"Porn Free, As Free As The Wind Blows..."

[shereads]

Let's make mimosas and raise a toast to the final months of a balanced U.S. Supreme Court, which has temporarily stopped new restrictions on


INTERNET
PORN!



Then let's do the banana dance.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*makes impression of dirty old woman*

Come here, little boy, sit in nanny's lap... or better yet, let nanny sit in YOUR lap..!

 

[Somme]

Rightio.

 

[oggbashan]

*makes impression of dirty old woman*

Come here, little boy, sit in nanny's lap... or better yet, let nanny sit in YOUR lap..!

Better still, get under nanny's skirt. Who knows what you might find?

Locally there is a college that trains nannies. I haven't seen a student over 23 years old. That sort of nanny I can appreciate.

Og

 

[Somme]

You're worse than I am, Oggs........

 

[Guest]

http://www.clubtrannys.com/post/06200401/tran001.mpg
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
http://www.clubtrannys.com/post/06200401/tran010.mpg

http://www.clubtrannys.com/post/05200431/tran001.mpg
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
http://www.clubtrannys.com/post/05200431/tran010.mpg

Enjoy!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

NANNY, not Tranny, CV!

 

[Guest]

This deserves a mega WHOOP!



Lou

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The mind boggles at the possibilities...

Banana porn (or whatever fruit you get off on)
Fantasy bestiality, ie fucking with centaurs and mermaids
Interdimensional porn (humans fucking toons)

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The mind boggles at the possibilities ...

I had always thought the cumquat sounded like it should have a sexual use, but upon closer observation, they merely appeared uncomfortable.

 

[Guest]

A "woo woo woo" from me. Svenska, you have such a terrific (vs. terrifying) imagination.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Let's make mimosas and raise a toast to the final months of a balanced U.S. Supreme Court, which has temporarily stopped new restrictions on


INTERNET
PORN!



Then let's do the banana dance.

The court may stay fairly balanced. The most likely candidate to retire or take the dirt nap is Renquist, even Bush will have a hard time replacing him with someone more conservative. I don't see Beyer of Bader-Ginsberg going anywhere, nor Scalia or Thomas.

I have heard rumors that O'connor is considering retirement, that could be bad if we get four more years of Bush Co. I haven't heard that either Kennedy or Souter have any plans to retire.

If kerry gets elected and renquist does hang up his gown, a Kerry niminee will be less conservative, even with a stacked senate & house to keep a true liberal off the bench.

-Colly

 

[DirtyJJ]

Yes, a big Whoo-Hoo to this!
I was very happy to hear this yesterday.

Now if we can just do something about "indecency" on the radio... yesterday I heard a song with the word "come" bleeped out! Of course, it was intended to be the "cum" version of the word.... but still!
DJJ

 

[CrazyyAngel]

To be honest I was a little surprised to hear that. Actually I thought the US would jump at the possibility to restrain Internet Porn ...

There may be hope for the US of A after all ...

CA

 

[shereads]

To be honest I was a little surprised to hear that. Actually I thought the US would jump at the possibility to restrain Internet Porn ...

There may be hope for the US of A after all ...

Let's not go crazy just yet, Crazyy. Except for the lifetime job security, justices are probably like any other uniformed authority figure: they like to make people work for their Supreme Court victories. This doesn't mean they aren't wringing their hands over America's children who are "trapped in the dark dungeons of the internet."* It just means they didn't like the particular phrasing of this particular piece of legislation. Bring it back with another "whereas" or two, and maybe some "therefores," and we'll all be in leg shackles.



*Quoting Dubya, of course. Who else?

 

[CrazyyAngel]

"trapped in the dark dungeons of the internet."

Yeah ... sounds like him. Would be surprised if he even knew how to start a computer, let alone connect to the net ...

CA

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Let's not go crazy just yet, Crazyy. Except for the lifetime job security, justices are probably like any other uniformed authority figure: they like to make people work for their Supreme Court victories. This doesn't mean they aren't wringing their hands over America's children who are "trapped in the dark dungeons of the internet."* It just means they didn't like the particular phrasing of this particular piece of legislation. Bring it back with another "whereas" or two, and maybe some "therefores," and we'll all be in leg shackles.



