Saturday, September 03, 2005

 

A Hideous Pornographic Image

I recently viewed a grotesquely pornographic picture. The image was brought to my attention by Mansa Musa, the prolific moderator at MootStormfront. I've refused to post the questioned picture on this site because it contains disturbing content.

The picture displays the cookie monster character as he continuously stuffs chocolate-chip cookies inside the vaginal orifice of a prepubescent girl. I should mention that the girl was certainly telling the cookie monster to stop. 'Racialists' and various antiracists have declared Yamamanama is responsible for the image's creation; in addition, they assert that he ensured Lamb and Lynx would undoubtedly see it.

The pornographic image was hideous; in fact, only a person with an astutely sick mind would have been able to conjure it up. I don't know who's guilty because I have not seen the supposed evidence yet. However, I unequivocally denounce the actions of the responsible party.

Comments:
http://eyzwydopensblog.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_eyzwydopensblog_archive.html

Copy and paste the above link into your browser for screenshots of the evidence. Warning: disturbing, though editing picture
 
Not that it's going to matter in the end but to my knowledge Yama did not create the picture, nor did he supply it. One of his journal buddies supplied the picture and he told another one to post it either on the Prussian Blue Board or the Fan Blog "preferably to be viewed by lamb and lynx".

At this point it is probably beating a dead horse but everyone associated with Yama should denounce this, I commend Amethyst for taking responsibility and I also apologize for asking her to post it on the site because it is infact too disgusting an image even to be made an example of.

I too am more disgusted with the mindset of the sicko who actually made it more so than I am with Jan or Yamamanama for spamming it but then again they are the ones who are going to be punished for breaking the law.
 
Noone said he made the frickin' thing, Amethyst. He is responsible by way of Jan, for placing it on a childrens' website.

Show me one post where any of us said he made it.
 
Also.. to view the evidence go here..

http://eyzwydopensblog.blogspot.com/
http://swanoftuonela.blogspot.com/

On mine it is several posts down.
 
Quote from Yama.

"I'm still not through with that Ultimate Picture Thread. Maybe I killed Tuonela's cats by now."

Now he is joking about killing my cats. Wondeful person you are Yama.
 
Will the prussianbluesucks.info blog continue to link to Yamamanama's Journal?
 
The blog's administrator and owner, PBblogger, is the only person who has the authorization to remove the link. Therefore, the link will not be removed. PBblogger is too busy with establishing his post-college life.
 
In other words, the link will remain intact.
 
Thank you Amethyst and Mansa for your words on this subject. I haven't seen the picture, and frankly I don't think I need to. I will say that whoever created it is sick-- and that I cannot defend in any way anyone who would even post it. Even if Yama did not create it, if he posted it or arranged for it to be posted, its all the same to me.

I am really taken aback by this. Up until now I really did not think that there was any substance at all to these accusations.

Tuonela, I hope you will accept my apologies. Our disagreement on otehr things are irrelevant in view of this. I hope you will understand that for me the crucial issue is evidence-- too often people throw around accusations that really have no substance in an effort to slander others, and I think that is equally reprehensible. I am sorry for believing that you were doing that.
 
Don't worry about it, Yo.

Yama screwed and lied to all of you.

I don't accuse for no reason. I may exaggerate at times, but I always have a reason to say or do what I do. In this case it is no exaggeration.

I will say.. that pic posted on an ADULT site would not be illegal, but he even mentioned he wanted children to see it which is a crime.

Now, MSF has allowed him back. That shows that too many people on your side feel that his actions are an approved way of combatting WN. Pure sickness.
 
For what it is worth Tuonela the VAST majority of active participants on MSF are just as appalled by this as you are.

You must not conclude that this "shows that too many people on your side feel that his actions are an approved way of combatting WN." Since when was a vote taken? Its just not factually true.

Unfortunately, because one person has unilaterally decided to admit Yama back, this is going to be the conclusion people are going to come to.

I can only hope that you will try to keep things in proportion and not paint a whole group with one big brush stroke. That's not a way to think about the world. It doesn't work.
 
Yo said...
For what it is worth Tuonela the VAST majority of active participants on MSF are just as appalled by this as you are.


Sure you are.
The next time you're all in a group snuggle over there, don't forget to give that pervert his slice of raisin pie for a job well done.
The only one who was appalled was Mansa and he walked out on the lot of you.
If you are so appalled by what that child stalking sexual deviate did, why are you still there?
There are a million websites on the internet, if you want to remain on MSF and get the same reputation that it has as being a hangout for degenerates and child stalkers, then go right ahead.
MSF is going to get the reputation it deserves.
I am going to make sure of it.
 
