to my attention reading an article by Erin Donnely in SyleList entitled Prom Dress Trend for 2010 is ‘Slutty Chic’ citing the New York Post article. I responded irately with the following comment:
“Since when do we follow Newscorp’s slurs, i.e.: “slutty” to denigrate womens’ desires to be in style a la Lady Gaga? The New York Post is owned by Newscorp, headed by the same right wingers who would have all women be back in the kitchen baking cookies, covered up head to foot and acting as servants to their male masters.”
Shortly thereafter I noted that Jezebel had run an article entitled: Trashy Prom Dresses Remain Flash Point In Ongoing Intergenerational War With my emotions still inflamed from the other two articles and having barely gotten past the headline, I fired this email off to the articles author, firstname.lastname@example.org
AN OPEN LETTER TO JENNA of Jezebel.com
It irks me that anyone would follow the lead of the New York Post in calling women or their attire “slutty”. The New York Post is owned by Newscorp, well known for its right wing promulgation of the sexist anti-woman mindset which would have all women be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, covered head to toe when in public, and subservient to their male masters. It is no surprise that the prudish right wing would be aghast at the idea of women following the latest fashion trends a la Lady Gaga.
Yours, Panty Buns
Maybe I overreacted and maybe not. What do you think?
Over the course of the last decade there has been a dramatic increase in Internet Spying. Some of the spying has been done for the purpose of data mining in order to sell the information or directly for marketing purposes. Much of the internet spying and marketing was done for political and ideological purposes under the feigned rubric of national security. A large proportion of this spying was instituted in an effort to silence criticism of the last presidential administration and to deliberately invade people’s privacy in furtherance of the anti-sexuality, pro-corporate interest policies and agenda of that administration. Since the bureaucracy and courts are still heavily laden with these political appointees the policies have continued. Internet Service Providers have continued to not only acquiesce to this spying by a plethora of agencies and parties, but to assist in it. Even worse, it seems that the internet service providers themselves along with a host of other big name internet based companies and social services networks have joined in both the internet spying and data mining, finding it financially advantageous. It seems liberty was never a consideration. The financial bottom line and the views of the heavyweight corporate owners has trumped freedom, and as a result the violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act with respect to US.Code: Title 18 Chapter 119 Wire and Electronic Communications interception and Interception of Oral Communications have become rampant. Please see US Code Title 18 Chapter 119 Wire and Electronic Communications interception and Interception of Oral Communications and read up the Stored Communications Act. See US Code Title 18 Chapter 121-Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transitional Access For updates on the situation I would recommend checking frequently at the website of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Wired News .
With respect to internet censorship: An example of alleged Facebook and Internet Censorship: According to a Dec. 19, 2008 NY Times.com article Barry Schnitt of Facebook defended the censoring (removal) of breast feeding photos claiming they are unsafe for children. He added that “the photos we act on are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain”. Apparently Facebook believes women’s bare breasts are obscene and that babies should be blindfolded while breast feeding - this despite numerous rulings to the contrary in States around the country. The Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest Court once ruled that laws prohibiting bare breasts in public were unconstitutional because that is gender discriminatory. There is little controversy about men having their nipples exposed in public.
One of the most ironic things about all of this is that the excuse of “national security” has been invoked to justify secrecy and privacy with respect to officially sanctioned wrongdoing whilst simultaneously that same “national security” is invoked to dispose of any secrecy or privacy for individual citizens.
I hope readers will feel free to share other reports of of internet spying and internet censorship in their comments.
The fight against online censorship continues. Time after time internet censorship has been struck down as unconstitutional. Much praise and support for this seemingly endless battle is deserved by the American_Civil_Liberties_Union (ACLU) http://www.aclu.org/ along with other anti-censorship organizations like The National_Coalition_Against_Censorship at http://www.ncac.org/ and Feminists_For_Free_Expression http://www.ffeusa.org/
Here’s a bit of the background on the last decade or so of the repeated BAD FAITH attempts of authoritarian prudes and bigots to censor free expression including nudity despite the Supreme Court decisions noted below holding that the censorship violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This will also be posted as a comment. Hopefully there will be more articles on this blog to follow. What will it take to get the “gatekeepers” to stop censoring us? Why can’t liberty be respected for its own sake? When is Congress going to pass some laws that put teeth in the Bill of Rights and support free expression instead of trying to chisel away at it or look the other way? Here are some of the articles and decisions which affirm the right of free expression (including nudity). So what have your experiences been with censorship?