*Quoting Dubya, of course. Who else?

In this case I think the court has taken a very prudent step. They did not really rule on the wording, they ruled on the basis of the law being five years old & technology moving so rapidly.

In basic terms it's up to Asscroft & DOJ to prove in a lower court that filtering software or other technologies can't protect children without even making the courts decide if censorship is needed. If Asscroft cannot prove that parent's putting filtering software on their childrens machines won't protect them, then this law is dead in the water no matter how they re write it. It will be back to the drawing board. interestingly the law was proposed & passed with the aim of protecting children, which I think was just a clever dodge to try and get wholesale censorship accepted. It may prove to bite them in the ass, if they can't convince a lower court that parents can protect tehir kids with just a little parental oversight.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Those dark dungeons, by the way, exist mostly in Dubya's head, not on the internet.

I mean that figuratively, as well as literally!

 

[psychocatblah]

Yeah, right.

I think kids would have a much harder time finding free porn on the internet than finding dad's playboys or porn tapes in his closet. I found these things as a kid and I turned out ok.

The thing is, until a certain age, even if I happened upon dad's porn I just thought it was "gross" and moved on. Most normal kids in normal households are likely to do the same. Give kids a smidgen of credit. I don't think a porn banner is going to lead to a fatality.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

A "woo woo woo" from me. Svenska, you have such a terrific (vs. terrifying) imagination.

Perdita

...and that's just ONE of the reasons why you like me.

 

[Guest]

...and that's just ONE of the reasons why you like me.

Es verdad. You positively overwhelm me. I'm sure I would swoon if we ever met in person. P.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

In this case I think the court has taken a very prudent step. They did not really rule on the wording, they ruled on the basis of the law being five years old & technology moving so rapidly.

In basic terms it's up to Asscroft & DOJ to prove in a lower court that filtering software or other technologies can't protect children without even making the courts decide if censorship is needed. If Asscroft cannot prove that parent's putting filtering software on their childrens machines won't protect them, then this law is dead in the water no matter how they re write it. It will be back to the drawing board. interestingly the law was proposed & passed with the aim of protecting children, which I think was just a clever dodge to try and get wholesale censorship accepted. It may prove to bite them in the ass, if they can't convince a lower court that parents can protect tehir kids with just a little parental oversight.

-Colly

I'm not as sure. Parental oversight seems to be a forgotten concept in the government. It seems the "values" campaigners make a lot of noise by assuming that parents have no real connection to their kids or what they do. For a group that believes that the family unit is an unshakable thing and that homosexuality will threaten it, it requires the usual ideological gymnastics. Luckily they're good at that. Also, remember that most judges understand technology less than a Siberian luddite just released from the Gulag. On top of that, they'll probably pick there lower court well. We haven't seen the end of this.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

After a couple of hours, yes. But before that - we'd have a blast!

 

[DirtyJJ]

Re: Yeah, right.

I think kids would have a much harder time finding free porn on the internet than finding dad's playboys or porn tapes in his closet. I found these things as a kid and I turned out ok.

The thing is, until a certain age, even if I happened upon dad's porn I just thought it was "gross" and moved on. Most normal kids in normal households are likely to do the same. Give kids a smidgen of credit. I don't think a porn banner is going to lead to a fatality.

This is a really good point - I remember that no matter where parents hid their porn, the kids would find it. I saw many a dirty magazine, mostly at my friends' houses, when they somehow found their parents' porn. And when I saw my first video - at age 14 no less! - I was grossed out. A few years later I was turned on beyond belief.

And yes, i turned out OK too.

JJ

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not as sure. Parental oversight seems to be a forgotten concept in the government. It seems the "values" campaigners make a lot of noise by assuming that parents have no real connection to their kids or what they do. For a group that believes that the family unit is an unshakable thing and that homosexuality will threaten it, it requires the usual ideological gymnastics. Luckily they're good at that. Also, remember that most judges understand technology less than a Siberian luddite just released from the Gulag. On top of that, they'll probably pick there lower court well. We haven't seen the end of this.

They don't have a choice on the lower court this time, they are kicking it back to the court from which it came. that court already ruled against the govt once.

-Colly