Quicksand Fans

Figures. I guess the nut cases that make our laws are starting to focus on the "snuff videos" and anything that comes close is fair game.

I know the saying: "America... love it or leave it!" Well I'm damned close to being ready to leave it!

MuddyEddie wrote:Figures. I guess the nut cases that make our laws are starting to focus on the "snuff videos" and anything that comes close is fair game.

I know the saying: "America... love it or leave it!" Well I'm damned close to being ready to leave it!

It has absolutely nothing to do with laws. Apparently there are some users at UMD who feel that sort of thing is inappropriate and not what UMD is about. This comes up in discussion from time to time there and results in nothing being done. The idea that somehow our fetish humiliates women more than theirs is a tenuous argument at best.

Leave if you like but I'd suggest you stick around at least a while longer.

Perhaps you're right about it not having anything to do with laws. But a couple other sites I visit (not quicksand related) have also banned any pictures or video that portrays an act that (in the case of one site), "displays the death, or the fictionalized simulated death, of any model or actor involved in the scene."

The reason that they did it was because the laws in this country have been "interpreted" by the folks with a religious leaning as "restricting the display of death scenes". So why can movies and TV still show people being shot and murdered in other ways? Simple. In our case it is considered a "perversion" and a form of "erotic stimulation" to somehow see a woman sinking in quicksand to her simulated demise.

A number of lawsuits have already been filed against quite a few sites, and still others were put out of business permanently (anyone remember "Insex"?).

While that reasoning may not be the case here, just remember that there is a very distinct possibility that the radical loonies are lurking out there, salivating at the chance to shut down one more site... and maybe make a buck or two doing it!

MuddyEddie wrote:Perhaps you're right about it not having anything to do with laws. But a couple other sites I visit (not quicksand related) have also banned any pictures or video that portrays an act that (in the case of one site), "displays the death, or the fictionalized simulated death, of any model or actor involved in the scene."

The reason that they did it was because the laws in this country have been "interpreted" by the folks with a religious leaning as "restricting the display of death scenes". So why can movies and TV still show people being shot and murdered in other ways? Simple. In our case it is considered a "perversion" and a form of "erotic stimulation" to somehow see a woman sinking in quicksand to her simulated demise.

A number of lawsuits have already been filed against quite a few sites, and still others were put out of business permanently (anyone remember "Insex"?).

While that reasoning may not be the case here, just remember that there is a very distinct possibility that the radical loonies are lurking out there, salivating at the chance to shut down one more site... and maybe make a buck or two doing it!

Insex was sold by their owners in a fit of paranoia. It is no more illegal to display any sort of death on a website than it is in a movie. I don't know where people keep getting this but it just is not so. You can not name a single lawsuit successfully brought against a single website for depiction of a fictional death. If we can't say "under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance then how in the world is anyone with a "religious leaning" going to be allowed to interpret an unconstitutional law? I would very much like to have anyone cite a specific example.

I was puzzled by this until I went to the original thread.

There is no ban on grim quicksand at UMD. I see that Michael is removing them voluntarily...I did see the thread there and I think it's unfair, and I'm sorry to hear it -- and I don't think he should be feeling like he has to do it but it is not UMD that's taking them down.

Messmaster just approved my "White Lace at Poison Sumac Bog". Well, we'll see what happens, because I just promoted it there!

"White Lace" features a full submersion followed by happy messy peat bog play. I guess it is not really grim when you consider the fact that I very obviously appear after going under, but I definitely do go under, yes I do.

Nessie

I compare what is going on here to a candy store making chocolate producers feel unwelcome.
Chocolate stores should see this as an opportunity, expand and make candy available.
One man's folly is another man's salvation.

Duncan Edwards wrote:Insex was sold by their owners in a fit of paranoia. It is no more illegal to display any sort of death on a website than it is in a movie. I don't know where people keep getting this but it just is not so. You can not name a single lawsuit successfully brought against a single website for depiction of a fictional death. If we can't say "under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance then how in the world is anyone with a "religious leaning" going to be allowed to interpret an unconstitutional law? I would very much like to have anyone cite a specific example.

That depends on how you define "successfully!"

In the case of Insex it was very successful. They were threatened by the nutcases, who (according to some third-hand reports I read) had some powerful lawyers on retainer. Apparently Brent and some of the other involved knew they didn't have the money to fight against the lawyers, so they sold the site to an company in another country (I think it was in the Netherlands). That's one example of how "they" can succeed.

The laws can be interpreted in many ways, and the people with the best lawyers usually win! And the best lawyers cost the most money, usually. All that has to happen is for someone to be offended, and then one of these fat-cat organizations with an axe to grind decided to use it as a trial balloon.

And it's even worse when it's government agencies that take the offensive... but don't even get me started there!

MuddyEddie wrote:

Duncan Edwards wrote:Insex was sold by their owners in a fit of paranoia. It is no more illegal to display any sort of death on a website than it is in a movie. I don't know where people keep getting this but it just is not so. You can not name a single lawsuit successfully brought against a single website for depiction of a fictional death. If we can't say "under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance then how in the world is anyone with a "religious leaning" going to be allowed to interpret an unconstitutional law? I would very much like to have anyone cite a specific example.

That depends on how you define "successfully!"

In the case of Insex it was very successful. They were threatened by the nutcases, who (according to some third-hand reports I read) had some powerful lawyers on retainer. Apparently Brent and some of the other involved knew they didn't have the money to fight against the lawyers, so they sold the site to an company in another country (I think it was in the Netherlands). That's one example of how "they" can succeed.

The laws can be interpreted in many ways, and the people with the best lawyers usually win! And the best lawyers cost the most money, usually. All that has to happen is for someone to be offended, and then one of these fat-cat organizations with an axe to grind decided to use it as a trial balloon.

And it's even worse when it's government agencies that take the offensive... but don't even get me started there!

Insex was never even threatened by anyone. They used the threat of a threat to maximize their selling price to some foreigners. After the sale they repackaged their operations into something easier to make money with and kept on doing the same thing under different names. I'm a member of one of them (waterbondage.com) Lena, Paris, and others have worked for them. The threat of a threat was an FBI memo and the creation of a task force that admitted they were unlikely to ever win a single case and that was six years ago. So far with the resources of the Federal Government behind them they have never taken ANYONE to court and they never will because it is all but impossible to win.

Getting back to UMD - The issue there is one that belongs to a vocal minority of their own membership. It has nothing to do with outside interference, laws, or threats, by anyone.

MuddyEddie wrote:In the case of Insex it was very successful. They were threatened by the nutcases, who (according to some third-hand reports I read) had some powerful lawyers on retainer. Apparently Brent and some of the other involved knew they didn't have the money to fight against the lawyers, so they sold the site to an company in another country (I think it was in the Netherlands). That's one example of how "they" can succeed.

Know what I said the last time a lawyer was threatening me?
"Okay, sue me *click of phone hanging up*"
Guess what? Nothing happened. If a lawyer is harassing you that means he doesn't have enough of a case to actually do anything to you. If he did he'd be filing a lawsuit not calling you on the phone.