Archive for the 'Totalitarianism' Category


Sunday, February 5th, 2012

In a clear cut case of sex discrimination of my lingerie review videos got totally censored out by YouTube. In trying to justify the censorship they slandered me twice.

Lie number one: First they posted a notice saying the video had been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.



YouTube then issued a strike against my YouTube account along with a threat:



When I appealed pointing out that the allegation was bogus, YouTube then posted a different lie.



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 .


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.

Bernie Dexter modeling lingerie a YouTube video on BabyGirlBoutique’s Channel.

Pandoras Choice also has a YouTube channel, Pandorasretro, where Pandora’s Choice has uploaded some nice slideshows, like this one, titled: “Lingerie and classic 1950s style womens underwear from pandoraschoice - YouTube







The Style 4234 sheer black mesh nylon Pleated_Panty from Secrets In Lace is quite pretty, has nice feminine lace trimmed leg openings and are very much see-through except for the generous gusset.

The elomi Lara Brief Panty 8065 shown modeled back view at HerRoom is quite sheer except for a panel in the front.

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.

MOV.Male_Models-Pink_Satin_Panties.AVI  Censored by YouTube t... on Twitpic

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).

This male-modeled customer lingerie review video can now be viewed under the Funnie or Die topic Funny Panties, where the embed code is available so you can share it on your blog, webpage etc..

MOV_Male-Models-Pink-Satin-Panties.AVI from Mister_Panty

MOV_Male_Models-Pink-Satin-Panties.AVI - watch more funny videos

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

SCOTUS: Innocence is No Excuse. Thou Shalt Kill!

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

A Letter by me at

SCOTUS: Innocence is No Excuse. Thou Shalt Kill!

“In States across the country only pro-death jurors are allowed to sit on a capital case.

“As both the Innocence Project and Amnesty International have pointed out, wrongful convictions are commonplace.

“Only turkeys and the politically connected get pardoned.

“The injustice system in the United States functions on fabricated and falsified evidence, coerced testimony, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, over-charging, and plea bargains. The U.S. has a higher proportion of its population in jail than any other country in the world, and that’s not because it’s citizens are more criminal.

“The public has been brainwashed by TV shows like “Criminal Minds”, where the presumption of guilt is always correct.

“What better way to let the world know that we have become the Fourth Reich than by executing the innocent?

“The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that innocence is not a defense and endorsed murders by the States.”


Comments currently disabled due to excessive spam. COMMENT POLICY.

Posts on Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE) currently in reversed order (by lowest Post number instead of by most recent date).


Fox Censors Alec Baldwin’s Phone-hacking Joke out of Emmys

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

As reported by Mary Elizabeth Williams in a article titled Can’t Rupert Murdoch take a joke?”“As part of a pretaped satirical bit that was to air during the opening of the show, Emmy-winner Alec Baldwin played a fictional network president talking on the phone - - and worked in a zinger about Rupert Murdoch listening in.” Baldwin had tweeted “Fox did kill my NewsCorp hacking joke. Which sucks bc I think it would have made them look better. A little.”

In a Letter responding to that article I wrote:

Fox IS a Joke and Murdoch is Evil

“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.”



Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE) (post order backwards at the moment).

Internet Privacy Getting Unscrupulously Trashed

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

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.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE) - go to RSS FEED at the bottom of the page if post order is still not fixed.

Comments are disabled due to excessive spamming and insufficient spam filters.

Two YouTube Videos of Man In Panties False-Flagged as “potentially inappropriate content”

Monday, April 11th, 2011

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.

The two videos are: “PICT_Male-Models-Vanity-Fair-Rose-Pink-Full-Brief-Panties-2.AVI“, which is a video of me doing a customer review of me wearing the same blouse and panties I was wearing in the image shown below (PICT0092.2-Male_Models-Vanity_Fair-rose-pink-full-brief-panties.JPG):


and “PICT_Panty_Buns-Male_Models-Ladies-Pink-Nylon-Panties-7.AVI“, which is a video of me doing a customer review of me wearing the same blouse and panties I was wearing in the following photo (PICT0397_2-Panty_Buns-male_models-pink-nylon-panties.JPG:


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

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

Please see the COMMENT POLICY before commenting.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Big Brother Is Out Of Control - Patriot Act, Blackwater

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

If President Barack Obama signs it (he may have already) the (unconstitutional and unpatriotic) Patriot Act provisions condoning the spying on and illegal searches of U.S. citizens and their business records and roving wiretaps on everybody will be extended. The United States Senate voted 86-12 for the extension (check to see if you Senator voted to spy on you). Please let them know you don’t approve of this attempted stripping away of our basic freedoms.

