Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
PirateReports revokes vBulletin license of HongFire.com for "moral reasons"
hongfire.com — PirateReports.com, an anti-piracy agent for Jelsoft (the makers of vBulletin) revoked the license one of the biggest US based Anime websites (HongFire.com) for "moral reasons". Beware vBulletin users who might have "questionable" content.
alpox- 769 diggs
- digg it
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -7/+68I don't know which is more insane: being into loli or choosing to use bulletin board software that has a license that permits revocation for 'moral' infractions. I hope this drives people away from vBulletin in droves, so maybe Jelsoft will wake up and stop letting censor-wannabes enforce the licensing for their software. Since when do people charged with enforcing copyrights get off demanding "The removal of all sexual and perverse content" from websites, using the copyright of a piece of software as leverage? Seriously. Even when it involves *****-up content like loli. *Especially* when it involves *****-up content like loli.
With any luck Jelsoft knew nothing of this and are in the process of calling mister Howard G Spinks onto the carpet to explain himself. I hope that Pirate Reports finds themselves short a few clients by the time all this is over. Maybe those hongfire people will find themselves some good lawyers too, and get their pound of flesh.- pipdip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54I don't understand. What does the forum system have anything to do with content? That's like a car company revoking your car because you committed a drive-by in it.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12Well child porn is on the lower end of the spectrum; I wouldn't want my product being used for that either. Always read the end user agreement; it's worth your time not to just say "I agree".
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Just because vbulletin did something like this doesn't mean they can or should be able to get away with it. What does the vbulletin EULA say? If it says nothing about content, then what vbulletin has done is illegal. Otherwise, if you signed the dotted line, they own your ass.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Here's a solution:
http://www.simplemachines.org
I use SMF for my site at http://www.juniperforum.com . I am using the TinyPortal module to give it CMS capability. It's simply awesome. And two of my friends that run vBulletin have been considering the switch to SMF for their sites also. Maybe this will push them to finally do it. They have a converter for vBulletin also. :) - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I doubt it's "illegal," since that would involve some kind of criminal behavior I have not heard of. I can certainly be bad business, though, and the fact that you can sue anybody for anything in a civil suit means this lawyer has opened up the VB company to all kinds of grief because they shut webforums down for arbitrary reasons. The fact that this situation doesn't seem to be covered by their license agreement can create even more problems for them.
- mdshort, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25To those who think "child" anime pr0n qualifies as questionable content:
Animated content like this is NOT illegal, no child was harmed in the making and no child will be. I don't personally approve of it but I must admit that this kind of things fills a "special niche" in what some people are interested in. Whether you like it or not pedophiles are going to get what they want whether it involves effecting some kid for the rest of his/her life or not. However it could help to stop pedophiles by giving them a legal/safer way to satisfy their urges without a kid getting molested in the process.
Just think about it. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -18/+11@mdshort
Tell any criminal psychologist what you just said, that pedophilia is abated via indulgence, and they'll laugh in your face. Your's is a common theory of laymen, but studies have proven that theory wrong. When pedophiles indulge it creates a slippery slope and only causes and urge for further indulgence. - W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@mdshort
When you watch porn you don't want to have sex less do you? So why would it be different for a pedophile? - Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@CornStarch
That's interesting, because I've heard criminal psychologists argue just the point mdstarch was. I suppose you think smoking marijuana means you're more likely to do meth, and stealing candy from a conveniance store means you're the next serial killer on the block? - rayishu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Thats why i pirate everything
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@W00DR0W
If I spank it while watching the porn, yes, it makes me want to have sex less afterwards. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@Cthalupa
You're the one comparing pedophilia to smoking weed and stealing candy bars not me.
Here are my sources, you post yours since you've "heard criminal psychologists argue just the point mdstarch was"
http://whyfiles.org/154pedophile/2.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/pedophilia.htm
Look it up, the list goes on with articles that recommend the avoidance of material that placates pedophile desires and advising the suppression of urges rather then the acceptance of them like you do. I'd like to see the material you claim to have that recommends pedophiles watch anime porn.
I understand that pedophilia is a mental condition. You are the one who thinks it's an urge comparable to the desire to steal or smoke; one that can be alleviated through such a simple means. If that were the case pedophiles wouldn't be repeat their offenses at the rate which they do. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Digg users need to use their heads more and stop getting entranced be sensationalist statements. There is no excuse for a man who claims watching child porn stops pedophiles from committing crime to have +6 diggs.
Rate me down if you like, but when the opinion of the greater psychological community is rated down in favor of a crack pot theory suggesting a completely opposite approach, there are too many low IQs in the same place at the same time. - KOSmurfy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12So, something that doesn't hurt anyone should be censored because it *might* increase the chances of someone commiting a crime? I'll think I'll stick with personal freedom.
- Quatre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@CornStarch (Someone people tell me who came up with putting this at the beginning of their messages.)
I hope you know that only one of those three articles actually talks about ways to stop pedophilia through isolation. Maybe you should check your sources beforehand. Okay? - W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3@KOSmurfy-- "So, something that doesn't hurt anyone should be censored because it *might* increase the chances of someone commiting a crime? I'll think I'll stick with personal freedom."
Your personal freedom is child pornography? I'm sorry but that freedom was taken away a long time ago. LOL
I laughed my ass off at that comment, but I sincerely wish you were kidding about supporting child pornography as a right.
@Quatre
You need more than one expert opinion? Talk about being picky. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Quatre
you're wrong, if you read the suggested treatments you would know that they all advocate therapies that repress the pedophile's sexual desires for young boys and girls. Counter intuitive to that would be having them watch child porn. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@KOSmurfy
I never said anything about whether it was the right thing for Vbulliten to do, all I said was:
"I wouldn't want my product being used for that either"
that means exactly what it sounds like; nothing more, nothing less. - S0r4n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@CornStarch
Look up the actual definition of the pedophilia (as a paraphilia). It involves either enacting the deviant fantasies OR distress connected with these fantasies. Even if treatment of actual pedophilia is possible, obviously there's no statistics regarding the people who don't hurt anyone nor feel bad about their fantasies. Don't try to fix what's not broken.
Also I doubt that there's any statistics on whether loli art (anime art) encourages even actual pedophiles to commit more crimes. It could as well lead to less interest in real children because the latter are too imperfect compared with anime characters. - S0r4n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@W00DR0W
Obviously KOSmurfy didn't mean actual CP, we're talking about loli art (anime) which is indeed protected by freedom of speech like any other art. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@S0r4n
I'm not saying anime kiddy porn causes people to become pedophiles (although I can't imagine why someone who isn't already a pedophile would watch one in the first place) all I'm doing is trying to refute the misinformation that was posted above implying that anime kiddy porn could be used as an effective therapy to prevent child molesters from raping actual children. - Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@CornStarch
You have a huge logical fallacy in your argument. You're speaking of treating pedophiles. I'm arguing that some guy getting his rocks off on loli isn't going to go molest a child, and that him relieving his sexual tensions that way is in part keeping him from doing that.
I get angry sometimes, so I go punch a punching bag, or work out, or pull out my paint ball gun and shoot some coke cans. Does doing this make me more likely to go kill someone? Does watching a murder in a movie or on TV make me more likely to kill people?
You're arguing your point backwards. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5As someone who is training to be employed in the psychological field and a digg user in general I feel it is my responsibility to inform users when someone is giving erroneous information and subsequently provide the correct information if I ever encounter a circumstance in which my word that anime kiddy porn is not an effective therapy simply isn't enough.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Cthalupa
You're comparing a deep seeded psychological problem to temporary bouts of anger or rage, and that's not logical. Also refer to my reply to S0r4n in which I clearly state that I am not saying watching anime kiddy porn will out right turn you into a pedophile. Either you're a pedophile or you're not, there is not in between that is kind of child molester and kind of not like you're trying to say. - virtualmachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Ok if VB is revoking license's for offensive content, why hasn't http://forums.ytmnsfw.com/ been removed???
- Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@CornStarch
So you're saying everyone who has these impulses acts on them? That every person who has urges to do any criminal activity is, of course, a criminal?
Sorry, but the world isn't black and white like that. Personally, I'm fairly straight laced when it comes to sexuality. Some mild BDSM or roleplaying is about the extent that I go, but I know enough about myself that I didn't say to myself "Oh, so and so will turn me on". Someone who is turned on by loli didn't make a choice to be sexually attracted to that sort of content. It doesn't mean they're going to go out and molest a child.
It would be nice if right and wrong were so plainly laid out, and there was no shades of grey in between them, but that isn't how the world works. I'm slightly frightened that someone who professedly is training to be a psychologist has such an oversimplified world view. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What I'm saying is plain and simple, anime kiddy porn does not discourage anyone from molesting children. If you still think the opposite is true then good luck with that, but when you get back to the real world remember who told you where it was.
- Chris00001, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Perhaps it is time to do something that most people in the world don't want to do because they are misinformed about what pedophiles are - make pedophilic sexual contacts with children LEGAL as long as the child consents to them.
