“This full brief by Vanity Fair is once again your favorite. Made of 100% nylon for a silky soft feel, this panty provides full coverage. It’s offered in many different colors so everyone can have the color they love. The panty has an ultra-soft covered elastic waistband and covered elastic leg openings for a comfortable, custom fit. Comes in sizes 5 to 12 (Small to 5X)”
Transcript: Transform your intimate apparel wardrobe with the Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Ravissant Tailored Brief. This beautiful best selling style is a classic, with its double stitched waistband and comfortable no-ride elastic leg openings.Tailored from soft one hundred percent nylon fabric, this panty provides full coverage comfort to make it the perfect complement for any style of clothing. Available in an extended size for curvy figures. Experience Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Ravissant Tailored Brief.
Transcript: Add a little feminine flair to your intimate apparel wardrobe with the Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Lace Nouveau Brief. The beautiful lace insets offer a delicate appeal, while the elastic waistband and leg trim give you a flexible and comfortable fit. This silhouette promises full coverage in both the front and back. Satiny nylon fabric keeps you comfortable throughout the day. Discover the elegant sophistication of Vanity Fair’s Perfectly Yours Lace Nouveau Brief.
As I watched these videos it I couldn’t help but continue to feel miffed that some of the customer lingerie review videos that featured me modeling the identical brand and style of Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Lace Nouveau Briefs had been marked with a warning: “This video may contain material flagged by YouTube’s user community that may be inappropriate for some users” and requiring people to sign in (and have a Google account?) in order to view them. One poorly lighted video of me modeling and reviewing these same briefs had disappeared and in it’s place was posted a false claim saying “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy on nudity or sexual content” (slandering me). I consider that it was a clear-cut case of sex discrimination and that the real objection was to my being a MAN SEEN WEARING LADIES PANTIES!
An embed of one of my earlier videos:
The pair of Memoir Rose Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Lace Nouveau Style 13001 ladies full brief nylon panties shown here male modeled, back view, are available both in a wide variety of lingerie and department stores online and in - store. This particular style of Vanity Fair ladies nylon full brief panties are made of a silky-soft finely woven nylon tricot with a cotton lined gusset and triangular lace insets. Vanity Fair advertises these panties as being both comfortable to wear and pretty to look at. I love the colour, look and feel of these panties and wish I could find more of them in a similar vibrant ultra-feminine pink colour. This video is released into the public domain. Please share it.
As always, I love having the photos and videos of myself male-modeling and reviewing women’s underwear shared and republished as much as possible so please don’t hesitate to do so.
It occurred to me at this point that the “YouTube Community” may have been infiltrated by members of the AFA, the FRC, or their ilk.
When I Googled “Censorship Advocacy by Hate Groups” the top listing in the Google search was the Wikipedia entry on the American Family Association (AFA). Frank Russo, an on-air spokesman for the AFA of New York unabashedly states that the AFA positions are “Conservative Catholic values” and that homosexuality is sinful.
Although bigoted totalitarian right wing prudes often take extreme positions opposing any kind of nudity or even lingerie ads on the internet, their most aggressive false-flagging campaigns and vitriol are reserved for cross-dressers. Since I male-model ladies panties I find often find myself in their crosshairs. It is much easier for them to argue that men shouldn’t wear women’s clothing (sex discrimination) than it is to argue babies should be blindfolded while breast-feeding and that we should have been born with clothes on. The transphobic vitriol, discriminatory censorship and persecution do not end with the media and the internet, but it is there where the general public is fed a steady diet of lies and, with a few notable exceptions, where the truth gets buried.
Unfortunately as many of us have found out about censorship first hand by having our free speech and expression censored by large corporations who control the internet. Whether it is service providers or the large social networking sites who have attained anti-trust action worthy status, the result is the same. Agitation by a handful of haters and bigots often results in free speech and expression being stifled through straight up censorship. A couple of the large multitude of hater groups agitating for and bullying these corporations into doing the censorship are:
The Family Research Council also known as the FRC and the American Family Association have both been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Hate Groups , defined as an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other designated sector of society. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate groups’ “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from members of the organization”. Other Hate groups listed by the SPLC include 186 separate Ku Klux Klan groups with 52 websites and 196 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites.