Blackwater Worldwide has changed its name to Xe Services.

Subsequently Xe Services was acquired by USTC Holdings LLC. ran a piece titled “Despite Denials, Blackwater Still Working For U.S.

The Xe Services website: ( redirects to:
U.S. Training Center.

On it’s website, under the heading of Xe - Careers, it states: “U.S. Training Center is famous for our ability to deliver hard hitting, effective training experiences for military, security and law enforcement professionals as well as civilians“.

Don’t you feel more secure knowing your local police or neighbors may have attended training courses like these?

Wendy Wysong, a partner at Clifford Chance, LLP oversees the export compliance program at Xe Services acting as Special Compliance Officer.

The Chertoff Group in collaboration with the Avascent Group performed due diligence on USTC Holdings’ behalf.

The Chertoff Group was formed by Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush.

According to an article on The Chertoff Group by Public Intelligence It’s leadership team “includes former high level employees of the DHS, CIA, NSA, and FEMA.” General Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA, has clients which manufacture body-scanning equipment, and advocates for their use by the TSA.

This is confirmed in The Chertoff Group’s press releases. They list the Chertoff Group’s advisory team for the USTC Holdings acquisition of Xe Services as including “Michael Chertoff, Co-founder and Managing Principal at The Chertoff Group; General Michael Hayden, Principal at The Chertoff Group and former Director of the CIA and NSA; Charles Allen, Principal at The Chertoff Group with more than 40 years of service at the CIA; Nat Fogg, Managing Director at The Chertoff Group; Gary Shiffman, Managing Director at The Chertoff Group; and Joseph Bernabucci, Senior Associate at The Chertoff Group, among others.”.

The releases state that Xe Services (formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide) has provided training to more than 50,000 U.S. Government Personnel.

This video is more pertinent now than ever:

The End of America movie - Official Trailer.

This film is based on the New York Times Best Seller by Naomi Wolf. You can purchase the movie HERE.

Please see the COMMENT POLICY before commenting.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

New Term For TSA Molestation: Gate Rape

Friday, November 26th, 2010

A new term for groping by TSA employees is spreading rapidly across the internet. The term for the TSA airport screening procedure is Gate Rape.

Read the additional information on 12 TSA Harassment cases by clicking on the down arrow just under the view count on this the TSA violating it’s own rules with respect to the exemption from radiation for breast milk.

Let a jury decide if the TSA went off the track” reads the headline of the article by Paul Mulshine of the Star Ledger. While appearing with United States Senator Frank Lautenberg, Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, Ms Napolitano had to backtrack from her claims about what was optional and admit “travelers have been told they face fines of as much as $11,000 for refusing to accept the pat-downs. According to the article Steve Strunsky of the Star Ledger “collared Lautenberg and asked him about a particularly disturbing case: An ABC News employee passing through Newark reported that a TSA employee had felt around inside her underwear, touching her bare skin.”

In fact the Gothamist published a report titled “3 Women Say TSA Screeners Groped Vaginas During Pat Down“.

Gary Benoit of the New American posted an article about Congressman Ron Paul on TSA Abuse: “Enough Is Enough”. Ron Paul, who posted a statement on his website, referenced the American Traveler Dignity Act he has introduced which would ensure that the TSA and its employees are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Essentially it would mean TSA agents could be arrested for groping just the same as everyone else.

An article in the Philly Mag’s Philly Post says “TSA Makes Air Travel Seem Like Bad Reality TV“.

Natasia Langfelder’s post on the blog LEZGET Real shed more light on how Those TSA Body Scanner Things Suck.