I know that some people will say "Adults can get children to do anything!" but that is not true in the least. You also have to take into account that most of the negative side effect of 'molestation' come from the pressure put on the child by society to tell when they do not want to report the person who is 'molesting' them because they LIKE the molestation, as I did when I was young, and the pressure put on them by the adult in question to not tell because they will be taken away from the person who they usually love.
I have no problem with putting adults in jail or prison who physically force children into sexual interactions, they can rot in jail, and they are no connected to me, a true pedophile, in any way, shape or form.
But to put someone in jail because the child is too 'inexperienced' or 'immature' to consent (two totally subjective things!)? I don't think so.
It's time to realize that the true cause of children having mental problems is stupid religious morality that is pushed on them by religious people who are actually TERRIFIED of the thought of an adult taking their children away from them by acting nice to them and giving them pleasure. Once that disappears (I was lucky and wasn't raised with ANY of the religious bullcrap even though I went to church), children will stop showing the signs of 'abuse'.
It's as my non-pedophile cousin who was 'sexually abused' and refused to testify against her abuser in court said: The problems come from the police contact and the high-pressure tactics put on children to make them testify against their 'abuser', and the reaction of the parents to the 'abuse', which her mother simply said "Big deal, happened to me to, and my problems in my life do NOT come from that." - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow. Not even you could top that Cthalupa.
- Nanatsuya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Cornstarch
Taken from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon):
"Opponents of illustrated lolicon pornography claim that fictional material encourages viewing children as sex objects and can incite actual sexual abuse. However, there is no evidence to support these claims of causality. Despite the fact that most lolicon artwork is produced in Japan, there is no evidence that it has caused an increase of violent crimes against children and teens. The number of reported incidents of crime against children in Japan, as well as violent crime in general, is well below that of most other developed countries, and indeed there appears to be a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards, and a dramatic decrease in sexual violence, lending some credence to the somewhat counter-intuitive theory that, in fact, material of this nature can be beneficial to society by providing an outlet for those who may otherwise find themselves compelled to carry out their fantasies on unconsenting people."
Feel free to go and claim what you will. I agree that indulgence is not the best option, but is how Japan handles it and apparently it works. Not saying this solution works for Americans, but your statements aren't entirely accurate.
@Chris00001
Wow, you got some major issues. Should probably see a professional about this... - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wikipedia is not a source you can cite; even the creator said it's not meant to be used that way. Wikipedia is intended for personal use, and not as an actual encyclopedia. Rate me down if you want, but that's what the creator of wikipedia said not me.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"No, I don't think people should cite it" -John Seigenthaler, founder Wikipedia
I would have been happy to go to the source listed on wikipedia, but unfortunately the source is some book that talks about the "Effects Of Television On Children And Youth" which is to say nothing about whether watching anime kiddy porn appeases the pedophile's urge to molest. Then the wiki piece you posted goes on to make a shaky correlation with no scientific foundation.
That's the long explanation, short explanation: don't cite wikipedia in a scientific discussion. - Nanatsuya, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@CornStarch
Now I can't help but wonder what it is you're looking at. I've looked at the wiki article I posted multiple times now and I still don't seem to see this "Effects Of Television On Children And Youth" you claim as listed anywhere in the article. Maybe you got the address wrong and saw some other page, here's the correct one again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not as dumb as your comments have thus far made yourself out to be, but this would also mean that you looked through the article to find the text I've quoted, especially since you claim the article provides a "shaky correlation with no scientific foundation". Since you've read it or at least skimmed through it enough to criticize it in your "professional" opinion, perhaps you can tell me just where you managed to see the reference to "Effects Of Television On Children And Youth"? And the best part, the article was last modified at 03:33 on 22 December 2006, so you couldn't have read a previous version of it.
I do admit, you are correct on one thing: Wikipedia should never be used as source for a "scientific discussion," if that's what you want to call your farce of a rebuttal. The only reason I picked wikipedia is because I figured it would be one of the few sources out there that provided information on a simple enough level that someone like you could understand. Why don't you go back and look at the article, the section I quoted earlier, and the footnotes for that section before you decide to prove your ignorance.
Wither way, HF and Jelsoft have managed to reach some sort of an agreement that allows HF to function at previous standards. CornStarch, I hope in the future you make a point to stop yourself from taking professional sources out of context for your own inane arguments, and do actually try reading other people's sources before making a random assumption. Also, when you're getting a majority of negative diggs on your statements, it's a pretty good bet that you're wrong at least in the context of the discussion, learn to accept it. - CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia has a list of sources at the bottom of it's page. The source for the wiki quote I was given is #7, and there is no source for the correlation made between the rise in porn and lowering of sex crimes, just some Japanese crime statistics and the author's theory.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BTW I find it ironic that the person who claims to be on the civilized side of the argument is the first to resort to name calling.
- KyleofAlberta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Viva la bbPress!
- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29The fun part is that the content was located in a gallery which isn't even made by Jelsoft. When that was pointed out the awesome lawyer dude changed his mind and said they had a poll about incest and that was the reason. Holy crap, a poll about incest! WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
I really hope Jelsoft cleans up this mess, it's not their job to "protect" people from perverse or questionable content, they make a forum software, that's it.- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12They can certainly put whatever they'd like into the terms of their licensing agreements - I suppose this would include something giving them the power to attempt to play censor board for websites that license their software. I think it's stupid and a bad business decision, but it's Jelsoft's right to sell their software on their terms.
Of course, this also means that all of their current and potential customers should be made well aware that at some point in the future their license to use vBulletin could be revoked because somebody at Jelsoft or PirateReports doesn't like the content of their site. Possibly the webmaster for that site should have read the TOS a bit more carefully, but seriously, who expects to get their forum software license revoked because they use it for a loli site?
I'm glad I don't pay them for that software, because I can't imagine how pissed off if I had to deal with that jerkoff from PirateReports. Reading that e-mail correspondance was ridiculous - the gyst of the PR person's side seemed to be "we don't like this content, take it down or else we'll revoke your license to use vbulletin and then send a DMCA takedown notice to your ISP cause you'll be using our software illegally at that point!"
I did some googling about PirateReports, and it seems that this particular 'agent' has a reputation for talking down and being a dick to people he has to deal with -- one of his emails mentioned ~35 years of law enforcement experience, so I guess I'm not too surprised by his ***** attitude towards the people 'beneath' him. - DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25I read the ToS, and it talks about content that breaks copyright laws, not content that is questionable. I myself run vB software, and would hate for my site to be closed because some lawyer decides to play Judge, Jury and Executioner. If that lawyer tried that with my site I would have ignored him. He could contact my ISP but the site wouldn't go down.
I've made a post about this on the vB forums in hope that one of the staff actually gets back to me about it. If this is the case I'm going to start thinking about moving away from vB, which would be a shame as I like the software very much. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Looked through it again myself, and you're right - it says nothing at all about 'objectionable' or even outright illegal content.
"The Software may not be used for anything that would represent or is associated with an Intellectual Property violation, including, but not limited to, engaging in any activity that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of others, including copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, software piracy, and patents held by individuals, corporations, or other entities."
That's the only part of the license agreement that restricts site content. I get the feeling that PR's 'agent' is just used to playing the Big Man, getting a rush of power by revoking peoples' software licenses - just look at the way he responded in those e-mails. 'The matter is not up for debate' - what an *****. It makes me wonder if perhaps the hongfire folks could pool their money for a lawyer or two and nail Jelsoft on some kind of breach of contract - I bet that'd make them think twice before letting a third party play grand censor with their customers' websites again.
If I paid to run vB software, I'd be looking for a replacement if I did't see an official statement from Jelsoft regarding this issue right quick. Who in their right mind would pay $160 for a software license that some puritanical idiot can arbitrarily revoke? The real kicker is how the 'agent' never *could* show the customer which exact part of the license agreement he was in violation of. I guess if you don't want some bully-boy taking away your paid-for software licenses, use a Free alternative? - DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I'm having a dialog with them now. In the third mail I got I was called a pedophile and was basically told to find another forum software.. wow.
- mastershake1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's ridiculous. If you paid for the software, unless the terms of the agreement state that they can revoke the license for any reason, you paid for it. IANAL, but if I were you, I'd call them on their bluff. Maybe even lawyer up to see if you have grounds to go after them.
- barryq, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1do you know the main cause of pedophilia??
...
...
sexy children.
...
...
LOL will someone think about the children. - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I like when the PirateReports guy tried to imply that polls about incest are illegal in the US..
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12They can certainly put whatever they'd like into the terms of their licensing agreements - I suppose this would include something giving them the power to attempt to play censor board for websites that license their software. I think it's stupid and a bad business decision, but it's Jelsoft's right to sell their software on their terms.
- Luminaa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I opened a thread on the Chit Chat forum of vBulletin two days ago, but apparently it was deleted. I didn't receive any explaination about it.
- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I did the same, and I got a reply that discussion like that where to be taken trough a ticket, not on the forum.
- S0r4n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18They deleted a thread about this case in vBulletin.org too yesterday. Obviously they are worried about their reputation now...
- whodaimen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"software piracy, "
They had various cracks and links to torrents for games, if VB wanted to be assholes, I'm sure they could cite that as a formal reason. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Im going to have to agree with whodamien on this.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@benitojuarez: agreed with the both of you. At this point though, I think the damage to Jelsoft and vBulletin's reputation has already been done. Sure, they could revoke hongfire's license after based on an actual violation they had to ferret out, but after all this has been let out into the public? I get the feeling most people would see right through that.
It's almost sad, watching Jelsoft do this to themselves.
- molitar, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6DirtyWorker, they just gave you the right to sue their asses! Calling you a pedophile is SLANDER! You just have to prove your not a pedophile and you have a slander case.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why do I get the feeling that taking legal advice from you would be about as safe and effective as taking medical advice from you? I think possibly you need to go pick up a copy of Black's Law Dictionary or the USC and get a look at what slander actually is; because it's vastly different from what you appear to think it is.
- sardion2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Define:slander
# words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
# aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
# defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"
Calling someone a pedophile seems like slander to me if it was on the public forums. If it was in a private email, then I don't know about that. - novastar123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The word you were looking for is libel, not slander
- sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Something said in private can not be libel/slander. Under canadian law, the thing said or written must be heard or read by a third party.
- NilsPI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The way this case was handled by PR is downright stupid.
They didn't state why the license was revoked (although several attempts was made during the convo) and they failed to show the costumer what made it possible for them to do so, and as already stated by someone else the VB TOS doesn't seem to include any clause making this possible.
Perhaps 35 years in law enforcements simply is too long for some people, as bringing up potential future UK law along with US regulations that doesn't apply doesn't seem as a sign of great knowledge.
The hongfire staff asks their members not to harass Jelsoft, as it isn’t their fault. That however is downright wrong, VB and the licenses are products of Jelsoft not PR and as such they can be held responsible for PR’s actions related their products.
I’m not suggesting that his should make it ok to harass Jelsoft, but they can and should be blamed for the actions of PR and what seems to be the incompetence of a certain employee.- zomglolz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I wish HongFire would just take it up with Jelsoft directly and see what they have to say about it.
- LucianSolaris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Thank god for phpbb. I am the webmaster for the largest, most successful minuteman chapter, the San Diego Minutemen (oh *****, now i'ma get dugg down real bad :D) at http://www.SanDiegoMinutemen.com (if you're curious).
I wouldn't put it past a company such as that to revoke the license on my forum if I used vBulletin for 'political' reasons (maybe they think we're a hate group). Put your faith in Open Source, otherwise greedy/moralist bastards own your ass! - jawngee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@LucianSolaris:
Yeah, I totally can't see how anyone would think the Minutemen are a hate group. I mean, really. You guys are really just a reactionary group of people with diminished senses of self importance and varying amounts of self-loathing which is grossly redirected at an imaginary problem involving imaginary hordes of rodent-like brown people swarming our borders like cockroaches.
Really, the difference between you and klansmen is that your flavor of hate is slightly more sophisticated, you all are the "Creation Science" of hate. Idiots like you give real Americans seriously bad names.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minuteman_Project_Inc.#Opposition_to_the_Minuteman_Project :
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights watchdog group, claimed that the Minuteman Project harbors members of the National Alliance despite assurances that they would screen out white supremacists. The report interviewed a former volunteer in Gilchrist's campaign who said that "they were basically allowing Nazi-Skinheads and white nationalists to work the phone banks and do IT and distribute National Alliance fliers targeting non-whites," and that "[when I told them] that didn't want to work for a campaign that was tainted by white supremacy in any way, they told me not to cause a stir."[11] Gilchrist has stated that the claims by the SPLC are unproven, and has repeatedly chastised the SPLC for engaging in "an earnest effort to libel and slander any person or group that the SPLC does not like". "The SPLC is little more than a modern day lynch mob", Gilchrist said.[12] He further stated that his group runs background checks on all individuals who apply to patrol the border. Gilchrist acknowledged that background checks may not reveal every aspect of an applicant's ideology, but countered that sometimes even law enforcement doesn't have that information. - LucianSolaris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@jawngee
Rebuttle: None of what you posted was said by Gilchrist himself (which I have met and know professionally). You have to realize this organization was set up fairly quickly and I also know for a fact that they charged for and performed background checks on those wishing to join (This was before the Minuteman Project and Minuteman Civil Defense Corp split). In my defense, I know nothing about Civil Defense Corp. so don't ask me about it.
The San Diego Minutemen is the largest minuteman group (larger in population and operation than Minuteman Project) and is in no way officially associated with Minuteman Project and Minuteman Civil Defense Corp. and it would be unfair to associate any ills that occur in those two groups with us. We do have dual members.
Our organization has no official membership roster. Anyone who wishes to join and perform ops with us may go to our site and e-mail the coordinator (Jeff) and request to be added to the list. Those in or near San Diego County may come to events (which are advertised via e-mail) on their own will. No membership cards, no fees, etc. If you're bad, you're removed and the rest told not to associate with you. That's it.
The only real form of organization is a second e-mail group of a select trusted few, who plan operations.
I repeat, San Diego Minutemen is not associated with the 'national' groups and pasting their downfalls on us is an unfair practice. All volunteers are individuals acting upon their own accord and those who have malicious intent are separated from the group and added to our '***** list'.
Oh, and no, to my knowledge SDMM does not have a Wikipedia article. Our site is the best source of information on us. Happy browsing!
- cykes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It is obvious from his emails that this "lawyer" is imposing his personal moral conduct on the Hongfire guys. Even if the content is not in the best light for everyone, law doesn't prohibit it. In other word he is acting out of prejudice, which, if I am not mistaken can be considered illegal.
Fact is he really can't remove your license under the terms of the contract. He is doing it because he has the power to do so and PERSONALLY objects your content. This is an abuse of power and wouldn't stand in a court of law, a real one.
As for the "poll on incest", the act may be illegal, but just discussion about it, as uncomfortable it may be, is not (haven't seen the poll, but I am sure I read somewhere about speech being protected by law).
Ah, if only a real lawyer would take your case... I thought there were some firms that would ask for pay only if they won?- desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Submit this to EFF (electronic frontier foundation), they take on these kinds of cases or send them out to attorneys... attorneys like me actually. EFF was the one that challenged the anti-simulated child porn law on constitutional grounds.
The worst part is that this guy rep'ing Jellsoft complains most about "depraved comments" and asks them to censor speech on the forum.
>I believe that having seen the content of your forum and some of the depraved comments that obviously it is time for you to moderate the forum
>to avoid a likely revocation of license.
Howard G. Spinks has landed Jellsoft in a world of hurt: go forward and lose business because no one wants to have to censor speech on their forum to some nebulous, unannounced standard. Back down and be accused of being an instrumentality in the spread of child porn by the Christian right, making them a target for any crusading AUSA who wants to pressure these kinds of software makers to censor for the government ( a tactic which the Chinese have used to great effect internally).
- desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Submit this to EFF (electronic frontier foundation), they take on these kinds of cases or send them out to attorneys... attorneys like me actually. EFF was the one that challenged the anti-simulated child porn law on constitutional grounds.
- S0r4n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5DirtyWorker, could you please tell who exactly at Jelsoft were you talking with?
May be you could even post all emails like HongFire did?
I'm very interested in this information because
- I have an owned vBulletin license and I spent years on hacks/modifications
- I agree with NilsPI that HongFire shouldn't defend Jelsoft (even though obviously nobody should be harassed)- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://blogs.dirtyworker.com/2006/12/23/vbulletin-license-problems/
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@dirtyworker: gotta give that Jelsoft rep some credit, they handled this a lot more professionally than the PR guy did. In all fairness, that guy didn't really call you or imply that you were a pedophile, and was probably just trying to answer your question as professionally as possible. It's good that you posted this on your blog though - the more people who see this the better. You might want to consider posting something to the forums on http://www.webhostingtalk.com/ - there's lots of webmasters (and probably vB users to boot) that hang out there that ought to be aware that Jelsoft reserves the right to revoke their license if they don't like the content of their customers' sites. The more vB customers that hear about this nonsense, the better.
My big concern is this: "We reserve the right to determine what kind of sites we want our name and software associated with - and we will not allow our software to be used for child porn and abuse. If this is a potential concern for you, then you should consider other alternatives."