Just who are these people? James Dobson and Tony Perkins are among the many haters at the FRC, while Donald Wildman, Timothy Wildmon, Forrest Daniels, Curtis Petrev, Jack Williams, Burt Harper, Gayle Alexander, Forest Sheffield, Tim Fortner are Directors at the AFA. The AFA has 200 radio stations. Frank Russo and Frank Schroeder appear on many of their cable TV shows. Though they would probably deny being hate-mongers the version of “conservative Catholicism” they espouse paints all trans-people as sinful deviates.
On November 10th, 2011 the American Civil Liberties Union posted some under-reported news: Senate Rejects Resolution That Would Undermine Net Neutrality. Quoting the ACLU article: ” “By rejecting this unwise resolution to overturn net neutrality, the Senate has voted to protect the Internet and preserve its crucial role in advancing the artistic, intellectual, political and economic vitality of our nation,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel. “Without net neutrality, Americans’ access to the Internet would hinge not on our right to free speech but on the whims of the corporations that would control it.” “
In recent trans-phobic news, Bridgette Miller of Bust Magazine posted an article titled: “Transgender Woman Makes a Shirtless Statement“. Quoting that Bust Magazine article: “A trip to the DMV can be an exercise in patience for anyone—but for one transgender Tennessee woman, it became a fight for equality. Andrea Jones of Morristown, TN, went in to change her sex from male to female on her driver’s license; when her request was denied, she walked out to the parking lot and took her shirt off. She was arrested for indecent exposure, and argued that if the state recognized her as male, she had the right to be topless in public.” On July 7th of 1992 New York’s highest Court, the Court of Appeals of New York 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). Since this case is still the precedent, not only are bare breasts legal in the State of New York, but it is illegal to discriminate based on the gender of the person with exposed nipples. It would follow, logically, that it is also illegal to discriminate against a person modeling panties because of their gender.
YouTube and Google argue that if one is singled out for censorship they should not point to others who are NOT censored because that is not relevant to whether or not YouTube’s terms have been violated. That specious argument doesn’t hold water and is a transparent red herring argument for evading any questions about whether or not they practice discrimination in violation of Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 .
HYPOCRISY AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT
Photos of a man wearing ladies panties are occasionally treated as if they were hard-core pornography, rather than the standard modeling of lingerie that they actually are. By contrast lingerie manufacturers, newspapers, magazines, both broadcast and cable networks , internet companies and movie producers go out of their way to show women in their underwear. Women are seen in panties almost everywhere including on billboard advertising.
As long as it is a woman doing the modeling of women’s underwear, even the most sheer panties will generally not get censored, yet men get censored wearing opaque briefs merely because they are clothing associated with the opposite gender.
The pretty Pin Up Sheer Mesh Knickers carried by Pandora’s choice are see-through lingerie. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever, nor is there anything wrong with nudity. As the title of a Lady Gaga album showing her bare bottom says, undeniably, we are “Born This Way” (naked).
We should dispense with the specious arguments and enjoy the look of beautiful lingerie.
As for the video that YouTube first claimed was spam, at one point lied claiming it was explicit and then lied again claimed it violated their policies, you can see for yourselves that it is NOT spam, NOT explicit, contains NO nudity and NO sexual content. Here is the video on Twitpic (no longer available for viewing on YouTube). There was no excuse for the video being flagged or even less excuse for putting a strike against my account for it.
I don’t know what else can be done about the gratuitous sex discriminatory censorship other than to oppose further mergers of these way too-powerful internet giants and perhaps join the ACLU in their fight for our freedom of speech and expression. If you feel being supportive like it you always could stop by my YouTube Channel and leave a comment or give my video uploads a Like (Thumb Up).
You can decline the adobe flask upgrade and then view the video with no problems.
PLEASE SHARE IT everywhere! What good is wearing pretty pink panties if nobody sees them? PLEASE SHARE THIS Video everywhere! Thanks.
To see the most recent posts first please go to the RSS feed as the Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE) post order is mixed up and mostly in reverse order.
Comments have been disabled due to excessive spam and disregard for the COMMENT POLICY
“Alec Baldwin’s joke was funny, timely, and fit in with the roles he plays. The censorship was inexcusable but understandable given that the phone hacking most likely was done by Murdoch et al on a much larger scale than has been disclosed so far.