That's it, I'm done with MootSF since Yama was unbanned. The schizophrenic loser got what he deserved (a banning)
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
I will say this. The truth is that the MAJORITY of MootStormfront Moderators upon seeing the pic and realizing the truth decided that it was best to ban Yamamanama. Infact the only person who objected was Kamandi, his grounds were that we should not punish members for actions they commit outside the board, even though I reminded him that he specifically banned Scooby for "admitting" to hacking The Phora, something I approve of him doing but that he cannot even confirm. I can say with good confidence that Yama did what he did because I saw him post ion his own journal to do it PLUS Yama has admitted to spamming WN sites before which is harrassment and illegal so in that case I too have ground to stand on in saying that this was the "last straw".

The Mod Grigory Rasputin upon seeing the proof of his crime wanted Yama banned immediately, in fact when someone else proposed a temp ban he is the one that did it.

I am the one who tried to be fair by giving him a chance to denounce his actions and return to the board, which he declined to do, Yama himself forefited the oppurtunity to return and from there I changed his temp ban to a perm ban which WAS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MODERATORS.

Kamandi even made a thread to vote on it, he was the only person who voted against Yama but in the end he ALSO conceded that since Yama was already banned by RASPUTIN and since he wasn't going to take my offer to denounce his actions publicly that we might as well turn it to a temp ban. Even now he still disgarees but at the moment it was a unanimous desicion for Yama to leave the board. It was a done deal, justice had been served.

Enter Descendant.

He is understandably frustrated at things that distract from the board and it was his desicion to not only unban Yama but to take the whole thing out on me and de-Moderate me.

Both of those desicions were a big mistake, however I would have disagreed with his desicion on Yama and still posted had unbanning him been the only thing he did. Afterall it is law enforcement that will deliver his ultimate punishment.

This is an unfortunate circumstance, several MSFs have told me personally that they are going to quit posting on MSF, including as everyone can see, Chiangi.

Descendant told me he is tired of the "WP Soap Opera" well this right here is a soap opera.

Over this stupid crap he has dismissed me as a moderator and unbanned someone who has done more harm to the board than good since he got here. This crap with Yamamanama has been going on since BEFORE I came to MootStormfront and I joined about a month after its creation. Alot of us feel betrayed because we defended this guy left and right and he did in fact screw us all over with his immature and irresponsible behavior.

I only hope Descendant came come to his senses before he causes the destruction of his whole board, we came so far in establishing it as a solid place where people could come and debate the issue of racism and now because of this crap which if he'd just trusted the judgement of the BULK of his moderators would be over and done with MootStormfront will be facing very dark days and possible destruction.

I for one won't be posting atleast regularly (I have a thread or two to finish) ever again because of this crap, my de-moderation was completely unjustified and uncalled for I simply will not accept it.

As for those leaving simply because they are too disgusted with Yamamanama and those who have decided to defend his presence on the board I can't blame any of you.
 
Mansa, thank you so much for posting this. You and I have talked about this via private email, but since I am not a moderator and not really in the loop, I really did not feel it was my place to describe what happened. I didn't want to speak for you.

I have also talked to Kamandi, and I have listened to his side of the story, and all I can say is that if this were a less serious offense and if Yama were willing to take ownership for his wrongdoing and apologize, I might agree with MSF's action. But Yama, in my opinion, stepped over a pretty huge boundary, and I personally cannot cut him any slack. I already feel incredibly stupid for giving him any benefit of the doubt (though, to be fair, all we really wanted all along was real evidence, which we didn't have until now, so benefit of the doubt was probably in order).

Bottom line: I do not see how MSF can let him back on and continue to maintain any kind of meaningful discussion. This effectively sabotages the purpose of MSF. There is no question of what Yama has done, he admits it and he refuses to apologize. Though I disagree profoundly with the broad brushstrokes some of the WNs have come out with (see above), this is a decision that hardly inspires trust or communication, and I can't fault them for it.

For myself, I am not going to post to MSF. I am going to take my energy elsewhere and work with people who can do better than this. I can't think of any other organization that would tolerate this crap or make these excuses-- this is basic.

Sorry, but I just don't want to be associated with this.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Well here we go, Kamandi closed the Yama ban discussion thread.

This has gone on for long enough.

I must give you two thumbs up, Mansa, for having sense in banning this sick bastard.

Also, if I had any choice, I would lock up Yama for posting child porn FOR VIEWING by children. I am hoping this case is turned over to the police, as what he did was CLEARLY illegal.

Fuck MootStormfront, let it go down the toilet. A BIG mistake was made. Tuonela being banned added to the fire. There is clearly a double standard on that board, which I am against.

I feel like such an idiot for joining in the first place.
 
