blazintommyd's blog: "Not Safe for Child Labor (updated January 2011)"

NSFCL - is a better term for what BJ refers to as NSFW 

The History of 'save the kids from filth' is a very recent one, which was commenced by fmr Supreme Court Justice Stevens in FCC v Pacifica.

Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford who attempted to have William O Douglas impeached from the US Supreme Court because of Douglas' unflinching position on the 1st Amendment and a Swedish film "I Am Curious Yellow" which the GOP attempted to ban as it dealt with the Christian Democrat movement in Sweden. Ford became US President after it was revealed that Richard Nixon was carrying on a number of illegal activities through the Office of the Presidency. Aside from hiring people to break into Democratic Party Headquarters, one of these actions regarded the secret bombing of Cambodia: which was Nixon's extension of a covert policy of warmaking against North Viet Nam, commenced by President Truman, as revealed by Daniel Ellsberg leaking the top secret "Pentagon Papers" to the NY Times.

Nixon who had racial covenants on his California home when he moved to DC to be Eisenhower's Vice President, forbade Negros or Jews from buying his home. As US President Nixon had also appointed censors to the FCC and two of the most extremist Judges in the history of the Court, Burger and Rehnquist whom - amongst other things - voted to allow Nixon to prevent the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers; but, at that time, were still outvoted.

None the less, burger/rehnquist did more to dismantle the Union than anyone else in the history of the USA. Nixon had realized that the KKK faction of the Democratic Party (it's heart soul and flesh) was now up for grabs after LBJ had signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law and his method for securing them as loyal GOP supporters was known as his 'southern strategy'. Burger and Rehnquist's job was to use the Court to dismantle the Union 'return power to the States' restore "traditional family values" - e.g., criminalize abortion, Homosexuality, allow school prayer and State sponsered censorship.

The obstacles they faced were decisions upholding these various rights they opposed especially rights protected under the 14th Amendment, which incorporates protections of the 1st Amendment against actions by the States. So in order to do this, they had to Amend the US Constitution from the bench. In terms of censorship this was facilitated by Justice Stevens writing the 5 to 4 decision in FCC v Pacifica which created a power for the FCC to censor all television and radio broadcasts outside the hours of 10pm to 6am to protect children from "filthy words". And thus Children became the new pretence for Conservatives to effectuate and impose censorship. Up until the time Nixon and Ford appointed 5 members to the Court, the 1st Amendment was still a highly regarded National right, after Miller v California written by Burger, censorship became a States Right under another Constitutional Amendment by the Court, referred to as "community standards".

Now when I was growing up Child Labor was still prevalent and immensely popular. The Press used children to deliver their newspapers, collect subscription fees, work as theater ushers, deliver groceries, &c. I worked sweeping floors when I was 12. At that particular time the Conservatives were saying child labor promoted character, discipline, obedience. Heil Hitler. By the time I was 21 the Conseravtives were lamenting O these poor children, puking pea soup, smoke pouring out of their ears, their heads spinning around because of these "filthy words" all over the radio. God is a failure, how will these children ever grow up and vote Republican, something must be done otherwise Satan and insects will take over the world, we need more petroleum distillates, funny greasy haircuts and men in baggy suits to black top the earth and build more churches.

So by this time maybe you're beginning to see the irony of how we got to NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN to NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

When Stevens amended the US Constitution to allow the FCC to censor radio broadcasts it wasn't to protect (as Brennan noted in his dissent) "weak minded adults". Previous to the Pacifica case, I was allowed to listen to the radio when I was 12 years old, sweeping floors; the power to censor these broadcasts was created by the Court, purportedly, to prevent children from becoming possessed by Satan and disabled from growing up and voting for the GOP or their Christian Democrat brethren.

So by the time Nixon resigned and Ford stumbled around as President the KKK faction of the Democratic Party decided to take control of government, actually for the first time since the Civil War and hired Christian Democrat Jimmy Carter whose position on the 1st Amendment was voluntary self censorship for the sake of Christian decency

So now at the present time we have a situation of ignorance. The government is incapable of ordering any social networking site to in any manner censor their content as this would violate the sites 14th, 1st and 5th Amendment Rights under the US Const. Either the site itself is censoring us because it has some affinity with Jimmy Carter and the Christian Democrats or some secret person has control over these sites and is ordering them to censor content. Whatever the case is, NSFW makes absolutely no sense whatever. If I had a business and felt that the internet was depriving me of the labor commodity I've purchased then I would ban the internet from the premises which is what many businesses have done. So as far as I can tell the whole thing is bogus and as no explanation is provided I have no basis to believe otherwise. If you have any clue, post it as a comment; lack of comments indicating none exists.

In conclusion, we are allowed to post whatever we want as long as we mark it NSFW, maybe a better acronym would be NSFWMP.