“When Murdoch took over the Wall Street Journal and Barrons I stopped reading them because I’m not into fiction. That’s also why I don’t watch Fox “News”.
“More important than the question of Murdoch not being able to take a joke is the question of what evil deeds he’s planned and been perpetrating in furtherance of a unitary Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” owned and directed by himself.
“How sad that his henchmen would reach down to squelch even light hearted jokes. Alec was right. Now Fox and NewsCorp look even worse.”
NOTE: The posts on this blog show up in reverse order courtesy of Earthlink. The oldest posts are currently appearing on top and the newest posts are displayed last. Click on the RSS ENTRY FEED (all the way at the bottom) to see the posts in the proper order
PUBLIC SERVICE NOTICE (WARNING to would-be Earthlink web-hosting customers): Earthlink allows the release of the personal names, home residence addresses and personal private home telephone numbers of it’s web hosting customers without prior notice even if privacy had been requested and assured and despite legal requirements that customers be allowed to “opt out” of the invasion of their privacy.
Please see the COMMENT POLICY before commenting on any posts. All comments are moderated by a human and some commenting is disabled because the spam protection via Earthlink and Wordpress is almost non-existant.
As the ACLU notes in their recent article titled “Web Tracking and Online Privacy“, “Unfortunately some businesses will chase profits even when it violates consumer’s expectations of privacy”
Pseudonyms have a long tradition of usefulness in the furtherance of controversial ideas and speech. Among some famous examples are Benjamin Franklin who wrote under the pseudonym “Silence Dogood” and Samuel Clemens who wrote under the pseudonym “Mark Twain”. I can’t help but wonder whether he would still have considered writing anything that questioned man’s inhumanity to man with respect to the institution of slavery if his real name and home address were published along with everything he wrote.
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
Back on July 30th, 2010 F.A.I.R. (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting posted an article titled: “Wikileaks and the U. S. Press Media resistance to exposure of government secrets“. Unfortunately what we should have learned about the bad actors and bad activities that created a need for Daniel Ellsberg’s release of “The Pentagon Papers” seem to have been lost. We ignored history so it’s repeating itself.
How ironic that at the same time The Center for Public Integrity is reporting that there is a “Whistleblower Bill Close to Winning Senate Approval“, there are some Senators and Congressmen clamoring for prosecution of the persons who leaked or even those who publish the information from Wikileaks that should never have been marked “classified” in thre first place. The bill does not provide protection for disclosure of classified information, but the First Amendment and precedent do. What these documents reveal is that the documents were classified to prevent the public from finding out any information about wrongdoing or that was embarrassing, and that their being marked “classified” was generally not for reasons of security at all. Rather, it was “national security” being used as a cover to hide bad acts.
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., even some supposedly “liberal” publications such as Mother Jones in articles like the one written by Kevin Drum titled “The Wikileaks Charade” miss the point that the exposure of officially sanctioned wrongdoing in the furtherance of war and torture needs to be exposed and not covered up utilizing the feigned rubric of “national security”.
I strongly suspect that the recent slanderous attacks against Naomi Wolf recently have been made in an attempt to silence her and others writing about the direction our government had been/is headed in and to divert our attention from the way our liberty is being stripped away from us.
The photos were posted everywhere in the tabloids, where in typical tabloid fashion there was feigned outrage while making sure to publish the sexy photos.
The only really controversial part was that the Dean of the Law School which had rented out the space had his panties in a bunch about it after the fact, claiming the law school didn’t realize the nature of the photoshoot. Just how detached from reality are all these people who claim to be offended and where do they get off railing against free speech, free press, and photos or videos of the lingerie shoot being published?