That's funny, because on their purchase page, all it says is that you have to comply with the license agreement, which says nothing at all about their right to determine what kind of sites they want their name and software associated with. Not a word. I guess you find out about the 'moral crusader' clause *after* you give them the sometimes-maybe-refundable $160. I'm really thinking this is the point where HongFire either needs to drag them into small claims court, or lawyer up and *really* make them wish they hadn't decided to play Thomas Bowdler with somebody else's website. - DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10They can't, that's the point. This lawyer acted on his own personal feelings of the subject matter. In no way was he allowed to do what he did, but like any good company, Jelsoft stands by his decision when he's made one. They might talk to him about it at a later date who knows.
But, the fact of the matter is that they have no legal right to do what they did. If they tried something like this with me I would have sued them, and I would have won. As the things he said is not written anywhere on vBulletin.com and it wasn't in the contract that I "signed" when I bough the software, he can basically go have a fit about moral some other place.
Also, the sentence Marco used is *****. - argash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You should also post it to http://www.theadminzone.com/index.php ALOT of vB admins hang out there as well
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The story finally made its way to WHT: http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=571918
Maybe it won't get deleted or locked down the way it has on the vB forums.
- ManagerJosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7All the emails are available on HongFire's site.
http://www.hongfire.com/vbulletin.txt
Howard is a real lawyer, I might add.
I've examined the emails myself the discussion went through official Jelsoft channels, not through private emails or anything. It went through the ticket system.- Nanatsuya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Howard's a piss-poor lawyer.
He used his personal feelings to justify shutting down a forum he didn't like. He made no effort to look at the actual law nor the Jelsoft Acceptable Use Policy.
Jelsoft's compliance with our dearest Howard's illegal decision is only a sign that they would rather displace an anime board instead of destroy the credibility of a wayward lawyer on a power trip against some harmless Japanese animation.
- Nanatsuya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Howard's a piss-poor lawyer.
- Dolphin3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Fact is he really can't remove your license under the terms of the contract. He is doing it because he has the power to do so and PERSONALLY objects your content. This is an abuse of power and wouldn't stand in a court of law, a real one"
You're right Cykes, but it looks like we're living in a new time... when people's rights are not respected (especially by those who claim to do so!), when freedom of speech has a different meaning: If they're in control, they can LIE to you and everybody and get away with it; if you're just an ordinary person you cannot talk or discuss about certain topics. (Talk about murder is not the same as murder someone. Talk about chemical weapons is not the same as using a chemical weapon on people. Talk about incest is not the same as perform an incest act)
Is there a real court of law yet? - Luminaa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I received this:
“Hello Lumina,
We reserve the right to determine what kind of sites we want our name and software associated with - and we will not allow our software to be used for child porn and abuse. If this is a potential concern for you, then you should consider other alternatives.
All the best,
Marco van Herwaarden
Support Team, vBulletin”
Unfortunatly, they didn't answer me about their taste: apparently, they don't want “child porn”, but could they also revoke a license for topics like “gay porn”, “muslim propaganda”, “anti-americanism”, ...? I mean, they are not supposed to deal with a website's taste. It's a matter of justice.- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that they sure *can* do what they just did, provided it's in the terms of the license agreement or contract. They could mandate that all users of vB must use purple text on their sites, and they would have every right to do so, as it's their software - they get to determine the terms of licensing. It's just that reserving the right to determine what kind of sites they want their name and software associated with isn't part of any licensing agreement I can find on Jelsoft's website. I think that would be the big sticking point. Nowhere in that agreement does it say they can revoke your license if they find your site's content objectionable. At $160 for a license, that's a pretty expensive discovery.
At this point, it seems like they're revoking somebody's paid-for software license 'because we can, and there's nothing you can do about it'. I guess that's a good thing for people to see, because now they know how Jelsoft does business, and can determine their value as a software provider accordingly. - cykes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nothing like a touch of hypocrisy to feel all mighty and high. Marco better start looking around the web to do his job right, else their name be tarnished by all the "depraved" boards using their software. Then again, he could suddenly find his company without as many clients as before.
Well, if push comes to shove here are a list of FREE alternatives:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/php/messageboards.shtml
I haven't personally used any of them, but it is a place to start at least. - AlexMax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That's a nice list, but if you're looking for a little more in depth comparison of forum sofware, try this:
http://shsc.info/ForumSoftwareGuide
tl;dr version: PunBB, Simple Machines and Vanilla are the best free boards, vBulliten, Invision and UBB.Threads are merely OK, but not free, and phpBB and YaBB are free, but are to be avoided at all costs. - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure they "can" revoke the license, just as easily as they can be sued for loss of revenue and business continuity and a host of other problems that this revocation can cause for them in a civil suit.
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I seem to remember a version of Front Page had a clause that it could not be used to make pornographic websites, can't remember what version though maybe 2002.
I was not designing porn sites but I returned the software and purchased Dreamweaver instead. I just could not stand the idea a company I was giving money to would have editorial control over my work.
For me it comes down to would I buy a wrench if Craftsman told me I could only use it to put in pipping into houses but I could not use it for working on my car.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that they sure *can* do what they just did, provided it's in the terms of the license agreement or contract. They could mandate that all users of vB must use purple text on their sites, and they would have every right to do so, as it's their software - they get to determine the terms of licensing. It's just that reserving the right to determine what kind of sites they want their name and software associated with isn't part of any licensing agreement I can find on Jelsoft's website. I think that would be the big sticking point. Nowhere in that agreement does it say they can revoke your license if they find your site's content objectionable. At $160 for a license, that's a pretty expensive discovery.
- zomglolz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I for sure know now that i wont be buying any of their software even if i had considered doing that in the past month, and no my site won't have "morally questionable" content.
- PirateReports, on 10/12/2007, -28/+14The facts are as follows :
Firstly there was a complaint from a Child Welfare Group in the US. and I contacted the license owner and asked for the child abuse pictures to be removed. User refused.
I spoke to the Business Manager at vB and he too felt Jelsoft should not be associated with child abuse even animated. (chained kids and young girls being abused with foreign objects etc. is not normal)
Then I asked the user to find new forum software as a refund would be given if the items were not removed.
User ignored request and responded to the effect that we in the UK should not try to force UK law on US citizens.
License revoked under AUP, refund given and network asked to suspend use.
Cry foul if you wish but this is the first time I have encountered this sort of material and I am going to call in some favours from my contacts who I am sure will be very interested in taking a closer look.
I could have revoked the license, not refunded the money and had the license deleted with no dialogue as the AUP of a product is far more powerful than any Law and the owners decision is final.
Children need someone looking out for them and I am not asking for anyones' permission.
No further comment.- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I have contacted EFF about this matter myself, and I'll be looking forward to having a nice dialog with them about your abuse of Copyright and Trademark laws. It is not up to Jelsoft or you to decide what is legal on any given forum regardless of it being a software they have made.
I've tried to find this elusive AUP all day, and and I've even read the policy which I signed when I bought a license for my site, and there is nothing about Jelsoft being able to revoke licenses due to "morally questionable content" or the fact that you sir don't like what the site is about.
Maybe you will be able to give me links to these policies as the staff over at Jelsoft can't seem to give them to me. - Limbonik, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Coming from a guy who screamed he was being censored on PGP just a year ago? *cough* Hypocrite *cough*
- forbiscuit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The inability to distinguish fantasy (e.g. lolicon art) from reality (e.g. child abuse), which I think is related to schizophrenia, is a mental condition that seems to be shared by a lot of people like Mr. Spinks. It's a shame they have to demonstrate it by lashing out at others rather than getting the help they obviously need.
Of course, I could assume the best of Mr. Spinks and company and say that they're just covering their own butts from people higher up the food chain who have that peculiar condition. Covering your legal butt is a sad truth in the world today. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Thanks for the info, I'm glad to hear things from your point of view. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much to improve my feelings about Jelsoft right now. Let's take this point-by-point.
"Firstly there was a complaint from a Child Welfare Group in the US. and I contacted the license owner and asked for the child abuse pictures to be removed. User refused."
I'm sorry that the child welfare group in the US didn't like the content of that site. I don't like it either - personally I think it's extremely disturbing, and I wonder at the sort of person who would be into it. However, if this 'child welfare group' has gotten to the point of contacting PR about it, I'm willing to bet they've already been to the police and were told that the site was legal. If the site had illegal content, I think hongfire would have heard about it first from the police or FBI instead of you. Loli might be a really messed up branch of animation, but as far as I'm aware, it's legal in the US.
"I spoke to the Business Manager at vB and he too felt Jelsoft should not be associated with child abuse even animated. (chained kids and young girls being abused with foreign objects etc. is not normal)"
Reasonable enough. I wouldn't want my company to be associated with that kind of garbage, either. And no, that's not normal.
"Then I asked the user to find new forum software as a refund would be given if the items were not removed."
So you told the user to take down content you found objectionable, or you would terminate their license and force a refund upon them?
"User ignored request and responded to the effect that we in the UK should not try to force UK law on US citizens."
The user was a lot nicer than most people would have been if some jackass from a foreign nation attempted to enforce laws outside of their jurisdiction - I'd have told you to ***** off, and then made sure my ISP would have done the same.
