Why was my clip removed

[Dowson]

Hey I would just like to ask why my clip was removed from the site. It was the japanese one with the animal licking. I understand it probably wasnt to everyones taste but it did come with a lot of warnings attached. Also why wasnt i given a reason for its removal when it was removed, or a warning so I should not offend again. The reason I query this removal is because this clip is currently making the rounds on a lot of joke channels at the moment so I cant imagine it was due to extreme content.
Dows

 

[His Divine Shadow]

It may well have constituted beastiality, which is illegal in many states in the US and may be illegal under US Federal Law as well. I am researching the laws as I type and will see if I can reference a specific law for you.

 

[CellarDweller]

Daym......beastiality???? Hadn't thought of that. She wasn't having sex with the animals, but......I could see where someone could make a case about that.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Under federal obscenity law, obscenity is defined by the relevant state law. Our server is physically located in Texas, so assuming that Texas obscenity law would govern this forum, here is the Texas definition of obscene:

PENAL CODE

CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

SUBCHAPTER B. OBSCENITY[0]

§ 43.21. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this subchapter:
(1) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the
prurient interest in sex;
(B) depicts or describes:
(i) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual
or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual
bestiality; or
(ii) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism,
masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female
genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male
genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and
marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital
organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, and scientific value.
....
(4) "Patently offensive" means so offensive on its
face as to affront current community standards of decency.

I hope this is of help.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"No state in the country is going to convict a baby!.......ehhh...maybe Texas."- Police Chief Clancy Wiggum (in regards to Maggie Simpson shooting Mr. Burns)

- The Simpsons

 

[James_Bond4334]

According to that law, wouldn't pretty much anyhting we post here be illegal? Just asking.

P.S. check texas off where the Simpsons live. Rhode Island was also mentioned in the same fasion.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Under modern obscenity law, material has to appeal to something beyond a "healthy" curiosity about sex and has to be significantly more "offensive" than the acceptable level of candor about such matters before it can be found obscene. As the public's tolerance has increased, less and less material is now considered obscene, but highly unconventional material involving genital contact is still very risky.

I recommend the article here as a good introduction to the confusing field of American obscenity law. Personally, I wish there were no obscenity laws except those protecting minors, but unfortunately, mainstream politicians feel otherwise.

 

[Dowson]

Ok thank you for your reply. Just to continue the debate though what about feet licking clips? Also what about stories that contain the themes shown in that clip?

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Ok thank you for your reply. Just to continue the debate though what about feet licking clips? Also what about stories that contain the themes shown in that clip?

Feet licking? As in animals licking? Might pass. The big issue with the removed clip was that there was genital contact. I'd shy away from stories depicting the situation in that clip as well. Missy Val's link said: "whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, " so stories would be included. However, as that quote also says, state law is a major factor. Not to be offensive to Texas, but I imagine that their laws regarding obscenity are much more strict than the average and, with the TT being based in Texas, I'd say no, nothing along the lines of this clip or its themes is safe.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Until very recently, federal courts had always held that text-only stories could never be found obscene because all were presumed to have at least "some" literary value. A few months ago, however, the US Justice Department began proceedings against a website for hosting allegedly obscene text stories, so we will need to see how that case is resolved before making a final conclusion. (Full article at http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=..._article&sid=9839&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 )

Animals licking body parts other than genitals are should be OK in clips or stories, but if anything changes, we'll post about it.

Thanks for bearing with us!

 

[nessonite1]

“I have no sympathy for this site. It should not be protected as free spreech [sic]. "

People like that scare me.

 

[No Name Yet]

Unfortunately mistress valerie, you are hoist by your own petard.

Consider what you write

PENAL CODE

CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

SUBCHAPTER B. OBSCENITY[0]

§ 43.21. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this subchapter:
(1) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the
prurient interest in sex;
(B) depicts or describes:
(i) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual
or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual
bestiality; or
(ii) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism,
masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female
genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male
genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and
marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital
organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, and scientific value.
....
(4) "Patently offensive" means so offensive on its
face as to affront current community standards of decency.

This applies as much to tickling a restrained person as to an animal tickling another person. Do you allow clips deaturing a restrained woman being tickled? Yes. So why not an animal clip? If one is allowed both are. In fact I would say that tickling a restrained person is somewhat worse. In either case could both acts not be interpreted as "...patently offensive representations or
descriptions of sadism, (or) masochism,..."

Well I think not. Even in the small excerpt you provide, patently offensive is described as "... affront (to) current community standards of decency." I believe the Texan community would see their decency affronted more by a film featuring a naked person, restrained and being tickle 'tortured' than by a film which simply shows some animal licking the skin (non-genitalia) of a person, whether or not this induced laughter.

I presume that you are not a lawyer. I think you are silly to assume that the TT letting a clip of an animal to remain on the site would lead to further action by any relevant authorities.

If you do not reinstate the animal clip, then I presume you will remove any clips featuring bondage???