There have been far sexier and more provocative lingerie ads in the past by other companies like Agent Provocateur, plenty of public print lingerie ads by Maidenform for decades, Underwear modeled publicly by Trashy Brand Lingerie models, Victoria’s Secret models on television and on the Jumbo-Tron in Times Square, The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, The No Pants Subway Ride, The Jamaica Underwear Run in Central Park, NYC, several other public, and countless other events where people showed up in their panties. Appearing in public in panties has really come into vogue ever since Lady Gaga burst onto the scene seeming to appear almost everywhere out in public in her panties, including at the airport, doing screeners a favor. There were plenty of panty-clad people out protesting the TSA’s policies of either seeing everyone virtually naked or else groping them to the point of it becoming a sexual assault or abuse. It seems to me that if officials are going to condone forcing people to be seen in their underwear (or less) then voluntarily being out in public should be perfectly acceptable, and in fact it has become so. Models are regularly featured in their underwear on the covers of fashion magazines and the lingerie manufacturers and retailers post videos of their lingerie being modeled in YouTube video as do their customers. Even I have posted videos of myself male modeling different full brief panties on YouTube (Mister Panty Buns’s Channel) and have posted photos like this one of myself male modeling ladies panties before:
The New York Post also posted their report (with photos) on their YouTube channel in a video titled “Troublesome Underwear - New York Post“.
I just couldn’t resist making a comment on it.
So What’s the story with why the episode of Sesame Street with Katy Perry was cancelled? Reportedly it was because of negative feedback they received, but the negative feedback wasn’t disclosed leaving us to speculate:
Oh, no! It’s an attractive woman with breasts singing and dancing! Eek!
There seems to be no limit to what these prudes will try to censor, whether it’s me or Katy Perry. What if someone’s ankle shows (gasp!). Apparently someone thought there was too much cleavage (under the fine mesh of her outfit) or that she seemed too sexy. Why do PBS, Google, Apple, Youtube, Facebook and Flickr knuckle under to the hypocritical manufactured pressure from fundamentalists, ideologues, theocrats and their techno-spammed hate campaigns?
One wonders whether they might have had horrible headaches at Sesame Street trying to decide whether they should have hired a transvestite to avoid having cleavage or conversely since Katy Perry was asking Elmo whether he wanted to play “Dress Up” may have worried that people who have Transphobia might be perturbed. Many bigots harbour intense hatred and loathing for trans-gendered, transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers etc..
Speaking of hypocrisy, Someone at the Mercury News pointed out that Elmo wasn’t wearing any pants!
Maybe the top executives were afraid someone would catch them ogling Katy Perry’s breasts. Are they going to refrain from coverage of candidate O’Donnell due to her having cleavage? After all, theocratic Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does show more cleavage than Katy Perry did in the Sesame Street video that got pulled.
Look out Miss Piggy, Katie might want to play with Kermit! What’s the deal here? The song and the skit are adorable. Who will be censored next? Snow White? Alice in Wonderland?
It was excellent timing that Katy Perry appeared on Saturday Night Live soon after the censorship had reared it’s ugly head at PBS. Katy performed “Teenage Dream” on Saturday Night Live Sept. 25, 2010. Katy and her back-up singers wore outfits that looked a bit like school uniforms. The hemlines of the tiered red skirts were high enough to reveal the black panties underneath to be frequently visible during the performance.
Not only are panty-revealing outfits very much in vogue, but the song but the lyrics fro the refrain of chorus “Don’t ever look back, Don’t ever look back” gave me a feel-good feeling as well.
Thankfully for the most part the fashionista, GLBT and feminist communities have rejected censorship. That doesn’t mean there aren’t right wing-nuts posing as feminists who want to censor everything. For them I would suggest that they think about the hard struggle for equal rights and privileges for women and how censoring people based on gender is not feminist at all.
Maybe it’s the fact that i have found myself on the receiving end of censorship that i am so sensitive to it.
You Tube has aided and abetted the “YouTube’s user community” in the perpetration of sex discrimination and the committing of defamation by allowing the video titled: PICT_Male-Models-Vanity-Fair-Rose-Pink-Full-Brief-Panties-2.AVI: video to be FALSE-FLAGGED and failing to un-flag it after this wrongful flagging was brought to their attention.
The continuing libel accompanying the demand for people to have an account and sign in to see this video appears when someone clicks on the video and states:
“This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community.”
Here is the TRANSCRIPT from the flagged video is titled: PICT_Male-Models-Vanity-Fair-Rose-Pink-Full-Brief-Panties-2.AVI:
“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.”
YouTube and Google are noticed and are fully aware that this video was flagged SOLEY because of my gender. If I had been female this video would not be flagged.
