Friday, May 30, 2008

When "Free Internet" Isn't Exactly Free

This is a proposal that sounds excellent in some parts, but is just plain horrid in others.

Quoting from

FCC proposes free Internet... as long as it's censored
05/29/2008 @ 7:47 pm

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are considering auctioning a piece of the airwaves to buyers willing to provide free broadband Internet service without pornography.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing to auction an unused piece of 25 megahertz wireless spectrum, with the condition that the winning bidder offer free Internet access and filter out obscene content on part of those airwaves, a spokesman for the FCC said on Thursday.

"We're hoping there will be increased interest in the proposal; and because this will provide wireless broadband services to more Americans, it is certainly something we want to see," said FCC spokesman Rob Kenny.

Under Martin's proposal, the winner would be allowed to use the rest of the airwaves for commercial services.

The plan would address criticism from some consumer advocates, who say the government has not done enough to get broadband service into more households. It also could win praise from anti-obscenity watchdog groups.

"I think there are a number of features of the plan that would be attractive to various constituencies," said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Blair Levin.

But the plan got a lukewarm response from existing wireless carriers. The industry's chief trade group, called CTIA, said auction provisions such as the free-service requirement were too rigid.

"CTIA supports flexible auction rules that allow any and all entities to participate," the group said in a statement.

The winning bidder also would have to build out the system to serve 50 percent of the U.S. population within four years and 95 percent within 10 years.

Further details of the plan have yet to be worked out, but Martin's plan is expected to come up at the FCC's next meeting on June 12.

Martin's proposal is similar to a plan put forth previously by a start-up company called M2Z. Under that plan, which was not approved by the FCC, M2Z would have been given the spectrum at no up-front cost. It would have provided free service, generating revenue partly through advertising.

The 25 MHz spectrum at issue is not viewed as highly attractive to wireless carriers, unlike the 700 MHz spectrum auctioned by the FCC earlier this year. There has been little previous interest in it, aside from the M2Z proposal.

Now, being the house populist Leftist on the panel here, I'm pretty much in full support of providing anything that would open up Internet access to communities that are economically lacking.

The problem is: why does it have to be censored??

Don't end users already have means to filter out "objectionable" content at their end through filtering software, rating systems, and the like?? Why is there such a need to have the government (even through a private proxy) do the censoring for them??

Or is this just a ploy by the Bush FCC to win back both Christian Rightists (who would love to impose their biases on working and poor folk, and right-wing populists (who would love the idea of having a free public space to vent their spleen against the usual "liberal" enemies)??

And...would the "censorship" be limited mainly to sexual imagery or actions (similar to the filters used by public libraries to block out "pornography", which also end up blocking out lots and lots of other information that rightists might not think that the public should see)??

If this is what they mean by "free Internet"; then no thanks, I'd rather pay for mine. Remove those content restrictions and allow for a truly free Internet spectrum (but with reduced speed from the paid providers); though, and you may have something.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Yet another bad law

In yet more censorship news, Indiana recently passed a law that, as of July 1, requires all newly licensed businesses in that state to register with the state if they sell sexually explicit material. To make matters worse, "sexually explicit material" is being defined by the notoriously broad/vague "harmful to minors" standard.

Coverage from the Indianapolis Star here, here, and here.

Thankfully, the law's sheer breadth has rapidly gotten everyone from the ACLU, to the Indianapolis Museum of Art, to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and American Bookseller's Association up against it. The flip side is that for some in the "great middle", the law's overbreadth is the only problem they have with it, with a recent Indianapolis Star editorial opposing the law conceding that it is in "a good cause". -- Sigh --

More analysis here from usual suspect Violet Blue, sex-poz blog Gloria's Oversexed Mind (this blog is new to me, but looks quite good), and from Indiana liberal political blogger Michael Wallack.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Defend Our Porn vs. Free Speech Coalition???

Interesting blog entry by Audacia Ray over at her Village Voice sex blog Naked City on the apparent rumblings over the Free Speech Coalition's alleged ineffectiveness (with more trenchant criticism an example linked here, and why John Stagliano saw fit to form his own organization in response.

Maybe this is just the usual gossip and rivalries...or maybe it's something more substansial??

Update: More like the usual gossip and rivalries: thanks to Ernest and Chris Hall for setting me straight on Mike South and his hidden agendas. Serves me right for not checking my sources....a big damn FAIL for me on this one. Ugh.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

This is all mine...

but I'd like to share it with Nina if she's watching :)

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 Back Up!