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Ashcroft v. ACLU in 2004, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group in 2000, RENO v. ACLU in 1997 http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/ashcroft-v-aclu
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
No. 03-218. Argued March 2,2004 - Decided June 29, 2004
The Supreme Court held that the Third Circuit was correct to affirm the District Court’s ruling that enforcement of COPA should be enjoined because the statute likely violates the First Amendment.
Ashcroft v. ACLU Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
United States et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., (98-1682) 529 U.S. 803 (2000)
30 F. Supp. 2d 702, affirmed
Argued November 30, 1999-Decided May 22, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
The Supreme Court Ruled that the District Court did not err in holding the Telecommunications Act of 1996 violative of the First Amendment.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RENO, Attorney General of the United States, et al, v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 96-511 Argued March 19, 1997 — Decided June 26, 1997
929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.
The Supreme Court Held that The Communications Decency Act’s “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive display” provisions abridge “the freedom of speech” protected by the First Amemndment. Pp. 17-40
Some Feminist and Libertarian Authors, Thinkers, Doers, and Organizations:
The following relatively small and far from complete list of feminist and civil libertarian authors, thinkers, doers and organizations below is being entered here both as a post and as a comment. A large proportion of them were mentioned in ‘Acknowledgments’ in the professor Nadine Strossen’s book entitled ‘Defending Pornography - Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight For Women’s Rights’. There are many other feminist pro-free expression writers many of whom I hoping. perhaps wistfully, to eventually read and to add links for on this site. Since I’m a slow reader, not have staff or do this for free, I can only hope the readers have patience. The following post, like MOST POSTS ON THIS SITE WILL MOST LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE EDITED OR ADDED TO in the future. I hope that doesn’t mess up people’s RSS feeds or bookmarks. If it does, I hope you’ll accept my apologies. To be posted in Women’s Views Wanted, comments and comments to ‘Must Read Books’
The NCAC works to educate its own members and the public at large about the dangers of censorship and how to oppose them. Its membership includes 50 non-profit corporations.
It was heartening to see the following quote featured prominently on the NCAC’s ‘Who We Are’ page: “they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
NCAC The Coalition
50 national not-for-profit organizations make up the National Coalition Against Censorship. Diverse organizations, representing the artistic, educational, religious, and labor communities join together in the interest of protecting First Amendment rights.
There are links to those 50 organizations on the web-page.
NCAC Art Law Library: Nudity
References to a few Supreme Court cases where attempts were made at censorship of nudity under the pretext of protect children or to avoid controversy.
from the National Coalition Against Censorship
Carlin Meyer, professor of law, New York Law School
Professor Nadine Strossen, Esquire Professor of Law at New York University and the author of ‘Defending Pornography - Free Speech, Sex, And The Fight For Women’s Rights’
This is a definitive work on the subject by the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union
the late Ellen Willis founded the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
There Was a brief article about Ellen Willis written by Alix Kates Shulma on November 13th, 2006 in the Jewish Women’s Archive entitled: ‘We_Remember-Ellen_Willis,_1941-2006,‘ http://jwa.org/weremember/willis (July 27, 2009).
There are many excuses people use for their own bigotry. If only it were just that people were bigoted. Unfortunately so many of them try persecute people they don’t like and take away their rights. The LGBT community has been the target of a lot of this lately. Fortunately the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU http://www.aclu.org/ ), The National Organization for Women ( NOW http://www.now,org/ ) have joined with many other groups to try to protect and appeal for the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and other minorities from legal attacks like California’s Proposition 8 and similar legislation around the country.
Not all slavery ended when the thirteenth amendment was passed. First nation peoples (referred to as indians) continued to be used as slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. Women still haven’t gotten the equal rights and privileges under the law promised by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. When the simple straight-forward constitutional amendment was proposed specifying that women should get this equal treatment the requisite number of States failed to ratify it. That denial is the epitome of gender-bias at work. See the photo of the T-shirt below having the simple wording of the Equal Rights Amendment itself printed on it, and then ask yourself: How could anyone oppose that (the E.R.A.) unless they are biased?