Gut Rumbles

April 23, 2006

does that mean me?

WTF does this crap really mean? (Other than another nail in the coffin of personal liberty, of course, but that's par for the course anymore.)

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

I knew immediately that the law must suck, because of what it's called: "Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006."

RED ALERT!!! Any time you see a new law proposed with the word "Child" or "Children" in it, be afraid. Be VERY afraid, because it's a cloaking device for something evil. It works, too, in this pussifying country of ours.

Say you're doing something "For the Children," and panties moisten, including those on a LOT of men today, when all sorts of powerful, deep-rooted maternal instincts kick in, even if you're proposing to sacrifice 200 goats on an altar to Baal. If it's "for the children," it must be okay.

Sorry, I digress...

Sure, the law is another intrusion into personal freedom, the scope goes FAR beyond child pornography, and it takes us back into that malarial swamp of defining "obscenity," which can mean ANYTHING to a blue-nosed prude... but the real question does it affect ME?

I have posted Nekkid Pitchers on my blog. My language often is earthy to say the least. Hell, that image below, of the water buffalo sticking his tongue up his nose might be considered obscene, or even "sexually explicit" by some deranged people. What is a blogger to do?

If I were rating my own page, I would give it a PG. Surprised? I don't see why. I think "children" under 17 can handle Gut Rumbles all by themselves without becoming crazed rapists or child molesters. Hell, they might even learn something, which could be a unique experience if they attend public schools. Besides, if you see this, I end up looking pretty tame.

But one man's PG may be the government's XXX. I don't want to risk going to prison for five years like some mother-raper or father-stabber, so I want to prepare to comply with the law. I need a rating on my blog, but I need some help, too.

How would YOU rate this site?



Posted by: Ivan Ivanovich on April 23, 2006 08:56 AM

PG-13...You also have to remember you are very nice in warning us about "not work sfe" pics you might post as well...

Screw the gum'mit. They sure want you to bend over!

Posted by: Steph on April 23, 2006 10:39 AM

Parents should be the ones who are governing what kids do on the internet, not the federal government or the owners of the websites. There is simply no substitute for personal responsiblity. As far as rating this site goes, I would rate it as cleaner than television and even many parts of the Bible most days. Public schools offer sexually explicit information when they teach our young'uns how to put on condoms and also the fine art of having abortions without their parents consent. Do schools come with warning labels? If not, they should.

Posted by: Tessa on April 23, 2006 12:18 PM

Whenever I see it's "for the children" I wonder why no one ever asks about the debt we are creating "for the children".

Posted by: JCatara on April 23, 2006 01:50 PM

Amen. If it's For The Children or For Public Safety, you better lube up, 'cause a reaming is coming your way.

I simply don't understand the reason our government would even want to be in the morality business.

Posted by: The Other Mike S on April 23, 2006 02:45 PM

I read the article. That's just scary...particularly the part of requiring ISPs to maintain records of everyone's activity to aid in future criminal investigations. It's also going to be expensive and we'll get to foot that bill.

More than just another episode of Big Brother...

If we self-rate, do we get criteria to rate by? Or is everyone going to have to ante up to some company to rate them? Here we go again...more reason to have to pay more....

Posted by: BabsRN on April 23, 2006 03:17 PM

Wow, I made my initial comments before I read the article. What a bunch of dumbasses.

These numbnuts think the US owns the Internet. Tell that to sites that are hosted around the world. If they do force this on US providers, people will just move their business off-shore. Yep, more outsourcing because of shitty US laws. Ahhhh.... our gummint at work.

What a clueless cabal of clowns...

Posted by: The Other Mike S on April 23, 2006 03:43 PM

I'd give you a PG - I've seen much worse. Kids could do a lot worse things than stumbling across your blog...

Posted by: Lisa on April 23, 2006 03:51 PM


I'm only 34, and I can't handle it.

Posted by: GORDON on April 23, 2006 04:22 PM

Oh hell, not only was I doing and saying worse things when I was in the age group they're trying to protect, but I would have found a way to porn anyhow.

never underestimate the power of hormone in a pubescent.

Posted by: Roy on April 23, 2006 04:53 PM

Acidman, better go sit on the Group W bench with all the other mother-rapers and father-stabbers. You're just not moral enough to join the Blogging army!

Posted by: El Capitan on April 23, 2006 05:06 PM

I would have rated it PG except for that picture I am looking at of a water buffalo with a tongue up its nose. I might have to give you an X rating now...

Posted by: GUYK on April 23, 2006 07:10 PM

Well, if they're going to be snots about it, have an intro page like EHOWA does (

"you must be at least 18 and
agree to the disclaimer to enter
the ip address of (your IP)
will be recorded if you ENTER (and the enter is a link to the actual site). "

That way, if some little snot nosed 12 year old kid clicks into your site and sees the latest Puerto Rica Chica and his mom finds out, you're not liable; he clicked it saying he was 18. Nothing explicit was on the splash page...(disclaimer page).

Stupid soccer moms need to invest in net nanny to guard their precious spawn's sensitivities rather than burden the rest of us.

Oh, and NC-17. That'll keep out all the chirren.

Posted by: Cythen on April 23, 2006 07:14 PM

Ever read "Seven Inches of Sense"?
That girl is AWESOME.
The writing she has on her "main" page is excellent.

What goes on in her extended entries is... just wow.
You, compared to her, would be rated maybe PG-13, though (again, like Chablis said) kids use way worse language than you do.

I wonder though, if "Joan" at SIoS, would need to worry. She, like me, is at Munu, which is from Down Under.
(And, Rob, you need to go read her if you haven't yet. If I like her (and I do), you'll LOVE her... She is Suth'n, after all... )

Posted by: Stevie on April 23, 2006 11:54 PM

Your rating is "EZ"..
Or, is it "OK" ?

Internet ratings ! ! !
Jesuuuussss KEY RICE ST ! ! !
Sometimes I just want to say,
"You fucking conservatives are no better than those fucking liberals".
Or, vicey-versa.

What is a nice home-grown mid-western boy to do ?
I can't leave, because we have the best deal in the world.

Posted by: Dan Pursel on April 24, 2006 03:20 AM

That buffalo is the Cape Bufalo (Syncyrcus caffer). It is the second most feared animal on earth...right behind Hillary Clinton (Liberalus bitchicus).

Posted by: Roger .45 on April 24, 2006 08:39 AM

If Blogger ever becomes un FUBAR'd I'm linking this. I have a pant-load of kids, all boys, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is not to raise a bunch of pussies. Yesterday, the oldest broke his thumb running down some stairs, but couldn't come get me because he couldn't put his bike helmet on. Didn't want to get hurt I guess.

I've got the V-chip on the TV, but the same oldest got his face punched in when he called some 14 year old a "fag". I know for a fact the kid curses like a sailor behind my back, and as long as he keeps it there, it's fine with me. It's genetic, he learned by osmosis. Fucking kids.

Anyway, until they outlaw the playground, the schoolbus and underwear ads, nothing they do will mean shit.

Posted by: Terry on April 24, 2006 10:07 AM

Lightspeed won't let you in the schools.

Posted by: georgia on April 24, 2006 07:12 PM

PG-13. You might be a bit much for those under 13.

Over 13, and they have said/heard worse.

Posted by: mt on April 24, 2006 08:33 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.