The ACLU Reports More Than 900 Complaints This Month Over “Enhanced” TSA Security Measures and Novembers post-Thanksgiving reports are still coming in.

Lindsay Beyertein of the blog “big think” posted an article titled: “Pose Nude, or We’ll Touch Your Junk“.

The blog GladRags published a post including a quoted first hand account of how the TSA Groin Searches Menstruating Women and infowars also posted the account of how the TSA Groin Searches Menstruating Women.

The Stir had reported about the bladder cancer survivor soaked by urine when the TSA screener broke Tom Sawyer’s urostomy bag and there was no apology or offer for help at that time. The apology came later only after he’d filed a complain with the TSA.

Even after being subjected to the added radiation she did not want, TSA screeners subjected breast cancer survivor Cathy Bossy, a flight attendant, to an aggressive pat down, feeling her breasts with their full hands and then asking her to remove her prosthetic breast. Apparently TSA screeners have also been groping the genital areas of young children, traumatizing them.

The ACLU is asking people to sign a petition telling the Department of Homeland Security that the TSA must respect passenger’s privacy rights.

Surveys about the degree of acceptance of the Fourth Amendment violations of privacy and dignity have been badly skewed, because
the surveys do not include the large numbers of people who declined to fly and either stayed home or took alternative means of transportation rather than submit to being violated in this manner. Most people do not have a desire to submit to groping, assault and battery, forcible exposure, or molestation.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Prudes Panties In A Bunch Over Diesel Brand Panty Photoshoot

Friday, November 19th, 2010

MSN NZ reports “Law school angry over library photo shoot” after Diesel took “photographs of men and women in skimpy lingerie in racy poses alongside books and computers”. Daily Mail had an online article with more photos of the models in Diesel Brand underwear posing in a Brooklyn, NY law school library as did which titled an article full of the photos: “Advertisement Photos of Diesel Be Stupid“. In fact there were a whole slew of articles that included photos like this one:

Photo of Models Posing In Diesel Brand Underwear Photoshoot

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:

Vanity Fair Rose Pink Nylon Full Brief Panties Male-Modeled Back View

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.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Net Neutrality Is A Free Speech Issue

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

Read why the ACLU says preservation of network neutrality is a key free speech issue of our time.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Please Read The Comment Policy

Friday, October 15th, 2010

Please read the Comment Policy before commenting. Thank you.

Post Script: That worked - NOT! Comments have been disabled due to excessive spam.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Administrator’s note: Comments are being disabled due to insufficient spam filters. Even the comment policy was getting spammed.


Sunday, September 26th, 2010

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?

Was the negative feedback related to previous big hit by Katy Perry - I Kissed a Girl?

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?

Katy Perry sings “Hot N Cold” with Elmo on Sesame Street!”

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.

Here is the video titled “PICT_Male-Models-Vanity-Fair-Rose-Pink-Full-Brief-Panties-2.AVI” that YouTube requires people to sign in to see, stating:

“This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community.”

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Right Wing Strategy: Divide And Conquer (Editorial)

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

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.

This following YouTube video titled “Framing Feminism - Hot Buttons by Lorraine Sheinberg, Written and Narrated by Susan Rubin” was uploaded by the Feminist Majority Foundation.

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.

Blog_Home (MAIN PAGE)

Comment Policy

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

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.


National Go Topless Day On August 22th 2010

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

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. cites information provided by as a source for its list of“10 successful cases recognizing women’s right to be topless in certain states or cities”


DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional

Friday, July 9th, 2010

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.”

The Court’s ruling (MEMORANDUM) issued today, July 8, 2010 (PDF file) was uploaded by

The decision came to my attention both on the “crawl” at the bottom of a screen on a television station and in article at by Alex Pareene titled: Section of Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional.

Vivienne Foley of CNN wrote an article titled: Judge rules same sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler is quoted as saying of the ruling: “We are reviewing the decision.”

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?


Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan A Closet Neocon?