Failure to un-flag this video would be affirmatively negligent and evidence of intent to knowingly continue the defamation motivated by sex discrimination - a hate crime.
If YouTube were to try tto defend this false flagging it would fly in the face of President and CEO Eric Schmidt’s recent claims at his interview with the Wall Street Journal that he opposes censorship and would by implication make him out to be a liar.
It would also bolster the credibility of the French Court in Paris that recently convicted Google and it’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, of defamation.
Perhaps the entire construct of how access and control of the internet is being co-opted and controlled, by whom, and the premises of the basic setups should be re-examined. I believe the internet should be for adults,that unfiltered searching should be the default setting, and that if people want to control what they or their children can view then they should be the ones bearing the burden of installing filtering programs like Cyber-Nanny or programs that censor stuff for THEIR OWN viewing only, not for everyone else’s. I myself have no interest whatsoever in viewing or being viewed by people who are not adults and greatly resent it whenever I feel that my viewing or being viewed is being limited by narrow minded selfish bigots who place their agenda or avaricious desires above the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Let the un-american prudes who advocate censorship be the ones who have to accept cookies, as in WARNING: PRUDE. Let the advocates of freedom have the more secure cookie free safe from virus setups. Let the right wing-nuts, theocrats and prudes be relegated to the limited niche of hackery, censorship, deceit, lies, history re-writing and prejudice that is their comfort zone - all in their own little bubble.
There is no reason the rest of the world should have to abide by their prejudices.
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”
Wishing everyone who reads this a happy and healthy new decade. May our liberties be restored, the authoritarianism ceased, the wars ended, the Constitution and Bill of Rights respected, and the gender-biased censoring prudes be seen as the hypocrites they are. It is my understanding that tonight, December 31st, 2009, there is a second blue moon for the month. That is what is known as a blue moon. As the decade turns this once in a blue moon, may we once again see the restoration of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness among others as the inalienable rights which we were all endowed with by our creator - our individual sovereignty. Have a Happy New Year.
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).
On 06/26/1997 The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled in Reno_v._ACLU, Case No. 96-511, that cyberspace will be free - the ACLU and free speech prevailed. A coalition of dogmatic authoritarian prudes have been trying to get the ruling overturned or its effects nullified ever since. For more information about that ruling see:
There is no right that some person could not claim is a privilege. Whether they claim it’s a privilege to drive, a privilege to speak, a privilege to see or be seen, a privilege to live, a privilege to have privacy or a privilege to publish a blog. A privilege by definition is a right granted only to a particular person or group of people. Starting down the road of deciding who may have what right or privilege one invites tyranny. This should be abundantly clear from the vigorous and often successful attempts to chill free expression and freedom of the press which occurred during the Presidential Administration of George W. Bush. While it is true that legislatures and courts have from time to time attempted to curtail, disparage or abridge these rights, one should not throw aside the principals of due and proper process or our fundamental and inalienable rights, the existance of which pre-dated our own federal constitution. There are problems with trying to draw a distinction between moral, legal, and Constitutional rights. Our Declaration of Independence, which did have flaws in failing to recognize the rights of women, slaves, and First Nation (”Indian”) Peoples, nonetheless pronounced clear common law and moral principals: That we were all endowed with certain UNALIENABLE rights. That AMONG THESE are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Some of these, like the right to be free from ex post facto laws and the right of habeas-corpus (Article 1, Sections 9 and 10) were considered important enough to put in the main body of the Constitution and be beyond the power of the Congress or the States to modify, whereas most of the remainder of the Constitution was subject to Amendment. Just because there are some right-wing wackos on the Court like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts who seems to me to have been only unfamiliar with the Constitutional Oath of Office, but dismissive of the Bill of Rights in general, that doesn’t mean we should ignore these fundamental principals. No one, including police officers or the President, is above the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Land and the framework and foundation for all government in this Country. Government and laws derive validity only with and from the consent of the the people and only to the extent that they do not usurp anyone’s inalienable rights, whether enumerated or not.
Although the Constitution of the United States is a relatively short document few people take the time to read it much less study it. Please read it. It is the framework and context that all laws and government must be in compliance with.
I highly recommend starting with the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments first for context. The full text of The_Constitution_of_the_United_States along with the initial Amendments and comments are posted here on this site at: