PSU: Rated Not so PG13 PSO-W!

[DamunBM]

" Considering the forum is PG-13 oriented, the acts being simulated in these pictures exceed the boundaries that would normally be associated with that standard. As such, I'm going to lock this thread. " - Ryna "Resist/RealLife++"

Dear PSO-W, after the recent locking of the ever so popular " Unofficial Idler Teabagging " Thread, I've felt empty inside with my need to publicize my strange yet entertaining harassment of fellow PSU players. I believe that the thread created a small fellowship of friends, who's unite may be destroyed by the removal of are beloved " Unofficial Idler Teabagging " Thread. I submit that a Rated R section of the forums be created for 18+ PSO-W forum members in which I can perform all the moderately mature PSO/U related acts my heart could desire. Join us my friends! Vote yes on the Not so PG13 PSO-W! bill today!

[Umberger]

What's to stop the <18 year olds from entering? PSOW shouldn't risk getting in trouble because some kid got caught in the naughty section he shouldn't have been in. This may not be a family site per say, but it's best to keep it kid safe.

[EphekZ]

You're stupid. on top of this horrible idea, this is in the wrong forum.

so, before you start suggesting how to make it better, how about you learn how to actually use the forums first eh?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: EphekZ on 2007-03-23 19:53 ]</font>

[Dj_SkyEpic]

This is site related afterall.

You could probably add an age rating to your topics to inform viewers of it's contents of course. It would be kind of like ESRB ratings!

"Warning, this thread is filled with adult rated T-Bags."

[vfloresjr24]

If one is created I suggest that Paying to get on the forums would be a good idea. Anybody can say their 18+ and try to view that type of stuff. I highly doubt that PSO-W would ruin its reputation on that stuff though.

[Ketchup345]

Last I knew, there is no way to verify age online, short of asking for information many wouldn't feel safe giving to some websites (why would someone give their credit card number to a site that doesn't charge for anything?). And even then people as young as 16 can get credit cards (pretty sure I had a "real" Visa at 16 or 17, if not I was able to).

[APEXi]

Yay controversy!

[UnderscoreX]

Would the mods be displeased if we made a similar topic, but put in the title "YOU NEED TO BE 18 OR OVER TO VIEW KTHX" so the youngins are joining at their own risk?!

[Ryna]

On 2007-03-23 20:30, UnderscoreX wrote:
Would the mods be displeased if we made a similar topic, but put in the title "YOU NEED TO BE 18 OR OVER TO VIEW KTHX" so the youngins are joining at their own risk?!


Such a thread would still violate the intent of the forum's pornography rule.

In any event, you're not going to see a R-rated forum. We have no way of verifying the age of our members.

If you want to continue posting pictures of this nature for your self-proclaimed community, you will either need to create your own forum or post on a forum that caters to these types of activities.

[DamunBM]

On 2007-03-23 20:30, UnderscoreX wrote:
Would the mods be displeased if we made a similar topic, but put in the title "YOU NEED TO BE 18 OR OVER TO VIEW KTHX" so the youngins are joining at their own risk?!



Oh it only it were that easy http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif My tea bagging joy may be gone forever I fear, all though I've only had positive votes so far haha... Why did they steal our joy!

[DamunBM]

Well so much of positive haha, 46 to 6 so far... Oh well... at least I know there are only 6 cool people on PSO-World http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[DamunBM]

I would like to say that some people took this post far to seriously lol... look at all the hate... for the love of god would I really word it this way if I wanted to accomplish something? I just wanted a colorful way to bitch that our fun thread got locked



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DamunBM on 2007-03-24 08:05 ]</font>

[Dhylec]

On 2007-03-23 20:51, DamunBM wrote:
Well so much of positive haha, 46 to 6 so far... Oh well... at least I know there are only 6 cool people on PSO-World http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif


On 2007-03-24 07:54, DamunBM wrote:
I would like to say that some people took this post far to seriously lol... look at all the hate... for the love of god would I really word it this way if I wanted to accomplish something? I just wanted a colorful way to bitch that our fun thread got locked

Hm, looks like you aren't over with the locked thread, so let me try break it to you another way.

PSOW has always been a PG13 site. The staffer are serious when it comes to upholding the rules. The site is at least 6 years (and counting). The community lasts this long because we have support from the members. They know we do re-enforce our rules to keep the forum as appropriate as possible.

It's not saying that we don't understand the older audience. It's just an 18+ forum doesn't really suit well with this PS game series that this community has been the fan of.

It can have fun without being explicitly nasty or breaking rules. If you can use your wits & make those ideas suitable for the general audience, by all means do it! We encourage that even.

[MaximusLight]

Choice number four for me, seriously a 18+ forum why? the only things you can't do that require being 18+ are pretty sick anyways, so whats the point?

[DikkyRay]

im not freakin 18+
Yet i love pso. Just because you are an immature d-bag who doesnt have a life (and a forum noob) doesnt make you "king of the forum" and because a freakin topic got locked doesnt mean that you have to change the whole system.
Christ, topics are locked all the time, you dont hea them bitching. Oh wait, they are too busy with their real lives to care.
Its kinda funny how many ppl think you are wrong http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[Para]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5324463/


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.

“Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped,” Corallo said. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need, and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America’s children.”

Has technology advanced?
The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.

“Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped,” Corallo said. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need, and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America’s children.”

Has technology advanced?
The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.

“Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped,” Corallo said. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need, and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America’s children.”

Has technology advanced?
The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

Tuesday’s pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last.

The ACLU and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. “The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time.”

What law would have done
The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is “harmful to minors” within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. “There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech” if the law took effect, he said.

Kennedy said that filtering software “is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials.” So far, he added, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

Dissenting opinion
In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld.

Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced “answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality,” Breyer wrote.

The conservative Family Research Council was also quick to react. "With spam emails and pop-up ads littering the Internet, it is easy to see how a child could unwittingly end up on a pornographic Web site," legal advisor Pat Trueman said in a statement. "It is not too much to ask that Web users who want to access commercial pornographic content prove they are adults."

"We are especially disappointed that Justice Clarence Thomas was on the wrong side of this decision," he added.

Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.

Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court’s free-speech standards.

The ACLU challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears.

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not.

A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court has stuck down the law twice, on both broad and fairly narrow grounds.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

Just to let u guys know incase someone tries to use the Law as an argument.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Para on 2007-03-26 13:58 ]</font>

[omegapirate2k]

This forum has it's own rules, respect those rules or face the consequences.

[-Shimarisu-]

If you want to join in on adult PSU discussions, please feel free to join #psuadult on gamesurge, which is my established channel on there.

Warning: you are likely to be kick banned unless we find you exceptional.