 

[MistressValerie1]

Mild bondage and tickling involving adult humans is generally tolerated by the community at large; such material is broadcast by relatively mainstream outlets like Howard Stern's show and the Playboy Channel. Contact between an animal and human genitalia, however, is considered high-risk by First Amendment lawyers such as J.D. Obenberger:

3. "You and me and a Dog Named Boo". The defense of bestiality strikes me as just about the most difficult of all obscenity cases to defend. It is hard to show that attraction to the sexual congress of barnyard animals with people is part of what any community anywhere would consider a "healthy lust". .... It is my sense that most of the images out there in this genre show women being sexually compromised by the animals, and this may have something to say about the attitudes of the fans of such images toward women. .... My hunch is that it is precisely the degradation of women in a grotesque manner that is the attraction here, and, let me tell you, not only will women almost certainly be members of any jury trying the case, but I doubt that a jury of all men would find it non-prurient very often, if at all. It would much more than challenge anyone's creativity to formulate some text content that would take it out of the realm of obscenity with serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. (And I don't think that setting up off-shore entities with off-shore servers will help those who pump it out: I think that circumstance will attract the curious attention of law enforcement more than any other factor.)

http://www.adultchamber.com/members/advice-7circles.htm

The forum rules state that we may delete, modify, or move any post at our discretion and without explanation. If you want to post videos of animals licking human genitals, nobody is stopping you from creating your own forum or free Yahoo group for high-risk content. However, such content will not be allowed here.

 

[MistressValerie1]

I believe the Texan community would see their decency affronted more by a film featuring a naked person, restrained and being tickle 'tortured' than by a film which simply shows some animal licking the skin (non-genitalia) of a person, whether or not this induced laughter.

I agree 🙂 The problem is that this clip involved genitals. The thread starter described the clip thus (emphasis his):

Animal licking/tickling WARNING VERY GRAPHIC!
Hello all. Its been a while since i posted on this forum but i came across this and thought i had to share it. This clip comes from a japanese game show (obviously what passes for entertainment down there) anyway at the end of this clip a young, nude girl is set upon by dogs who lick her everywhere, and i mean EVERYWHERE. Hilarity ensues with the girl finding the sensations very ticklish. WARNING THIS CLIP IS GRAPHIC. IT HAS WHAT SOME MAY REGARD AS ACTUAL SEX ACTS WHICH WE WOULDNT WANT SPREADING ON THESE FORUMS.

Another member commented: "Lmao. God damn...Pig really went right in there. Wow."

Another member commented: "I'm surprised she didn't cream everywhere when the pigs were going after her nippies, body and p*ssy at the same time...

"then again, maybe it was the fact that animals were doing it? lol"

Another member commented: "Yeah, considering a pig is licking a bound woman's genitals, and two others licking her breasts, I would almost expect the owners of the site to remove this clip. FUNNY HOW SENSITIVE SOME PEOPLE ARE, HUH? So it's okay to post stuff that shouldn't be posted here if you say warning?"

Another member commented: "*sits back and waits for a mod to....... do something*"

Clearly, this clip crossed the boundaries of what is acceptable even here. I would not want our hosting company to terminate our contract over it.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

I'd totally agree. While the clip sounds interesting, its not something I'm willing to sacrifice my new home over.

 

[nessonite1]

Another thing to keep in mind...what is alowed here isn't just "whateevr is legal".
We (a a site) can disallow anything we choose to. Not that we are here, but just in reply to your statement that "if one thing is allowed then another has to be".

 

[No Name Yet]

Ahhhh! Hosting company.

Now thats another matter entirely. Such people would have no hesitation about shutting down our little sanctuary here.

However, surely a film captured from Japanese mainstream TV is acceptable on this site, no matter how some members chose to view it.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Ahhhh! Hosting company.

Now thats another matter entirely. Such people would have no hesitation about shutting down our little sanctuary here.

However, surely a film captured from Japanese mainstream TV is acceptable on this site, no matter how some members chose to view it.

Correct, in a sense. We try not to censor any particular view, regardless of whether some members feel it to be unacceptable. It is only because of the danger to the TT from a possible violation of our host's TOS or AUP or from one of the many moral crusaders/groups that trolls the net looking for something to sue over (And they are out there) that we removed it. All viewpoints and likes are welcome here (Within reason. Anything involving an actual minor is beyond acceptable obviously.), but we will not and cannot allow a like/viewpoint that endangers the Theater to remain on it.

And, frankly, I agree with you. There shouldn't be anything wrong with a mainstream piece of media with consenting (I assume) adults the only ones involved. Sadly, there are many who do not see it that way. As long as they remain a force large enough to convince many a hosting company to pull a site for content like this, we can't chance it.

 

[TICKLESRWAY2FUN]

this is what happens when fascists take over. you get obscenity laws and people are scared to poat things. just look at the great site insex. they are no longer around because they were tired of all the fascist government regulations. it really is not much different than some of the stuff the mods pull on this site. same difference

 

[TICKLESRWAY2FUN]

and by the way nessonite, just to get off topic. i am born, raised and still live in bensonhurst brooklyn, and people from jersey sound absolutely nuttin like brooklynites do. in fact i find that insulting that u can compare our accents to the jersey accent. nice try, i guarantee you, you sound nuttin like the italian girls on my block. how insulting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its all because of that stupid sopranos show

 

[nessonite1]

that was kinda my point. Ive yet to meet anyone from jersey with any sort of strong accent. get a grip, man. please stop bumping dead threads. funny how you share an IP with someone who was banned for the same type of hostile conversations. Let's not see that happen again, eh? I don't have time or evergy to put up with it.