"License revoked under AUP, refund given and network asked to suspend use."
You still have yet to show what part of the AUP hongfire was in volation of - you didn't do it in the e-mails, and you're not doing it here. That seems pretty fishy to me. Can you provide a link to this 'AUP', because all I've been able to find was the license agreement, which says absolutely nothing about Jelsoft reserving the right to terminate licenses if they find site content objectionable.
"Cry foul if you wish but this is the first time I have encountered this sort of material and I am going to call in some favours from my contacts who I am sure will be very interested in taking a closer look."
And I'm sure your contacts will be as disgusted as I by the content of that site. I'm also sure that if the content is legal, they too will be unable to do anything about it but wring their hands and make vague statements about contacts that will be very interested in things.
"I could have revoked the license, not refunded the money and had the license deleted with no dialogue as the AUP of a product is far more powerful than any Law and the owners decision is final."
Yeah, you could have; and you'd look like even more of a pompous dick than you do now. Please show us the specific part of this 'AUP' that one would be in violation of if one were to use vB on a loli website - I'm not asking you to comment on the current ongoing issue with HongFire, as I'm sure that's confidential.
"Children need someone looking out for them and I am not asking for anyones' permission."
If you're interested in 'looking out for the children' perhaps you could get a job at the UK equivalent of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children? Or maybe a job at your local UK equivalent of the DCFS. That way you could do things to actually protect children instead of harassing legal (though disgusting) websites and thinking you're some kind of superhero.
As it stands, you've done an excellent job of showing at least the 30 people who dugg this precisely why they should not consider doing business with Jelsoft. - godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I love it. You pay money and then they shut down the site because they disagree with the content? (which is legal, I've researched this extensively)
Please review section 502 of the PROTECT act:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ021.108.pdf
It amends Title 18 of the US Code, section 2256, which addresses "Virtual Child Pornography"
Subsection A states:
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
Subsection C then goes on to define "indistinguishable", the key to the whole arguement.
(11) the term ‘indistinguishable’ used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
That last section clearly seperates anime, since we aren't talking about an "actual" minor at all.
Mr. Spinks points us to:
http://icreport.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04472:
The full text of the passed bill can be found here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4472enr.txt.pdf
I've looked through the complete text in reference to section 2256, and its references are based on record keeping and criminal penalties dealing with that.
It does not strike the prior law, nor does it redefine or amend the current law passed in 2003. Moreover, it makes no reference to virtual child porn, whereas the protect act does. As such, Mr. Spinks needs to sit down and read what the law says.
This means that it is indeed a matter of Mr. Spinks imposing his own moral judgements, rather than an actual application of law.
Unfortunately, it appears that the website: www.piratereports.com is down for the moment, so I am unable to get to the contact page.
I'd love to see Mr. Spinks response to my statements. If he could provide current U.S. law that shows that I am somehow misinformed, I'd like to know.
Now I will also state that you may bring up section 504, amendment 1466A, however, 1) Obscenity may be defined by the law, not by an individual, 2) What is considered to be obscene is subjective, and 3) Given what has been allowed currently by both the US and the UK for distribution and the like. Moreover, obscenity must be judged by what the courts have passed down, which is why the following article deserves consideration:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=271
That said, I post here hoping for a response (and please, keep it civil - my post is neither in favor or against the content that was objected to.) - Dolphin3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"...as the AUP of a product is far more powerful than any Law..."
The AUP of vB says nothing about 'morally questionable content' so Hongfire was not breaching it.
"...I contacted the license owner and asked for the child abuse pictures to be removed..."
The U.S. law does not consider anime as 'child porn and abuse' so Hongfire was not violating any laws.
From wherever you look at this revocation it's arbitrary and unfair. - prh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As I am sure many are aware (you are if you read wikipedia article on lolicon) the U.S Supreme court struck down as unconstitutional a large portion of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that among other things made no distinction between works of fiction and actual child abuse / pornography. Under that law works like Lolita by Valdamir Nobukov were illegal because it tells the fictional story of a mans sexual attraction to and eventual sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl. Anyway the supreme court said "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children." Please feel free to have your friends look over the content, but I doubt much will come of it.
As for this AUP, I've been unable to find it on Jelsoft's website. One would think if it is to be a possible basis for revoking the licenses of paying customers that it should be published and easily found (ideally it would be included in the license), which at this point it does not appear to be. Revoking a license on terms set out in some mysterious and apparently unpublished document strikes me as some what unfair and possibly illegal (IANAL). Jelsoft should really consider posting their AUP or at very least including their response to questions about this topic "We reserve the right to determine what kind of sites we want our name and software associated with - and we will not allow our software to be used for child porn and abuse. If this is a potential concern for you, then you should consider other alternatives." - Fett101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Cry foul if you wish but this is the first time I have encountered this sort of material and I am going to call in some favours from my contacts who I am sure will be very interested in taking a closer look."
Welcome to the internet. What took you so long to notice? - aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14With people like PirateReports representing VBulletin, I'd suggest everyone try phpBB 3, or Vanilla, or SMF. All of those are free.
- cunion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I haven't seen the content but if it is ILLEGAL then report it to the relevant authorities and they can shut it down and i will support them. If it isn't then your moral outrage doesn't seem to be justification enough to cover it.
My big concern is that almost every Vbulletin forum i have seen is in some way indulging in conduct that would be in breach of a heavy handed interpretation of the AUP. Particularly if you choose to look at different international copyright and censorship regimes. Everything is illegal somewhere - from the use of copyrighted images in avatars through to site content, links to torrents, discussions of piracy or hacking, tutorials in areas that are not strictly legal (or may be in some jurisdictions and not others), defamatory content (very strict laws in some countries), even forums where discussions of suspects might prejudice a fair trial (which there are very strict laws on here in Australia, if not in the states), or criticizing the government of countries such as Singapore, China, etc etc etc.
Are you going to shut them all down?
I think we all need to let the administrators and mods of all the Vbulletin forums that we are members of that are doing *any* of the above know that the company may choose to arbitrarily pull their life's work out from under them tomorrow and they should seriously consider the alternatives.
It's a dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb policy. - prammy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@PirateReports:
Forgive me from asking this, but who made you judge, jury and executioner? You speak about knowing the law and having been in law enforcement, but your actions clearly indicate otherwise. Even if the site was hosting illegal content, they would still be awarded due process in a legal case.
The content hosted on hongfire is not illegal in the United States (where the server was located) and as you mention in your email to hongfire, it is not illegal in Britain (yet) as it is still being debated.
Regardless, your actions reflect poorly on Jelsoft's product. I do not know what Jelsoft's position is on the issue but as a possible customer, I would be encouraged to find alternatives for forum software regardless of the content I might have on it. What if I setup a site discussing the finer points of Marmite and with you and Jelsoft possibly being hardcore marmite haters decide to revoke my license?
If your actions have proven anything, it is that vendors who use non-free licenses should not be trusted. SCO was the first example and now yourself/Jelsoft. I have never recommended vBulletin to anyone because of situations just like this one. We do not host any illegal content and most of the forums I either participate in or administer are gaming related sites. But giving such power to a vendor is not an action I will take.
Have you considered that this child welfare group might have already contacted law enforcement only to be told that the content is legal. Which is probably why they contacted you. What happens next? Will you revoke licenses for sites which have political content which you might not agree with?
Just because you manage the copyrights for a company does not make you a crusader against things which you find objectionable.
- Pramod - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Bravo! to the company for disassociating itself from this.
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6> the AUP of a product is far more powerful than any Law
That's pretty funny, but you're mistaken. If the AUP of a company could trump the laws of a nation, I would own at least six fully-staffed whore houses and a stable of Filipino slaves to clean my pool and maintain acres of topiary. But alas, it is only a pipe dream. - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@PirateReports
I'll make sure to take this incident into account when recommending forum software for clients in the future. The actions of Jelsoft in this case demonstrate that they are unwilling to honor their agreements, and will do so based solely on the personal opinions of some of their power-mongering affiliates. I'll have to make sure to make other developers and consultants I know aware of Jelsoft's committment to dishonorable business practices.
- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I have contacted EFF about this matter myself, and I'll be looking forward to having a nice dialog with them about your abuse of Copyright and Trademark laws. It is not up to Jelsoft or you to decide what is legal on any given forum regardless of it being a software they have made.
- Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The Promise act signed into law in 2003 does make even animation involving children in sex acts i-l-l-e-g-a-l.
As it stands right now, they're using it merely to revoke the parole on a few pedophiles. The US isn't the only country that has strict rules regarding animation. Even liberal Canada doesn't look kindly upon "lolli".
The mere discussion of lolli at times is protected by the first ammendment, however..
"Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court.
As for what is considered obscene, that's up to the judges trying the case.
That's the loophole with the first ammendment. Sure, you have protected speech but then there's the obscenity loophole where if that speech is defined by a judge as obscene, you're *****.