You know this is really unfortunate, I tried my best to be discreet about this situation, this situation was brought to my attention through personal PM from WildLlama. Did I make a public thread on MSF to show the whole world Yama's ill deeds, to demonize him and cause a distraction?

No I didn't, I brought the issue up with my fellow moderators in private and we all discussed what must be done. The truth is that though Kamandi is entitled to his opinion he is incorrect on some things as well as his recollection of events.

Yama's actions are very much in violation of our board's TOS guidelines and Kamandi should know best because he is the one who banned Scooby for admitting to hacking and destroying The Phora.

Now despite Misty Moondance's protest which I approve of her doing because members should have their say on this desicion I supported Kamandi's desicion to ban Scooby why?

1. The Phora was hacked

2. Scooby admitted it

Now whether Scooby really hacked Phora or not is irrelavent, if you publicly admitted to killing someone or commiting a crime you would go to jail whether you did it or not and unless they could prove beyond a reaonsable doubt that you lied to incriminate yourself you will be found guilty of that crime or murder. So Kamandi was right to ban Scooby and apprently Scooby asked to be banned.

But that right there is why Kamandi comes from an indefensible position when he attempts to defend Yama because

1. There is irrefutable PROOF Yama ordered his friends to spam Prussian Blue Blog

2. He has admitted to spamming message boards before on MSF and admitted to this particular crime outside of MSF

Also Kamandi is wrong about the notion that what Yama and his friends did is not technically a crime. Yes it is true this was a cartoon depicting child molestation and a drawing does not constitute actual child pornography but that is not the illegal act Yama commited. He ordered a pornographic image not only to be spammed on a message board but to be shown to underaged children, cartoon or not that is a crime I have seen the official law on this and it does in fact constitute a crime. Yama is an accomplice to this crime he did not spam the image but he ordered it.

If this ever goes to trial Yama doesn't stand a chance, his friend Jan incriminated him in the picture, the IPs will match and images have been extracted from Yama's journal showing the plot. This is even more evidence than they had against Matt Hale because though it was clear what Hale planned his words can be argued to be taken out of context. Yama's words cannot. As far as a trial is concerned, there is no need for a trial if you want to see the rpoof you can go to Yama's journal yourself, register at GamingForce and view the comments.


Tuoni can probably tell you which journal entry. Kamandi says the it is irresponsible to ban him based on the fact that evidence can be fabricated and WNs could simply fabricate evidence against all of us. That doesn't work in this situation unless Kamandi is willing to propose that someone simply hacked Yama's journal and the journals of his friends and pretended to be all of them at once, he is guilty beyond a reasoable doubt and it is a travesty that Descendant has over turned the decision of the majority of his moderating staff and defended a clear threat to the board.
 
If there was a trial, I would be more than willing to fly from Hong Kong to view the trial or testify.
 
To Mansa, eyzwydopen has told me to pass on to you, to join the Prussian Blue forum. It is not moderated, your posts do not have to be approved before showing up, which is good. You can continue your battle with Vedivoes.
 
I certainly agree with everyone that image is horrific, and that Yama showed terrible judgement and personal cruelty in spamming a viewed by children with it. I'd like to make that clear from the outset.

However, Mansa's claim that a crime was committed is false.

First, you have to realize that only the federal gov't has jurisdiction over the Internet, and therefore, any law that Yama would be prosecuted under would have to be federal.

The federal definition of child pornography reads as follows:

In 2003, child pornography includes not only images of real children, but also computer images that are indistinguishable from real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. "Indistinguishable" is defined such that an "ordinary person" viewing the image would conclude that it is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

The following images are not child pornography: drawings, cartoons, sculptures or paintings depicting minors or adults. Images of actual adults that look like minors are also excluded.


ww.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm

So the image in question doesn't qualify as "child pornography" under federal statute.

Furthermore, of the two applicable statutes, The Child Internet Protection Act and the Child Online Protection Act, neither has provisions that would indemnify a private individual like Yama.

CIPA charges libraries with the responsibility to protect minors from potentially indecent material, and COPA only enjoins COMMERCIAL porn providers from exposing minors to indecent images.

www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

Yama had no commercial intent for his actions, so he couldn't be held liable under that law. Not only that, but in 2004, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction forbidding prosecution under COPA, so even if he had commercial intent, he couldn't be tried.

That exhausts applicable federal law. In fact, the Prussian Blue site isn't even registered to Lynx & Lamb.

So, he did nothing illegal. Under the current law, he couldn't even be charged with harassment, unless the Gaedes were able to get a judge's restraining order in advance.

On a different note, the reason Scooby was banned was NOT that he hacked the Phora, but rather that he admitted to criminal activity on the site.

I personally would not have banned him simply for the hacking, but as soon as he confessed to it, he made the site an accessory to his crime.

That's why he was banned, and not what he did off-site.
 
"That's why he was banned, and not what he did off-site."

That's just a technicality. As I've already said Yama too has admitted to past forms of message board harrassment and spamming we could look into the illegality of that, but as I told you in PM the question of whether or not this image could be considered child pornography or not is irrelavent, that is not the issue at hand.

It is illegal to distribute obscene images to children, they don't even have to be pornograhic they just have to be obscene and a hentai image depicting child molestation is an obscene image. That means that if you emailed an obscene image to an underaged child, knowning that they are underaged and intended for them to view the image you have commited a crime.

If you simply posted an obscene image on a medium such as Prussian Blue's message board and there was a possibility that children might see it that is not a crime. The INTENT however for them to view the image through any medium is the crime, Yama INTENDED for children he KNEW were underaged to view an obscene image. Who the site belongs to is irrelavent it was used as a medium for the intent to expose a minor to an obscene image, this is a federal law I have analyzed the document saying that it is such though I don't have the link, if Tuoni can provide it we can see for ourselves.

Also as far as making the board an accessory to the crime is concerned, assuming the same identity he uses on GamingForce that he uses on MootStormfront does in fact make MSF an accessory to the crime as much as Scooby admitting it directly on the site does as you have said.

Keeping him on the board at this point when allegations against him have been proven only damages the board. It is Descendant's decision one way or another what to do about it but the fact remains that letting him stay damages the board.
 
It is illegal to distribute obscene images to children, they don't even have to be pornograhic they just have to be obscene and a hentai image depicting child molestation is an obscene image. That means that if you emailed an obscene image to an underaged child, knowning that they are underaged and intended for them to view the image you have commited a crime.
- This is not true - the court struck down such laws as the '96 law which established internet transmission of anything not classifed under the federal statute as "child porn" or obscenity.

Because obscenity statutes are based on community standards, and the Internet is federal, the courts have struck down obscenity statutes in relation to the Internet:

www.cwfa.org/articles/8239/LEGAL/pornography/

In fact, pruient CLOTHED images of children focusing on genitals have been permitted by the court. The 2004 SCOTUS ruling forbid prosecution for even commerical porn providers for exposing actual pornography on sites which could be seen by children.

For example, in the majority decision, Rehnquist wrote :

"A filter can prevent minors from seeing all pornography, not just pornography posted to the Web from America...Filtering software, of course, is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials," Kennedy wrote. "It may block some materials that are not harmful to minors and fail to catch some that are."

So, under the current federal law, only child porn which involves photographic images of children is actionable.

http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+keeps+Net+porn+law+on+ice/2100-1028_3-5251475.html

If you simply posted an obscene image on a medium such as Prussian Blue's message board and there was a possibility that children might see it that is not a crime. The INTENT however for them to view the image through any medium is the crime, Yama INTENDED for children he KNEW were underaged to view an obscene image. Who the site belongs to is irrelavent it was used as a medium for the intent to expose a minor to an obscene image, this is a federal law I have analyzed the document saying that it is such though I don't have the link, if Tuoni can provide it we can see for ourselves.
- The law is a very active field, Mansa, and the statute you're quoting was struck down by the courts for the purposes of the Internet. See above.

Also as far as making the board an accessory to the crime is concerned, assuming the same identity he uses on GamingForce that he uses on MootStormfront does in fact make MSF an accessory to the crime as much as Scooby admitting it directly on the site does as you have said.
- Sorry, Mansa, but as per the above SCOTUS ruling, it was not a crime, and cannot be prosecuted. Only child porn can be prosecuted over the net, and that image doesn't meet the definition.

Even bestiality images cannot currently be prosecuted:
 
I meant in relation to the Child Protection Act, not in their entirety.
 
Ok but as I have stated in PM this incident is not related to the Child Online Protection act which is merely speaking of the right to commercially market such material, this is about a federal law that is still in effect when it comes to actual Unsolicited Obscene Material Sent to a Child. Being that it is unsolicited COPA does not cover this situation.

Section 1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another
individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that
such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.

This is a U.S. Federal Code that has been in effect since January of 2003. Its information is still hosted on the U.S. Department of Justice's homepage.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity_stats.html

I have not read completely through your links I would like to see where precisely this statute in question has actually been nullified, there are still help lines available to report such siautions and the statute is still hosted on major government websites it would seem strange if after an entire year it was no longer enforced.
 
Kamandi you are wrong. Posting obscene material to children IS illegal.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=169

It is an unfortunate reality of the Internet that children will encounter obscene material online. Many times this material is attached as an image(s) or hyperlink(s) sent to a child in an unsolicited E-mail or "spam."