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Could Elena Kagan Be A Closet Neocon?
i watched the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan. At first i had the impression that she would be an open-minded jurist. Perhaps she still will be. There were parts of the hearing that were, of course, laughable, i.e.: Senator Charles Grassly having his first round of questioning on a paper she had written before she ever went to law school. She gave the impression the she was merely doing the best job she could for whomever she was working. Going into the hearings, having read some of her papers i thought she would be pro-privacy and was concerned about her views with respect Habeas Corpus. Did i hear right that she supports the Defense Of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)? i hope not. What REALLY CONCERNED ME GREATLY was that she said that as a Supreme Court Justice, she wouldn’t take into account “natural law” or the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that our inalienable rights, among others, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Steven recognized the correlation between the liberty clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the liberty clause in the Declaration of independence. I was ABSOLUTELY AGHAST when Elena Kagan said that there had to be a textual basis for rights. This TREATS THE NINTH AMENDMENT LIKE IT NEVER EXISTED. Without the promise of the Ninth Amendment the Constitution never would have been ratified. The fear was that if rights weren’t listed they would be gone. The Ninth Amendment states that: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words people’s rights aren’t limited to those that are listed (i.e.: The pursuit of happiness). The view Elena Kagan espoused of a textual basis being required would give State and Local governments the ability to take away every conceivable right which wasn’t spelled out in text with impunity . To me, that is not being a Progressive. That is being a Neocon. The ONLY positives i saw were that she believed in equal rights for women, and that she would think about things with an open mind before deciding them. Joe Biden would have pressed her about natural law and the Ninth Amendment had he been on the Judiciary Committee. No, Elena Kagan is not a “liberal”. She will probably get confirmed. Will we ever get our Bill of Rights back? Will i live long enough to see it?


Will Elena Kagan Be The Next Supreme Court Justice?

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

According to multiple (not necessarily reliable) internet sources, President Barach Obama is set to select Elena Kagan for referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee as his choice as the next nominee as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, replacing Justice John Paul Stevens. If she is nominated and confirmed it would be the first time in history that three women have sat simultaneously on the bench of the Supreme Court. She would also become the third Jewish Justice on the court currently.
On a somewhat positive note, according to an article in NPR entitled:Obama to Nominate Kagan for Supreme Court , it was noted that she had served as a Supreme Court law clerk for the late Thurgood Marshall and was a dean of the Harvard Law School. On another positive note, she seems to be sensitive to gender based discrimination. On a less positive note, there are many who feel that Elena Kagan’s record is less than stellar with respect to some basic civil liberties like the right to privacy. Glenn Greenwald of authored an article entitled: “The Case Against Elena Kagan”. The article points to some prior examples where she seemed to approve of Bush/Cheney policies which were regressive and infringed on basic human rights such as the universal right to Habeas Corpus.
Briefly skimming an Harvard Law Review paper (Vol 114, No. 8 (Jun., 2001), pp. 2245-2385) on presidential administration by Elena Kagan the document does appear to me to lean in favor of a notion that Federal departments, bureaus and agencies may be overseen and directed by the Executive rather than the Legislative branch of government except for areas of Federal Agency oversight where Congress has with specificity precluded the Executive branch from asserting such authority.
The debate over at the Huffington Post with respect to Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Pick is raging with thousands of comments posted on the potential nomination already.
The Justice Elena Kagan would replace, John Paul Stevens, had lectured on the relationship between the liberty clause of the Declaration of Independence (”unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”) and the liberty clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (life, liberty and property). Justice Stevens tended to rule narrowly, restricting the scope of his opinions somewhat closely to cases similar to the one being appealed from rather than making broad declaratory rulings.
The current Supreme Court has been far too prone to subjugating the rights of individuals to the powers of government and other large corporate and organized interests. I for one will be watching closely to see what the views of the next Supreme Court nominee will be with respect to individual liberty.


May Liberty Return for the New Decade

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

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.


Internet Spying and Internet Censorship

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

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 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.