Finally, after over a week of round-the-clock effort by our dauntless webmasters, is functional once more. It looks better than ever and most of its components are operational once again.

Alas, as I said would be the case, the free to all open forums are conspicuous by their absence. Sorry about that. It isn't a matter of "knuckling under" (as one of our friends rather painfully characterized it) so much as a reality-based decision meant to protect not only Nina but forum participants as well. Without going into potentially sensitive technical details, suffice it to say that the DOS attack we suffered was surprisingly sophisticated and suggests that the confidentiality of contributors to a discussion space unprotected by firewalls of any sort and linked directly to a paid porn site would be difficult to assure.

We are looking into alternatives and hope to re-open the doors to public comments on sexuality, politics, technology, history, religion and all the other great topics that made the forums what they were. Give us a little time to come up with a solution that works reliably to the benefit of all concerned.

Meanwhile, again, thanks to everyone here for their encouragement in what was a very difficult time for both Nina and me.

Good friends are truly rare, and we're glad we've got so many of them on this blog and in the many other places where this incident was reported and righteously denounced.

To our visitors from Ace of Spades

Welcome Gentlemen (primarily, it seems):

As the primary, ahem, “owner” of this blog I just want to say a few things. The first is I don’t much care for moderation for comments. Never have, never will, which is why there is no moderation here for the most part. That being said, while you are welcome to speak here, any cracks and shots at Nina’s age or appearance or any other sort of thing towards her, or anyone else? It will make me lose my happy thoughts. Hell, Nina looks good, and probably leads a more healthy lifestyle than 90% of us.

Now, I’ve been over to your site, read what’s been said, and bullshit aside, I do have a few thoughts and words on the matter.

-There is huge difference between fundamentalists and the average Christian/Muslim out there. We know this. So yes, it is safe to assume if you’re not a fundie, it’s not you that we have issue with. In fact, it is my belief that white Christian dudes are the primary consumers of porn out there and many of them would be really, really sad if it suddenly went away.

-That being said, to theorize that a whole lot of people throughout the course of history have not been killed, tortured, or silenced in the name of Christianity is, well, stupid. The Crusades come to mind. As do the Salem witch trials. Shoot, the colonization of America (North and South), yep…violent, and done by Christians. Northern Ireland? So on. People have been killing each other and dehumanizing each other in the name of God (Allah, Yahweh, whatever) for a long time, and no faith has clean hands.

-No major religious faith is a friend to people involved in the Sex Biz, so really, it is safe to assume from the get-go that those of us who are in it will be skeptical of you. We have reason. A lot of legislation that makes our lives not only harder, but also more dangerous, has been rallied for and passed into law mostly due to the very loud voices of various Religious Right (ahem, Christian) organizations and Radical Leaning Feminists (which hey, is the oddest alliance I can think of, but I guess it works). When it seems to us that those factions are doing everything in their power to make our business illegal, or nearly impossible to be in, well yes, it makes us grumpy. I’m sure you all would feel the same way if it were your line of work that was being targeted.

-A couple of us have dealt with hacker bullshit and other assorted crap and frankly, we’re tired of it. Nina’s site? Islamic assholes. I got some similar kind of love and threats from some Radical Feminists. We’ve have trolls of all flavors (including Christian ones), so yeah, we’re cranky. It’s a natural human reaction to patronizing, childish antics.

-Nina herself is not a poster on this blog…though she is welcome to whenever she likes.

-Politically, the posters here vary a lot, from very left leaning socialist to somewhat right leaning libertarian to…well, a contributor from the UK who I’m not sure how she identifies. So please do not generalize our politics for us.

-Oh, and if you’re going to come here to talk or debate or what have you, sure, welcome, but save the insults on looks, brains, politics, whatever for other places. And the whole sex workers are all abuse victims/dumb/brain dead/retarded/junkie/at the mercy of a pimp crap? Don’t play that here.

Ren of the BPPA

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The Silencing of Nina Hartley: My Two Cents' Worth

I had left a comment on Ernest's thread regarding the repercussions of the hacking of Nina's site....but I have some thoughts of my own that I thought deserved its own space.

What is more stunning to me than even the extent of the attack on Nina's personal property, her life's work, and her activism, is the way in which they have now been so successful that such draconian measures such as totally nuking her forum were necessitated.