For example.. I just said *****.. so my post could be removed and it wouldn't be anti freedom of speech because I used an obscenity.
Kiddie porn is considered obscene in the US, so even the mere discussion of it could be viewed as obscene speech therefore not protected under federal law.
So sure.. Hongkong could take this to court. But if they get the wrong judge, they'd be the ones in hot water. And chances are, they would. Unless the case was in one of the more liberal areas like California, they'd go down in flames. It all depends on how depraved the conversations were, I didn't see them. If they were merely discussing lolli without any descriptions, things would probably be protected.- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"For example.. I just said *****.. so my post could be removed and it wouldn't be anti freedom of speech because I used an obscenity."
Somehow....I have this crazy idea....that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You might want to get in touch with molitar, and talk to him about opening the world's dumbest Law firm together. You'd make a great team. - prh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In U.S obscenity cases works are consider as a whole and are evaluated according to the Miller Test ie
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
All three conditions must be met to be obscene
So mere use of the word ***** does not make your post obscene.
I think you mean the Protect Act of 2003, cause the Promise Act 2002 deals with poverty and welfare. The Protect Act only make loli illegal if it is obscene or indistinguishable from actual child abuse / pornography because of the Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition which is basically a prohibition on the criminalization of fantasy and fiction unless there is compelling and over riding state interest in doing so. - prh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One more thing. It is the content of child porn that is obscene so discussion of child porn is probably protected speech so long as it doesn't say where to get it or express intent to distribute or acquire it.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"For example.. I just said *****.. so my post could be removed and it wouldn't be anti freedom of speech because I used an obscenity."
- MercenaryM14, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The fact the anime Loli Artwork Does not = Child porn. There not the same thing. And all Artwork is protected by US law.
I could understand if these Were pictures of Real Children but the fact Remains that They are not therefore your "Request" for them to remove the content Can not be fulfilled if the said Items are not there. - NilsPI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You asked for child abuse pictures to be removed, well not really rereading the mails posted at hongfire. You asked for pictures not related to the usage of vb to removed, pictures that's as per current definitions not child abuse.
As you yourself brought up even it’s currently not outlawed in the UK, while it’s true it might be made illegal in the future. It’s correct you didn’t say that these not yet approved laws applies, but on the other hand what else would the staff of hongfire assume when you decide to bring up a proposed bill when they asked for a reason.
During the convo you even modify the reasoning saying it’s about a poll about incest, while as we both know there’s no law against talking about incest.
I might add that the girls portrayed in lolicon art is stated to be above 18, and it is in fact not all that uncommon to find grown up girls in Asia that resemble girls of a very young age. Personally I find lolicon distasteful but that doesn’t really matter here.
Now you also state it’s the first time you encounter this sort of “thing” and will look into the matter but if you really are uncertain about the rules surrounding such “things” don’t you think it would have been wise to hesitate in revoking the license?
What this all comes down to the hongfire staff not knowing this AUP you constantly refer to, and you failing in actually providing them with a copy of these rules and a short explanation of why they are bound by these as they obviously don’t know.
Showing the staff this AUP would properly have avoided this mess and have saved the Jelsoft support department quite some time, so to avoid further confusion and supposedly unfounded allegations of power abuse why don’t you post the AUP and why and how the user is bound by it.- MercenaryM14, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Agreed, Its like your " Miranda" Rights. You need to know the law before you can conform to it. My school is required to, every year, Read Off in class the entire Rule book and then we all have to sign a contract That says we herd and know the rules.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@MercenaryM14: Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. That having been said, it's hard to abide by the rules when you can't find them. I was unable to locate the "Acceptable Use Policy" that Mister Spinks keeps referring to. I clicked through the site manually and used Google to search, and found nothing about Jelsoft's vBulletin "Acceptable Use Policy". As far as I can tell, there isn't one.
You'll also notice in the e-mails back and forth to hongfire that the "Acceptable Use Policy" is used as a reason for terminating the license, but at no point was the policy actually cited. No links, no quotes of what exactly they did wrong...nothing. And yet if they didn't remove the objectionable content and comply with PR's demands, they would have their license revoked under the "AUP" that at least I can't seem to find and a DMCA takedown notice sent off to their ISP because now they're "pirating" software.
I believe the word for this situation is "Kafkaesque".
Oh, and now a "Steve Machol" from Customer Support is demanding that HF "stop inciting people to spam our support forums and support system." Because you know, it's all over that site, those incitements. Might not have anything to do with vB license holders concerned about getting their license yanked on somebody's whim. They're being really nice about it, too. It's so great to see exactly how "supportive" of their customers Jelsoft is.
- Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Taken from Wiki..
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography,[21] so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law[22] for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."[23][24] Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole.[25]
Roll the dice.. I'd love to see this go to court.. Especially with just how morally self righteous this country has become in the last 5 years.- godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Deviancy, you should probably read my earlier post. His conviction had nothing to do with the legal status of lolicon, but rather that he had some at all. His parole was based on him having material he was not allowed to have, although legal for others.
It's much like a computer hacker on parole. He/She may have stipulations that do not allow for them to use a computer - though a perfectly acceptable activity for others to partake in.
Like I said, the legal status had nothing to do with the conviction, the violation of the parole stipulations is what occoured in that case. - desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The standard to violate someone on parole is really low. A real test would be a straight up conviction for the anime alone by "regular" citizen.
- godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Deviancy, you should probably read my earlier post. His conviction had nothing to do with the legal status of lolicon, but rather that he had some at all. His parole was based on him having material he was not allowed to have, although legal for others.
- WiBu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I used to be a fan and happy promoter of vBulletin but after a few incidents with their support (they were plain rude most of the time) about various things I've ditched them and I'm now using BBPress or Vanilla (free and open-source) for my forum needs and they are more than capable and a joy to use.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@WiBu: I've never dealt with vBulletin directly, but from what I see of their responses and reactions this is not a company that I would want to do business with. I'm sure that I am not the only person out there who sees it this way, and now that the story's finally hit the front page, there's probably going to be lots more folks like me. I almost feel bad for vB, because this is going to be a Public Relations disaster for them. Regardless of how you feel about some of the content on hongfire or loli or whatever, vB has done a great job of showing the public why they should be avoided.
- Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Aye, I'm quite aware of that. But you're missing the point.
The point is the climate is changing and chances are if this did make it to court, it would go in their legal teams favor. Obscenity isn't protected, that is fact. But the last I checked it had to be determined by the state. Most states in this country are quite rabid in regards to anything that looks or smells of pedophilia.
What am I saying is, if I was HK I wouldn't push this one because it could result in something far worse. Imagine if it got mainstream media attention. Do you think for a moment that the majority would be like.. ROCK ON HK.. DOWN WITH THE PRUDES..
Gimmie a break.. they'd want to see HK burned at the stake. This is the same country that had a tizzy fit when they found out about GTA's coffee mod, they just couldn't handle it.. and that involved two consenting animated adults. In fact, Clinton and her posse would love to see these games banned entirely.- desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like to think that the courts apply *some* sort of legal standard, rather than just bending to the whims of the majority's feelings right now. Your posts indicate that you think that legal precedent is more or less irrelevant to the outcome. This isnt a jury trial type thing, the real test will come in the motions to dismiss and on the appeal. Its a constitutional issue.
I would disagree; HKF should push this. If the supreme court wants to uphold the criminality of artistic depictions of objectionable material it will have to break some ground to do so. If the Supremes do so, as much as a advocate for a strong first amendment, so be it. Child porn involving real participants involves a photographed crime whereby a real live victim is injured. Banning drawings does not have the same logic. Its not like HKF runs a loghi site anyway. But that outcome will not come in a case discussing the ability of Jelsoft to invoke non-existent portions of a license agreement and mandate apriori, prepublication restrictions on free speech because some guy had problems with it. Just wont happen.
- desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like to think that the courts apply *some* sort of legal standard, rather than just bending to the whims of the majority's feelings right now. Your posts indicate that you think that legal precedent is more or less irrelevant to the outcome. This isnt a jury trial type thing, the real test will come in the motions to dismiss and on the appeal. Its a constitutional issue.
- Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Also keep in mind that most of the Supreme court is in GW's back pocket. And they have no issue removing our rights when it comes to child welfare..
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One a Justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, they are set for life.
While they may be appointed according to the agenda of a particular administration, Justices in the past have had a nasty habit of starting to think for themselves once they realize they can't be thrown out for leaving someones back pocket.
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One a Justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, they are set for life.
- Kaioshin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Morality does not belong in matters such as this.
It's either legal or not. Morals differ from person to person. - calande, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5This won't happen with punbb, a free, open-source and light-weight forum application.
http://www.punbb.org - MercenaryM14, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I truly hope that HF takes it to court, They have my backing. The way i look at it, What America thinks Does not change the laws.
Let America get into an uproar. Im waiting for the millions of geeks to rise from their basements and rebel.