To combat this problem NCMEC takes reports of unsolicited obscene material sent to a child. It is a violation of criminal law for any person to knowingly or attempt to send or transfer obscene material to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years (18 U.S.C.A. 1470).

Please report any incidents where a child may have received visual depictions of persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.
 
Lynx and Lamb are 13
 
I want to apologize for any lumping in with Yama I have done to Mansa, Chiangi and even Yo. You have all shown remarkable honor. Shit.. Amethyst too. Misy as well but she is new to the subject I believe.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
OK, this damn thing works.

Generator here. I don't normally get involved in internet soap operas, but I felt that I had to state my point here. I've messaged Descendant about it, and there it will stay from my end as it is his board to administer as he sees fit.

I roundly condemn Yamaetc and call for his rebanning, for what it's worth. I'm afraid his unbanning is a glorious example of "form over substance", and I can't say that I agree in any way with the justification for such provided above.

Llama, even though you can be pretty petulant at times, you're good natured and never did you commit any act worthy of a ban. This particular instance was no exception. I call for your unbanning too.

Naturally, an restricting my opinion solely to the matter at hand, Mansa's moderation ban should be lifted.

I'm under no grand misconceptions as to what any of this will achieve, nor do I really care about little internet tos and fros. Just stating an objective case, as ever.
 
You couldn't have said that before I apologized? :) Apology to you as well. I mean honestly I did once at MSF already, but after Yama was unbanned I think I lumped everyone again. I think anyone that knows my opinion of them (as long as it is a good opinion) should know they are exempt when I generalize.
 
"lama, even though you can be pretty petulant at times"

*looks innocent*
 
One thing is for sure, whether Yama officially committed a crime or not what he did was morally reprehensible.

There is no point arguing back and fourth whether or not the federal code 18 U.S.C.A. 1470 is still valid or if the Supreme Court's ruling on the circumstances of pornographic material trafficking have rendered the code obsolete or not.

I have seen no proof that it has and if we really want to find out all we have toi do is email the people at the website and ask if it is still in effect, they would know best.

Either way on the Yama issue in the end it is Descendant's decision whether or not to ban him, it is clearly damaging the board to have him around. The membership has been demoralized, the moral high ground has been diminished, this is simply not a good time for MootStormfront.

Who would have thought that something so petty would turn into such a fiasco. Hell I bet Lynx and Lamb are completely oblivious to this entire conversation. They have always ranked so low on my interest in WN topics.

Who cares if they suck at playing instruments? If they are pretty or short or anorexic. Who really cares?

What about David Duke? What about the Aryan Nations and the anti-government racist Lone Wolves? What about the new holocaust denial videos? Or the BNP? Or the modern scientific analysis of ethnic groups? Or socio-economic factors that debunk racial steretotypes?

I'm not saying this blog has no right to exist but I for one have never given a damn about 2 little adolescent children making a band and their crazy mother (Who's stories of riding naked on horses and moshing with skinheads were comical) and her antics. Whatever Descendant's disdain for Prussian Blue's distractions from the board allowing
this obsessed perverted maniac Yamamanama be present on the board has made it worse.

I never believed the allegations of Child Porn and I think Pastor Visser exaggerated but I have to take some of the allegations against Yama in the past seriously. With all the threats of police and attempts to demonize him for the past year I can't believe he was so obsessed with this band and its websites that he STILL to this day harrasses and stalks them. It's madness.

Tolerating Yamamanama and his antics are going to have serious reprecussions.
 
Chiangi:

"To Mansa, eyzwydopen has told me to pass on to you, to join the Prussian Blue forum. It is not moderated, your posts do not have to be approved before showing up, which is good. You can continue your battle with Vedivoes."

Which battle would that be? At the moment I am seriously considering cutting back on my time involved in all of this whether the situation with my Mod status gets resolved positively or not. If not I'll probably be done with all of this all together I won't be posting on any race related message boards or webpages, I'm not closed to debating on WN boards as long as they moderate fairly but I'm not in the mood all things considered for debates at all. I'm still constructing my Final Analysis on Ancient Egypt that is my main discussion focus right now. If Descendant decides to reconsider his decision and reinstate me then I'll continue with MSF and after the Final Analysis be open to more debating including on other forums. If not I'm done it just isn't going to feel the same.

The Mod status issue is more of a symbol, of whether people feel I am with this organization or not. If not then I see no more reason to post on MootStormfront over such an unacceptable circumstance and see even less reason to travel the WN boards like a vagabon getting into debates with random people.
 
Where I work, we had a guy who went into a comic book store with a fifteen year old girl, went into the "adult" section, bought some anime porn and gave it to the girl.