Support, Some Relief, Concerns, and a Tribute to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

American_Civil_Liberties_Union_:_Tribute:_The Legacy_of_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_and_WRP_Staff Ruth Bader Ginsburg founded the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in 1972. See American_Civil_Liberties_Union_:_Womens_Rights . Just recently, on Sept. 25, 2009, a short post was written by Jessica_Valenti_|_Feminist_Author and Executive_Editor_of_Feministing noting Supreme_Court_Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_had_been_admitted_to_the_hospital and then a quick update about Justice_Ginsburg_having_been_been_discharged_from_the_hospital and having gone “back to work the same day.” (Both posts at Feministing).
Justice Ginsburg is very much needed on the bench for the important cases in this upcoming term. The fundamentalist conservatives have been emboldened with the retirement of Justice Souter, and seem desperate to roll back women’s rights while the Courts are still heavily populated with Bush-era appointees. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be soft spoken, but it was she who founded the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in 1972. There is more about the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project at I do hope Justice Ginsburg is careful to recover fully and not over-do it. She is a bright shining star on the Supreme Court.


Internet Censorship Struck Down Time After Time

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

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) along with other anti-censorship organizations like The National_Coalition_Against_Censorship at and Feminists_For_Free_Expression
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?


SUPREME COURT Refuses To Revive Online Censorship Law  (01/21/2009) 
ACLU wins 10-Year Battle To Protect Free Speech   
ACLU v.Gonzales:  Joan Walsh of victorious, 2007  

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Ashcroft v. ACLU in 2004, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group in 2000, RENO v. ACLU in 1997
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   
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 Rules: Cyberspace Will be Free! ACLU Hails Victory in internet Censorship Challenge (06/26/1997)      
the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU that the Federal Communications Decency Act is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.      
Counsel for the plaintiffs: Ann Beeson, Esq., ACLU Associate Legal Director 
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                                                                                                                                                                        

Feminist and Libertarian Authors, Thinkers, Doers, and Organizations

Saturday, August 1st, 2009

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’

Varda Burstyn

Avadon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship

Angela Yvonne Davis

How Prosecutors Are Using Obscenity Laws To Stifle Dissent
by Marjorie Heins, executive director of the ACLU’s Arts Censorship Project
The article mentioned above is excellent and I would highly recommend reading it.

Nan Hunter
National Coalition Against Censorship

the late Leanne Katz was formerly the executive director of the
National Coalition Against Censorship

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.
Blogging Censorship
from the National Coalition Against Censorship
Wendy Kaminer
Sylvia Law

Thelma McCormack

Carlin Meyer, professor of law, New York Law School
Marcia Pally
president of Feminists_For_Free_Expression

Katha Pollitt

Ann Snitnow

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

Carol Vance

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,‘ (July 27, 2009).


The Internet Free Speech Ruling Prudes Want Overturned

Monday, July 27th, 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:


The Danger of Calling Rights Privileges

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

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:


ACLU Challenges Unconstitutional Spying Law

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

The ACLU was scheduled to be to be in court today, Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009, challenging the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act which George W. Bush signed into law a year ago. There are more details at:
The name of the case is Amnesty_v._McConnell. See

One of the plaintiffs is Naomi Klein of The Nation. A statement by her is at:

The ACLU has been involved in a great variety of cases. Most people don’t understand that it is the constitutional principals that the ACLU defends. The people whose rights need defending are often in the minority or unpopular, but if one group loses their rights, so do we all. We can not allow our rights be construed as privileges, because when that occurs tyranny inevitably follows.
These are just a few of the ‘ACLU 100 Greatest Hits’ Supreme Court Cases mentioned at:  

1952  Rochin v. California: Reversed a conviction and held that the police having a man’s stomach pumped for drugs “shocks the conscience”                       
1954  Brown v. Board of Education:  Separate is not equal                                  
1963 Gideon v. Wainwright:  The right to a lawyer                                                  
1964  New York Times v. Sullivan:  Free Press and the right to be wrong.           
1965 Griswold v. Connecticut:  Marital Privacy, contraception                               
1966  Miranda v. Arizona:  4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights                
1967 In Re Gault: Young persons have constitutional rights
1967 Loving v. Virginia: Court refers to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause and the “freedom to marry” and invalidates bans on interracial marriage          
1973  Frontiero v. Richardson:  Gender equality under the law