HF Is not 100% loli, First and foremost its a forum for discussing Anime.- zomglolz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4HF has some 3% loli content which isn't hosted on vbulletin,but on some external image gallery softare.Excluding discussions,but those are speech.( He asked for those images to be removed )
- Fett101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I've no clue how to contact them, but Simple Machines Forum has a VB3 converter. ;D
http://www.simplemachines.org/download/?converters- lordcutter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thanks for posting this... I just contacted my companies network admin and pointed to this and said "look at the article, they're dictating who can use the software - use this converter to pull it on the 5 sites that we have licenses for" to which he responded "wow thats some *****, ok Ill take care of it right away" - we dont run anything remotely illegal - but as soon as you start dictating this kind of "moral" choices, is when you start losing customers...
- ManagerJosh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The AUP/License agreement can be found at http://www.vbulletin.com/order/license_agreement.php
The most Jelsoft can cite is:
# The Software may not be used for anything that would represent or is associated with an Intellectual Property violation, including, but not limited to, engaging in any activity that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of others, including copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, software piracy, and patents held by individuals, corporations, or other entities.
# If any of the terms of this Agreement are violated, Jelsoft reserves the right to revoke the license at any time.
While not DIRECTLY stated it can revoke on pornography charges OR whether it feels like it, one can argue it is implied sadly.
RE: PirateReports (Howard)
One can receive TONS of complaints everyday. I equate this Child Welfare group as the same as the ACLU and they could complain too. In all, it is one party that disagrees. There will always be parties who disagree with what a site does.
However in the end it is up to Jelsoft to say whether there's a breach of contract or not directly with them, and violation of intellectual property. I'm rather surprised myself this site was targeted as there are literally hundreds of warez sites floating around the Internet using by vBulletin, and that's a more clear violation of the License agreement.
In this instance, I would say no simply because laws on child pornography are pretty clear. Real images of minors in sexual conduct is illegal. Fake ones don't apply. It's anime, cartoon animation.
A Minor comment to everyone else, please don't post links up to other bulletin board solutions. It's a rather large tangent from the topic.- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's not at all a tangent from the topic.
This may really suck for HongFire, but think about the possibly thousands of vB license holders out there, who just now discovered that they could lose their paid-for software if somebody at PR objects to some content on their website and they don't comply with demands to edit it out. Oh, and if they resist PR will send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP, which may result in their entire website going offline. Worse yet, that they'll lose their software by violating an AUP that does not appear to exist. Further still, that they will be accused of "inciting spam" and told that if they want to have "ANY chance at all of resolving this" they must somehow stop it people trying to ask questions, should they dare to bring up the issue in a public forum.
It seems to me that posting links to companies and software solutions that do NOT do these things is perfectly on-topic. If I had paid for a vB license and found out about all this, I'd be looking for a different company to do business with in the future. - aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What acceptab1euname said. :)
- godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually ManagerJosh, when it says "not limited to", it's worded as a subcategory of Intellectual Property. In other words, it's not limited to those examples in order for it to be in violation of Inetellecual Property. The problem is that the reasons stated for closure have nothing to do with an IP violation. The license agreement says nothing about the contents moral values. This is why companies may be sued successfully for breach of contract. What is implied may only be referred to the actual wording of the contract or licensing agreement. If they had stated copyright violation as the reason, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar over it. That's not the case here. If lolicon images were illegal (they aren't), that would be another legitamate reason to close the site down. Sadly, I don't expect to hear back from pirate reports regarding the evidences I provided in my earlier post.
- obtuseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Managerjosh, you seem to be implying that limitations on copyright infringement, intellectual property rights, etc have anything to do with morally questionable material.
"While not DIRECTLY stated it can revoke on pornography charges OR whether it feels like it, one can argue it is implied sadly."
There is absolutely NO implication in the terms of use, and I don't think anyone could argue that it is, especially not someone versed in legal terminology. The terms of use is severely lacking in this respect, and you'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who'd stand up for vB if a lawsuit were forthcoming.
"A Minor comment to everyone else, please don't post links up to other bulletin board solutions. It's a rather large tangent from the topic."
I've never felt the need to post here, but I had to put my two cents in here. I'm a web developer, and the company I work for develops about 250 sites a year. I can assure you that this single act has lost any possibility of me or any other developer I know recommending Jelsoft products for anything. I actually was aware of most of the other options out there, but I think it's great to post alternatives.
Actually, your stance here has raised a concern to me. I'm curious if you're actually the "Business Manager" for Jelsoft, trying to garner support for your side in this by remaining somewhat neutral. I noticed you've never posted here either, except for in this post, and you seem to have some pretty questionable opinions. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@obtuseness: If you look at the vB forums, you'll notice a 'ManagerJosh' account there, too. With 7,604 posts since 2002.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As if Jelsoft's conduct in this matter weren't dispicable enough, now they're having their employees or sympathizers come and spout misinformation? Pathetic.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's not at all a tangent from the topic.
- SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2rofl byebye phpBB. Welcome any other forum software.
- Jassman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't you mean vBulletin?
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2quit your loligaggin.
- aeqea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wtf! I was going to purchase vbulliten this week for 3 site of mine, however no loli sites. I think I will think about it longer.
- prammy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I recommend Simplemachines at http://www.simplemachines.org
- systemghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I would donate money to HF's cause if they decided to take this to court. They have a case and Jelsoft deserves to be hurt by this flagrant abuse of power. I will never use vB for any of my forums and I hope more people choose to do the same.
In other news, has anyone located the part in the AUP this 'lawyer' is referring to?- MercenaryM14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed.
- kidcodea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i hope they use the cracked version from now on. jelsoft is retarded
- miles32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How fast do you think we could fill there support forums with "questions" about this.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Let's not, and then say we didn't.
- ManagerJosh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3miles - I'd suggest you do not harass Jelsoft on the matter. That will only inflame the situation more, and in the end, everyone will loose
- miles32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3who said harassment. Unless they answered the original question then its still on the table. Unless you could show me where there acceptable use policy that was "violated" is or show me where they answer the original question then its not harassment.
- Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You're living in la la land if you think mainstream morality doesn't come into play in court.
My money would be on Jel in a court case, not because I necessarily agree with them but because first off.. they most likely will have better representation.. and second.. they're playing the "we're just thinking of the children" card. On top of that, any geeks that came out supporting HK would just be seen as raging pedophiles who want their loli girls.
You kids are good at finding articles on the actual laws.. get props for that. But you're just not looking at the bigger picture. This is the US, this is Jesus land.. Liberals have been telling people for years how the country was becoming the playground for the christian right, but everyone was to busy thinking about Iraq or how much gas was. Well, now the christian right have more power than they did before and one of their biggies is child welfare..- systemghost, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Anyway...
- godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Deviancy, that's really not the case at all. The Republicans had more power when John Ashcroft originally did the CPPA, which failed due to references to virtual child pornography. Under a Republican congress (which had more influence under the Christian right), the PROTECT ACT was passed. Now it's a Democrat controlled congress. It has more Liberals in it since the November election. So no, if anything, the Christian Right has less power than before.
You have more Libertarians now, which supports more of an economic right and social left when it comes to policies, and that seems where a lot of the country is headed. You have more people supporting gay marriage, which is why some states are willing to recognize it. If this country were as much Jesus land as you are trying to state, the Marriage Protection Act would have passed on Congress, and states wouldn't be voting on recognizing gay marriage and the like. - jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The particular site agreed to terms in which they could be shut down based on "morality". I don't think this is a case that Jelsoft felt their software was being used illegally. So morality is definitely in question here, but only because of the contract and I think in court "loli" images would probably be found to be distasteful. I don't know personally, I'd have to see the pictures. TBH a lot of 4chan borderlines loli but is in great contrast to toddler porn.
God this discussion can get gross :(
Nonetheless, it might not be in the best interest to bring lolicon into any sort of public light such as by taking Jelsoft to court... It might be more successful to just let people know what they're getting legally with a vBulletin.
[Edit]P.S. What the ***** does this have to do ith Libertarians? srsly. - desqjockey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Without reviewing the license agreement, usually they may be amended and modified at will. If jellsoft wants to add this morality section they can.
As a business matter adding provisions appointing a contractor as the unquestioned moral arbiter of all speech on vBullitin boards would be a significant disadvantage.
- Ratatoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is really disturbing to me - what a terrible thing for an Internet software company to do.
I once hosted a forum where there was a topic about folks around the world that are "playing dead" and posting pics on the Internet. I've long since lost the links, but here's an example: http://www.playdeadpics.com/
Some moms on my site were horrified by pics that a dad took of his kids playing this morbid game - imagine a few little kids laying in a heap at the bottom of a brick wall, pretending to have fallen off. They demanded that I take the pics down - as if, by allowing it, I were somehow advocating the killing of children. I refused because most folks just saw a bunch of kids playing with their dad, and because I didn't want this happening every time one user disapproved of content submitted by another.