He was arrested, convicted, and lost his job and marriage. End of story right there.

Even if he had not been convicted, I think his wife was well within her rights to divorce him and he richly deserves to have his reputation ruined.

I think Yama is heading for big legal trouble, Kamandi. Whatever the case though, if you really need him to actually commit a convictable felony just to have him banned from the board, if posting an obscene image with th intent of harassing children and his admission of doing the same is not enough for you, I just don't know what to say.

He did not just get "a little carried away". He is clearly nuts. By guarding his butt, you are effectively trashing whatever moral high ground MSF could have had. Its shameful, and it is profoundly disrespectful of the other participants.

I never thought I would ever find myself agreeing with Tuonela, whose other views I find reprehensible, but there you have it. Thank you T for not lumping me in there, adn please know that I will eat crow where it is warranted.
 
I would also note that the person (if you can call him that) who posted the image is from/lives in Canada. So perhaps the laws of Canada can also be brought to bear in this case. International conspiracies and what-not.
 
To all friends of Prussian blue:

Please mark your calenders for Thursday September 29th.

Prussian blue is scheduled to appear on the Nationally televised program "Primetime" which airs from 9-11 PM Eastern Daylight Time.
 
Where I work, we had a guy who went into a comic book store with a fifteen year old girl, went into the "adult" section, bought some anime porn and gave it to the girl.
He was arrested, convicted, and lost his job and marriage. End of story right there.
Even if he had not been convicted, I think his wife was well within her rights to divorce him and he richly deserves to have his reputation ruined.

- From a legal standpoint, he nonetheless did that in the real world, where there are no freedom of speech and jurisdictional issues, unlike the Internet.

From a moral and psychological standpoint, no one should be giving such things to children.

I think Yama is heading for big legal trouble, Kamandi.
- First, I'm reviewing the whole matter with our site's legal counsel to get a definitive legal opinion. Although I do have paralegal certification, I would like a judgement from a practicing attorney.

Personally, I don't think Yama's going to get in any legal trouble over this matter: there's too much of a grey area and too many issues over jurisdiction to believe that any prosecutor is going to make it a cause celebre, given the court's prior rulings.

If he get's in trouble, it'll be in the future, particularly if the comprehensive anti-spamming laws get passed in this session of Congress.

Not banning him should not be construed as approval of those kinds of activities - it simply means he didn't break the site's rules, none of which impose a code of off-site behavior.

Whatever the case though, if you really need him to actually commit a convictable felony just to have him banned from the board, if posting an obscene image with th intent of harassing children and his admission of doing the same is not enough for you, I just don't know what to say.
- He did neither on our forum, and without a clear violation of the law, there's nothing in our TOS that allows us to ban people for what they do off-site.

He did not just get "a little carried away". He is clearly nuts. By guarding his butt, you are effectively trashing whatever moral high ground MSF could have had. Its shameful, and it is profoundly disrespectful of the other participants.
- Once again, none of us like what he's alleged to have done. But if he did do it, he didn't do it on our site, and that's what the rules of conduct are based on.

We do not have the time to investigate every claim of alleged bad behavior everyone that posts on MSF is subject to, and if we set the precedent in Yama's case, we'd have to do it for everyone.

We quite reasonably set the bar at actual law-breaking, and there is no clear violation of the law here as it currently stands. If that changes in the future, we'll revise our decision accordingly.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
No, none of the decisions concerning Yama or anything related were mine. I agree with the unbanning of Yama, but it wasn't and isn't my call.

As far as who agrees and so on, I can't comment on that. It's a private matter, and those involved probably wouldn't want it discussed.
 
Descendent, the Admin of the board unbanned Yama.

If Yama conspiring to have the photo posted to the PB forum for viewing by two minors wasn't against the rules of MSF; and the photo isn't considered pornograhpic. Then why was Llama banned from MSF for putting up a link to it? With a warning no less?
 
MSF posting guidelines:
Don't spam
...
Don't post pornography or anything of the sort
...
Don't advocate illegal activity
...
Well well.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
MSF posting guidelines:
Don't spam
...
Don't post pornography or anything of the sort
...
Don't advocate illegal activity
...
Well well.


That means not to do those things on MSF. Nowhere does it discuss a code of conduct you're expected to conform to wherever you go on the Internet.
 
Well, why did you use the word "we" then, as if you were a part of it all?

Because I'm speaking as a representative of the site, and not on my own behalf personally.

Tell us how many people are involved then, was it just "Descendent" or are others involved...You've already said you can't discuss the intricate details, but is this a one man show making all the decisions, or how many others are involved?

Again, I can't comment on that. I can only speak in general terms about our policies.
 