The proposition was recently put forth by Tom and Jami that fakes are a form of deceit.

There is no question about it. Is there an injury in fact? For example there are several pay sites that charge around $10.00 or more per month that have adult profiles and there are fakes on there - viz., a woman using for example stills from an Andrew Blake video and saying she's a professional model. Well you see so many of these that after a while you are led to go from a free account to a pay account which will allow you to see their profile and contact them In order to have a law-suit, you'd have to prove that the site was doing the bogus profiles as a come on or was grotesquely negligent in allowing the fakery to persist because they're benefiting from it.

Well these are questions of fact; but individuals could not be held liable for publishing fake accounts unless they were using the service to collect money under fraudulent pretence. But if you stop and think about it a site could do something like that to attract guys. Bars do it by having pretty girls hang out for free drinks &c. Maybe BJ is doing it or allowing it to persist for similar reasons. So the motives are the same and are wrong.

I believe that a large part of the problem is the failure to address the elements of the deception and it's purpose. Many if not most guys come on line to masturbate to girls images and hope for interaction. I do. Web cams are the best example; yet it seldom if ever actually happens unless you pay for it and the interaction there is also easy to fake. A lot of times a guy could be jerking off to a video and think it's a live girl interacting with him. I'd be willing to bet it happens frequently because sometimes the videos fool me or else it's so difficult to find someone to share an orgasm with that we pretend. I do that too.

So I enjoy stroking my cock, admit it and see nothing wrong with it but I don't have time for deception or being led down a blind alley. Putting all of these factors together I think it's mostly women or underage girls doing this rather than Trannys or Over the Hill Queens because on these same said sites straight men openly interact with Gay men, Trannys, bisexuals like myself for the purposes of masturbation or exhibitionism (just like to show).

It's no big deal; also a lot of women that are ugly and/or fat are open about it and just do their thing. Sometimes they're way more fun than a beautiful stuck up woman that are like that many times to hide their insecurity or shyness. But the good looking women are rare, but do occur every now and then and they ought to do this more because there's nothing wrong with it.

When i originally posted this most of my time was spent dancing and this is still one of the only ways I have to socialize. There are women in the same situation that would probably be better off resorting to this than having sex with someone they don’t really like.

Masturbating alone or repressing yourself until you go neurotic? But of more women would do this for free it would squeeze and crowd out the fakes and the blind demand for them by guys that aren't being satisfied by their wives, are sick of having to buy sex or are in the same situation as me.

Society does nothing to alleviate this problem because Conservatives use it in their war against humanity, nudity and free orgasms. Imposing outworn social morals only makes the whole thing worse So for me, looks aren’t important. If a person is intelligent, polite, has taste and wants to get off and it doesn’t matter to me whether a man wants to watch but I do prefer women. But in any event they're going to know who I am.

People that resort to pix alone obviously don’t realize how these factors affect others reaction. Aside from indicating to me that they are insecure and immature it also suggests that they are lacking the sort of charm necessary to promote a positive interaction or what I need to take me over the edge. So in essence all they're doing is presenting a picture and saying hey look at this. Well yes that's very nice but there's no interaction. It seldome does anything for me and the exceptions are rare.

What do you want? At this point I'm perhaps not experienced enough to know the ins and outs of two things which are subjective and thus I can only suspect (1) I know that some people say they don’t like to cam or trade pix they want skin on skin sex, let's hook up &c. Well in my book it would be an injury in fact if they showed one thing and then you show up and they're something else and (2) some good looking women are sometimes dull shallow and superficial beings. So what in the hell are either of these doing on line and not wanting to show who they really are? I suspect that they're probably looking to con guys into a 'give me some money' ploy. I was taken like that before.

What it all comes down to is guys being led on by a deception. Try it out sometime: almost all of the girls with gorgeous pix have no personality or else act like well maybe if you really grovel; but nothing ever happens. So again, why are they on line? One possibility is they might think that this is an innocent means for garnering attention but it isn’t because at the very least they are wasting some guys time with on a deception. So maybe it's partly the guy's fault too. I mean surely, he can learn what I have if he has the time but that is a big if. Time in almost all regards is fungible.

In a similar sense, there is the bitch factor. A girl friend asked me about this guy that only calls her when he wants sex and I told her if you know him that well then you have to be reciprocal because sometimes guys call a girl and get rejected, which is unpleasant, girls do the we got what we wanted routine now too So that factor works in here also - the gorgeous babe is kind of a bitch, doesn’t have time &c so the guy figures oooooo I better play it cool and ends up wasting away his time on a deception.

So no matter which way you cut it fakes are indeed a deception. There is nothing innocent about it at all; and if these people are exposed and this explanation is presented to them then they ought to immediately realize what's wrong with what they're doing. So I agree that they ought to be exposed