To imagine that some angry moms could have called the developers of my forum software to push me down that slippery slope...
Terrible, terrible call Jelsoft. Absolutely the wrong move. I would no longer recommend their software, even if they come to their senses, to have interrupted a site like this, "loli" having or not - it's irresponsible and abusive.- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3None of those pics look like proper dead people anyway.
- keiths, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9We run a fairly large vB forum and it definitely makes me think twice if we want to keep using it or not.
- elitexero, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Why shouldn't you revoke things for people breaking the law. I took a brief moment to read the legal letter before I even knew what was going on and apparently this hongfire site was hosting newly made illegal images. So ***** those sick bastards and their child porn anime. Sick *****.
- keiths, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's not a UK law
- chronosphere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11. It's not about child porn - it's about Jelsoft (or it's lawyer) trying to control which content the forums using their software should have.
2. over 90% of the Hongfire users are sharing normal anime wallpapers. Thanks for the generalisation.
- jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I just scrolled through a LOT of debating about this issue and a lot of longwinded insight into Jelsoft.
So I will sum it up: Jelsoft has always been a bossy, controlling, ***** company and this is not a surpise or even unusual for them. Avoid vBulletin.- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4LowTax from somethingawful.com knows just how bad the assholes at vB can be.
- iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hell, I was going to buy vBulletin, but I might not.
"Steve Machol
Dec 22nd '06 06:20pm
If you want to have ANY chance at all of resolving this then you better
stop inciting people to spam our support forums and support system. This
is your ONLY warning.
Steve Machol
Customer Support Manager, vBulletin
vBulletin Home Page
http://www.vbulletin.com/
vBulletin Community Forums
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/"
CRAPPY IDIOT LICENSE! IT HATE THAT *****!- cunion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Are they actually suprised that people want to discuss this on their support forums?
If they are confident in their position, then i'm afraid that they will need to get into some long and serious discussions and patiently explain it - hoping to will go away and shutting down all posts about it is NOT a strategy... - Slig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I was going too... No more...
- cunion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Are they actually suprised that people want to discuss this on their support forums?
- Gman1223, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"1 : There are no vB3 converters to date to any other forum-software."
http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=325692
thought that may help...- Gman1223, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Also, I just looked at the SMF site, they have a converter for VB 3.5x, they say it should work for VB 3.6x too.
- zomglolz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4It is a known fact 80% of terrorists run their websites of linux/apache. Thus linux is evil.
I think Jelsoft is trying to avoid "association" with any loli sites,even if HongFire isn't an actual loli site,just a big
anime forum which happend to have a loli section as well.(by their own will or the said lawyers will)- Gman1223, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Troll.
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2like anybody gives a ***** about "association" like that. "I don't like that site, what forum software do they use?"
- zomglolz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4i know its ridiculous , i was being sarcastic but Gman1223 didn't notice..
If you would read http://www.hongfire.com/vbulletin.txt , they clearly state that they do not want their forum software associated with such content, so i was trying to simply make a sarcastic joke off that.. - Gman1223, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Sorry zomglolz, force of habit... lol
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4[quote]It is a known fact 80% of terrorists run their websites of linux/apache.[/quote]
That's because they're smarter than the average US bureaucrat who are too stupid to know how much MS sucks.
- godaistudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jas168, I was referring to the current state of the Political Climate. My point is that if social policies are more on the liberal side (and it does appear that way for the moment) and the economic policies are that on the right, then you are dealing more with Libertarianism rather than Rep. or Dem.
There are more economic policies that the Conservatives put in to place during the last Congress, and yet a shift in the social policies leaning to the Liberal side of things, which is why it's more about the anti-war, let gays get married, etc as far as many of the hot topic issues at hand.
This country is nowhere near the status that Deviancy tried to claim it is - iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Jelsoft wants to censor the internet, that is sick!
NET NEUTRALITY FTW!
Can't you use the software if the license is inactive, or does it not give you the right to use it?- chronosphere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you don't have the license to use it, then it's like you stole it -> illegal to use.
- iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course, but I mean if you can use the software even though the license is "not valid".
- dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I remember the time when Neowin.net was only in its second year when vBulletin started buckling under the pressure of the forum's growth and stuff. I'm no longer a participant there, but it seems that their switch to IPB was one of the best decisions they ever made.
So point is, vBulletin sucks anyway. - Deviancy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh my bad.. I forgot we've gone totally liberal over night.
That would explain why it's suddenly become harder for a girl to get an abortion in some states. Did you know that in many states they only have one clinic that performs the act? Did you know that in the november exit polls, one of the main reasons why the left took power was because many of the voters were upset with Haggerty and Foley? They were more concerned about what those two men did sexually than the war in Iraq, according to the exit polls.
And keep in mind, the election in November doesn't even come into play until January.
But once January does come, we will see things begin to get more balanced. And if Edwards or Obama take the White House in the next election, then we won't have to worry as much about the Jesus freaks..
But as of right now..
http://www.theocracy.org
Very factual website.. no theories.. they just present facts.
Then tell me the US wasn't Jesus Land for quite awhile..
As for getting back on topic..
I'd consider putting together a boycott on vBulletin.. But don't base it on the restriction of loli, that won't help earn support. Base it purely on the fact that they're pro censorship. - bobjohnson129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've read over the license agreement. There is no mention of any content restrictions whatsoever. And the license can only be terminated if a condition of it is violated. Not even a "We reserve the right to terminate this agreement at anytime" clause.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has consistantly upheld that virtual child pornography is legal. And, as distasteful as it is, even if it wasn't legal, which is it (the latest Bush end-run around the system of checks-and-balances wouldn't hold a candle if tested in court), it is not Jelsoft's or Pirate Report's (which is a company comprised solely of Mr. Spinks) job to be the police. As far as Hongfire.com is concerned, the termination of their license is a breech of contract on the part of Jelsoft and is at the very least, an actionable tort under US law.
I also don't buy the excuse about looking out for the children. Because there were no real living children in the disputed content on Hongfire. According to the United States Supreme Court, on the topic of virtual child pornography, "[it] prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production.".
So what's next for Jelsoft? Are they going to start taking down websites running vBulletin that portray any sort of violence? Is Jelsoft going to pull a Jack Thompson and take down video game boards because they relate to content that MIGHT cause someone to commit a crime. - PJBonoVox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Although I'm not quite there yet, this is another good reason why free software and open-source software is very nice to have around.
- prh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hongfire and others who have had their vBulletin license revoked under this unpublished AUP should consider filing a complaint with FTC or equivalent government body if you're outside the U.S. If no one complains to the authorities all this complaining means nothing.
- Moocha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's the vBulletin forum thread tracking the issue:
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=213539- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amazing, they undeleted my post..
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Heh, somebody there named 'NRW' had a really good point:
-
"One of the comments made in the exchange was "I anticipate you will have less than 48 hours to make any dleteions or transition so backup your database now to be safe and ready"
Does Jelsoft have the ability to remotely turn off, lock, and/or delete any or all of my web content, databases or any other access into my servers that is not documented, and if so, exactly how do they do this, what stops other people from doing it?"
-
Personally, I don't think that Spinks was talking about secret backdoors in vBulletin. I think he was referring to DMCA takedown notices, which he apparantly sends lots of (see chillingeffects.org). For an ISP to qualify for the "Safe Harbor" provision, infringing content has to be taken offline; and I'm sure some less competent webhosts might simply delete everything. After seeing how Jelsoft treats its clients (it didn't seem to care too much until this hit the frontpage of digg) I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there *was* a secret backdoor in vB; but for now I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. - realize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The NRW comment was mine. The thing is we are not an American company and we have nothing to do with the US in fact there are incredibly few users that function on the forum that are based in the US, so I really don't think the DMCA would apply to us.
But we don't have any content that could be considered objectionable in any way shape or form, but this Howard person sure makes it seem like he has the power to turn off any ones site at will, and I thought it was a valid question.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Everybody who dugg Limbonik down: I think this is what he was talking about:
http://forums.pgpsupport.com/viewtopic.php?p=18931
http://forums.pgpsupport.com/viewtopic.php?t=6548
Real nice guy, this Mister Spinks.- Limbonik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's another thread where he assumes censoring is bad and wrong. But apparently censorship is only a bad thing when it comes to himself. ;)
http://forums.pgpsupport.com/viewtopic.php?p=19027&sid=37f8b9b98d8a4523ace1853db7059782
- Limbonik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's another thread where he assumes censoring is bad and wrong. But apparently censorship is only a bad thing when it comes to himself. ;)
- ManagerJosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's just all calm down and see what happens. It appears Jelsoft will reevaluate the matter in more depth and sort through the matter through its entirety. It is best that we do not complicate the matter at hand by harassing Jelsoft through the forums, emails and/or support systemand let Jelsoft, and HongFire resolve this in a professional, and respectful manner.
If we inflame this matter at hand, we may only give reasons to Jelsoft to stick with its current decisi