If Yama conspiring to have the photo posted to the PB forum for viewing by two minors wasn't against the rules of MSF; and the photo isn't considered pornograhpic. Then why was Llama banned from MSF for putting up a link to it? With a warning no less?
What Yama was alleged to have done did NOT occur on our forum, and our Terms of Service do not permit us to ban anyone for what they do off our site unless it involves a clear violation of the law.
 
Then why was Llama banned from MSF for putting up a link to it? With a warning no less?

You are right on this point Josh there was no justification for banning WildLlama for posting a link with a warning which has been an unwritten policy on MSF. Several people have without even knowing the policy have linked to nudity or obscenity and have had the post edited to put up a warning. I suppose what happened to WildLlama was a "last straw" type of deal, I myself don't agree with that type of moderation. No board is ever going to have perfect moderation and policies but you shouldn't make excuses to get rid of people because you have a grudge against them.
 
Kamandi doesn't like me because I pointed out his pedophilic insticts which he continues to prove by supporting Yama. As it has been stated before what Scooby alleges to have done was not done on MSF, so why then was he banned?

As for investigating for proof Kamandi? It takes 1 minute to join Gamingforce and maybe 2 more to look up the comments in his journal. Why haven't you done it? You support criminal activities. For that MSF will always be known as haven for those that break the law.

Yet, you stand against SF. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrite losers. (Talking about you, Descendant, Yama and multimootf**k)
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Kamandi doesn't like me because I pointed out his pedophilic insticts which he continues to prove by supporting Yama.
- Please, Tuo: I didn't ban you, and FWIW, I wouldn't have banned you for that infraction. I would have just deleted your post.

And, for the record, I don't "support" what Yama did. I'm as offended by that image as you are.

As it has been stated before what Scooby alleges to have done was not done on MSF, so why then was he banned?
- Because he used the forum to BRAG about hacking the Phora, making us accesories.

That's what he was banned for, and not simply the hacking in itself.

As for investigating for proof Kamandi? It takes 1 minute to join Gamingforce and maybe 2 more to look up the comments in his journal. Why haven't you done it? You support criminal activities. For that MSF will always be known as haven for those that break the law.
- Because, under advice from legal counsel, there is no law covering what he did.
 
"I'm starting to wonder if this is one of the PB fanboys with some serious gender identity issues."

From Yama on MSF about Misty

Now you are letting him say shit about other members of MSF just because they don't want him around.

Not to mention that is insulting to women.
 
"I wouldn't have banned you for that infraction. I would have just deleted your post."

That wasn't an infraction because Tuoni responded to someone elses post meaning it was relevant to the discussion and not trolling. Posting obscene material has always been acceptable as long as there is a warning to what you are posting to, although it should be noted regretably that MSF guidelines have never been objective and for better or for worse that is how the Admin always wanted it.

Ofcourse Stormfront is no better when they have clear guidelines the Moderators don't follow but as Tuoni and others will say, our standing has always been that in the area of integrity we are better than Stormfront.

Many people White Nationalists and non-racists alike will profess that MootStormfront is seriously losing that ground.
 
If not then I apologize, but honestly with that "attack Llama at every opportunity" mentality you have had going you were the top suspect. Descendant is the next one.

Like Mansa said, I posted on topic. You know full well that Yama should not have been joking around like that. Making light of his criminal activity. It was requested that I post the link so I did. I wasn't even planning on making anymore posts until that request came in. I was holding out because I didn't want to post at a site that would allow someone like Yama refuge.

Notice that Misty doesn't buy Yama's BS and neither does many an MSF anti that has messaged me.

Every damn time I start respecting that site as shown by several of of mine and Eyz's blog comments and MSF screws themselves in the foot. Not only losing my respect..again.. but the respect of some of it's best posters/debaters.

Descendant has no right condemning SF for having people that have "done illegal things" when he goes and unbans someone that has done illegal things. It is far more hypocrisy than even I could ever have bitched about.
 
My mouse is still fucking up.

I was responding to Kamandi.
 
Exactly Mansa. Why bother claiming you are better than someone if you do the same stuff you are condemning.

Kamandi, don't bother claiming you guys don't claim superiority. There is no reason for MSF to exist unless you believe you are superior in your views than SF.
 
There is no reason for MSF to exist unless you believe you are superior in your views than SF.

I don't think this situation in anyway invalidates our claim that racial nationalism is fundamentally a doctrine of hate but I would agree that MSF should in every way try to better itself over Stormfront in the treatment of its membership and opponents.