This hits me especially hard, since I was not a paid member of Nina dot com, but I was a major contributor to the forum; where me, Ernest, Nina, and many other members would congregate every day and fire off our thoughts and feelings on everything from the political winds of the moment, to Ernest's latest video shoot, to the helpful and sexy advice on sex that Nina has made her legacy doing.

Thanks to these.....gentlemen (or ladies) who perpetuated this deed: this valuable resource will now be gone. Totally. Forever.

It's almost as if those who can't stand the fact that Nina stands tall in defense of her principles and beliefs are capable of doing anything and everything to silence her and her fans.

And what is even worse is that those who could use her activism the most -- namely, those people like me who aren't wealthy enough to afford a paid membership to her site; those of us who can barely afford home computers to escape the filters and blockers that society places on affirmative and progressive sex activism (My local public library filters blocks sites like Ren Ev's home blog and Susie Bright's sites, but allows the likes of John Hagee and Rush Limbaugh and perhaps even these ur-fuckers who hacked Nina's site total uncensored freedom to promote their swill); the ones who would benefit the most from Nina's wisdom, her kindness, her compassion, and her legacy -- they will be the ones who will be hit the hardest by this action.

Perhaps, that was exactly the point.

As I said in my original response, I do hope that somehow Ernest and Nina would reconsider offering at least a minimal public online venue for Nina to continue her (and his) public sex-positive activism; and to that extent I have even offered my own bandwidth to the cause. Nothing would please the censors more, in my view, than to see their targets respond to the acts by silencing themselves even further; I don't think that Nina is one to give up so easily; and I give my full committment to making sure her legacy is duly recorded.

There is a lot more I could say on this...but work beckons.

The Hacking of

By now, most of you already know that went offline on last weekend. As of May 16, it still is, though we hope to have it restored to some extent by Tuesday, in time for Nina's weekly live cam show. After that it will be slowly brought back, one element at a time, although with certain changes that will likely prove both unwelcome and permanent. 

Because this was not an isolated episode, because of its consequences and because of the questions it raises for us all, some explanations are in order. And besides, as we used to say back in Colorado, "Yer honor, mah family's involved." That alone, especially if followed by the observation that "besides that, he needed killin'" still counts as a pretty good defense out there.

First: what happened. Next: what we're going to do about it. Finally: why it matters.

Our story starts about a year ago when, one morning while doing my usual get-up admin check on Nina Hartley's site, I discovered that it had been shut down to all access, both external and internal, and its home-page replaced with a fairly clumsy animation of Muslim funeral surrounded by a selection of Koranic verses damning Nina,  along with all her fans and lots of other folks, and threatening various kinds of doom and damnation. It was a fairly crude job, technically speaking, and our dauntless web masters had it fixed in a couple of days. Some new safeguards were installed and we pretty much wrote it off as a mean-spirited prank by some bored teenagers sitting around in some cybercafe somewhere in the Middle East. Basically, we forgot about. 

Big mistake. It's unwise not to take any fanatic at his word. The only thing distinguishing him (or her, let's be fair) from a garden-variety nut-job is the willingness and ability to act on a threat.

This time, the hack-job was much more destructive. Again, a new screen, this time with some boasting in English along with all the Arabic smack and the cityscape of what we now believe is Istanbul shadowed in the background. Not only did the hackers actually sign their work, they cheekily put up a copyright line at the bottom. 

I won't go into the technical details of how they accomplished what they did for obvious reasons, but the practical effect was to transfer control of the site from our hands into theirs and lock us out of any portal through which we could have taken corrective measures. It took a ferocious legal intervention from counsel with the ever-so-even-handed folks at Network Solutions, who had previously offered us only the opportunity to explain our position in writing with no promises of action implied, to restore all our associated domain names, held by Nina since 1995 and paid for exclusively from California, to our control. When your lawyer uses the words "national security concerns," it does get people's attention. Now we have a case officer who specifically oversees our little corner of cyberspace. 

How much did this cost us? In dollars, we don't know yet. We don't know how many potential paid memberships we've lost in the past week, or how many existing members took one look at the hacker screen and canceled. The legal bills haven't come in yet. So the bottom line remains murky. The cost to our piece of mind and to the community of longtime contributors at Nina's open forums: priceless. Those forums as they existed before are not coming back. Not ever. Every single hack, attack, spamming and trolling that has afflicted us over a dozen years has come in through that welcoming door. We'd be fools not to slam it shut and drop the bar after this. Nina and I have discussed starting up a linked blog, but to do so we'd pretty much have to maintain it ourselves, and with all the other things we have on our plates, we're not sure we have the appetite for that.

Too bad too, because the forums on were, in many ways, the heart of the venture. Sure, though they were free to anyone who signed up, they were attached to a porn pay-site. And they contained some familiar elements from that genre, including sex advice from Nina and friendly chat (the only kind we encouraged) about the XXX world, but what really set the forums apart was the breadth of the discourse and the variety of the contributors. We talked endlessly about politics, history, economics, technology and - oh yeah - sexuality. Posters were men and women, leftists, liberals, libertarians, libertarian conservatives, sexual liberationists and those dreaded third-wave feminists. All races, all classes, all shades of gender, all sexual orientations, all levels of education and experience were represented. We had college professors and businessmen and grad students. We had Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists. We got posts from every continent except Antarctica, and I can't swear to that one. 

The discussion was far-ranging, mostly well-informed to startlingly erudite, and as long as an iron rule of personal civility was observed (I enforced it on friend and foe alike with an evenly heavy hand) frequently quite heated. Over those dozen or so years, the forum logged over thirty thousand posts from hundreds of individuals on hundreds of topics. I'm thankful that all that good conversation is safely backed up at a secure location, though whether any of it will be seen anywhere else again is not yet clear. There are both practical and philosophical considerations to weigh in terms of reinstating any of it in any form. We know our broad array of political and ideological enemies mined that source for out-of-context material to spice up their presentations. Indeed, Rebecca Whisnant cites by name as a source for writings and lectures at Wheelock and the other venues where she trashes Nina with the predicability of a stopped clock. 

But if we're not sure what the future holds for the open discussion at, we can say that Nina's voice on the net has been silenced. That's right, the S-word. Not silenced like Gail Dines, Bob Jensen, Melissa Farley, James Dobson, Pamela Paul and Ariel Levy. I mean knocked off the web, which was her principle point of contact with her core audience and accessible source for those wishing to get to know her and understand her ideas. And even worse, when she returns to that venue, it won't be as the facilitator of important discussions on the big issues of the day. 

While Nina will still post her personal journal on the front page, pretty much everything else will be behind the firewall of full, paid membership and will therefore be mostly XXX visual content intended primarily for adult entertainment. In other words, it will be much less of a meeting ground for unconventional thinkers and much more of a conventional porn site. In this way, at least for the purposes of the site she helped build with thousands of hours of her personal labor, Nina will be limited to the role our society is prepared to allow her - porn star, full-stop. She can and will continue to write, speak, travel to workshops and carry on her activism within and for the community to which she has devoted the past 25 years, but if you meet her through Google, you won't know much about that, or about the remarkable mind and irreplaceable experience that makes her who she is, rather than the sex work that so narrowly defines her in the eyes of so much of the world. 

No matter how I look at it, I see this as a sad loss, for her, for me, for everyone whose lives she's touched or might touch through this medium. 

And the manner in which this loss was inflicted teaches us only the darkest of lessons. Nina was silenced by political enemies from across the world for reasons far outside the debate usually carried on at this location and in the other places where she takes her stand in favor of reason and compassion and against ignorance and fanaticism in regard to sexuality. was hacked by a couple of young guys in Turkey who characterize themselves as "Islamic cyber-warriors." They've hacked hundreds of other sites all over the world that they regard as suitable targets for their jihadist fury for whatever reasons and make no secret of their intention to go right on doing so. Indeed, for a couple of days after the fact, they were all over Turkish media trumpeting their great triumph at shutting down the site of the "Jew whore" Nina Hartley. And they got pretty far with that too, even making it onto the TV news back home. This will get them more views for their clumsy gangsta-rap vids on youtube (you can see their collection of laptops in the background as they bust their moves) and presumably sell more of the malware they peddle on their own site. Great heroes of the coming caliphate are these two twenty-nothings. May they be welcomed into paradise by those 72 virgins at the earliest possible date. Given the TNP's impatience with swaggering braggarts who like to stir up trouble, that date may come rather sooner than they expect. 

But those of us over here are stuck with some troubling questions whatever fate may hold in store for these pathetic low-lifes. The unpleasant fact remains that the hate they feel for Nina and all she believes is shared in equal measure among right-wing Christian evangelicals, left-wing anti-porn feminists and their fellow Islamic fundamentalist fanatics all around the world. Even though these extremists all despise each other, they agree on something basic about human nature - their deep-seated distrust and dislike for it. Where they find common ground is in their abhorrence of personal freedom and individual liberty. 

Without some unchallenged power to tell us all how we must live down to the smallest detail, they believe, human beings will revert to utter savagery and their own noble selves will be the ones to suffer for it.  When Gail Dines told me in Vegas that she distrusted arguments based in nature, she spoke for the opponents of reason everywhere. Arguments based in nature may be tested by empirical means and subjected to rational scrutiny and thus may be proven true or false. Blind belief need not be subjected to these rigors. Good thing too, as it wouldn't survive such a test. Better that we should all live by simple, revealed truths as directed by the self-anointed prophets of those truths, than that we should all have to think for ourselves, as all but the elect are incapable of doing so in a responsible fashion. 

And that is why these groups, while lining up with every weapon at their disposal to discredit or, if necessary, destroy all who disagree with them, make exceptions for one another. All are quick to deny any affiliation with each other, and to dismiss any association among the three as simply a "straw man," a rhetorical construction of their sinful, evil foes. And yet they do not speak out against each other's excesses with the curious ferocity they spew toward anyone who dares to suggest that their behavior is irrational.

Is it not odd that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ward Churchill, Jeremiah Wright and Ahmed Ahmadinejad all agree that we got what we deserved on 9/11? Isn't it strange that a nominal leftist feminist like Pamela Paul would have no problem with offering supportive testimony before the "porn addiction" hearings trumped up by failed Christian-right presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback? And isn't it strange that will all the gallons of ink shed by the likes of Melissa Farley over the horrors of Nevada brothels and dirty pictures in this country, she has so little to say of recent date about the daily horrors of "honor killings," female genital mutilation and the savage public beatings of women for failure to cover themselves completely in those vast swaths of the world dominated by Islamic fundamentalists?  

But of course, these are people who FEEL their beliefs ever so strongly, and what they feel is so much more important than what is merely real in this world. Don't we poor, deluded rationalists understand that this is all about feelings and feelings are what matter? Who needs the facts when you already have the truth, right?

No, these extremists are not allies. Eventually, like Hitler and Stalin, they must necessarily turn on each other, but not before they've done whatever they could to rid the planet of anyone who might offer the more sensible alternatives of pluralism, of living and letting live, of tolerating real differences strongly held, of placing the ability to think above the visceral sense of permanent injustice that lies at the heart of every stripe of extremist lunacy. Wrong has been done by those who are evil and evil-doers must be punished. That's what counts. Things like choice, agency, liberty are of no use to the pure and can only be tools of wickedness in the hands of unrighteous. Thought itself, unless very carefully directed by those possessed of the ultimate wisdom, is a dangerous thing to be discouraged in all but the most limited of circumstances.

And thus it is that the real tests of moral courage, which are all about individual judgments, are failed by true believers again and again. Members of the Christian right, even if they find its conduct deplorable, will not speak out against Operation Rescue. American leftists were silent through a generation of communism's crimes against humanity from the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 right up to the Khmer Rouge auto-genocide of 1975. Today they won't speak out against the human rights abuses of the Taliban for fear of being perceived as racist. Christian evangelicals support the militant settlers on the West Bank, and the Likudniks accept that support without a blink, even though they know full well that these wonderful, new allies of theirs embrace religious teachings that require all Jews to ultimately convert or be damned. 

In addition to having their anti-intellectualism and their rejection of reason in common, they all also hate and fear any open expression in favor of sexual autonomy, because the cognitive tolerance of sexual diversity is entirely a product of human reason, and any rational thought on that subject will surely lead to the questioning of unreasoning taboos and restrictions upon which all forms of fanaticism depend. Liberated bodies and liberated minds are two things authoritarian personalities and the belief systems to which they adhere simply cannot endure. 

And they won't do so without a bloody fight using every weapon at their disposal, even if the only weapon they have at hand is a laptop. 

That is how, and more importantly why, Nina Hartley came to be silenced on the internet. She is a kind, caring, loving person whose great offense lies in her steadfast defense of the rights of adults to consent (a dirty word in itself in so many quarters these days) to the forms of sexual expression that bring satisfaction to their own lives and the lives of their partners. 

Such effrontery simply could not be allowed. And now it won't be.

I can think of a long last of people to whom this will be a cause for celebration. But at the end of the day, they and their followers are the real losers in this contest. As Goya observed, the sleep of reason produces monsters. And eventually, always, the monsters will consume the sleepers.