Not in the since of a perfectionist mentality I think you Tuoni and others try to hold over our head to discredit us but in the way the board is run. The two primary objectives of MSF as I see tham are to:

1. Provide a place where non-racists can openly debate their White Nationalist Opponents on an even playing field.

and

2. Provide a more moderate platform to oppose racism.

One People's project was admittedly overtly liberal and anti-fascist with anarchist undertones.

MootStormfront was set up to be friendly to conservatives, liberterians, moderates and liberals alike.

Despite claims of fair treatment from the underground White Nationalist forums, VNN and Stormfront clearly have no interest in providing their opposition an oppurtunity at fair debate.

On the one hand VNN labels their opponents with the title "Hates White People" and from there demonizes their opponents regarding tham as nothing more than trolls to be slurred and harrassed for their own amusement. They are like vicious animals and the webmaster must be insane if he thinks their board would appeal to anyone beyond that of the lunatic fringe. All in all VNN is more fair to their opponents than Stormfront but far too inflamatory for most to stomach. Very few on there can offer intelligent discussion.

Stormfront on the other hand through casual enforcement of guidelines designed to make the board more appealing to less racist conservatives, heavily moderates their opposition to the point where it is a pic and choose situation of
what kind of "anti" they allow to post.

If you are a typical inflammatory opponent they may let you have a word in so they can redicule you, or even if you are intelligent they may edit your posts to pass you off as just another inflammatory troll and than redicule that.

They may also let decent posts in long enough for members to do their best to refute them and then delete the opponents future rebuttle preventing them from having the last word.

Some opponents such as George Burdi or Thinker are opponents with specific issues Stormfronters are interested in that the Mods may let off moderation in order to have an open debate.

Ultimately neither place is one for civil and open discussion.

In that area I think MootStormfront is still superior.

In this area MSF is sadly lacking.

Even Stormfront has banned people for their known offline criminal activities. If they can be proven to be linked to the board their presence on that board is bad for the WN image.

Martin Lindstedt was supposedly a Stormfront member and a White nationalist but since his arrest for child rape and sodomy on an underaged male relative he has been exccommicated from White Nationalism and even demonized.

http://www.nationalist.org/news/flashes/2005/molester.html

At the very least I'd think MootStormfront would want to send the message that we don't want to be identified with certain activity. Scorchwound who people like Eyzwydopen have used as an example to tarnish our image for his inflammatory and sometimes Anti-White statements has been considered as a candidate for banning.

He once made a thread championing the infamous "Pizza Parlor video" where a Black man brutally beat a White man at a restaurant.

http://www.mootstormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1415

His actions were once considered for banning but I suggested we instead condemn it as we normally would have, it was after all his persoal opinion. It was clear the grounds for banning him were that "we don't want to be associated with that". His actions were not illegal they were just reprehensible.




That too is another reason why I cannot approve of Yama's unbanning. Clearly Kamandi and Descendant disapprove of Yama's banning but by tolerating him as a member they are sending the wrong message about who they choose to be associated with.
 
Tuonela: Just because the moderators at MSF have unbanned Yama does not mean that they have "pedophilic tendencies". It only means that they are lacking a moral backbone and have monumentally poor judgement. Which is bad enough, but this is an important distinction.

I don't think anybody feels anything but revulsion for that picture-- the real question is, what are they willing to do about it? How much do they really care? What would you do if someone pulled that on your child? I personally feel that Yama should be permanently banned, and I hope that law enforcement throws the legal book at him. I personally will not associate with him, or with anyone who wishes to downplay or rationalize what he has done.

Yama's actions are illegal: Posting something to a web forum which you know is owned and run by *children* with the openly expressed goal of making them look at it is no different ethically or legally than handing the material to the child in person.

If anything, in this case, Yama's actions are worse than the example I gave:

The guy I referred to in my earlier post gave a pornographic comic book to a fifteen-year-old girl-- who was interested in viewing the comic book, and had specifically asked him to get it for her. He is guilty of very bad judgement and stupidity and he violated the law, but one could argue that he at least intended no harm. His sentence was fairly light.

Yama, on the other hand, was trying to trick two thirteen-year-olds into viewing pornographic material *against their will*-- he chose material that he knew would deeply disturb them, conspired to post it with others, and did so with the *expressed goal* of causing the children grief and trauma. Though it is fortunate that the image was kept away from the children's view, it still doesn't change Yama's intent or the level of his obsession.

Trust me, this IS a convictable offense-- people who produce porn, including animated porn, get into heaps of trouble as it is if they are not proactive in preventing even willing minors to view the material. There are also stalking laws to consider.

The defense that this isn't any of MSF's business because it didn't actually take place on MSF also doesn't hold water. What he did is very much related to his activity on the board, and is absolutely reflects on the board-- especially if the board chooses to actively defend him.

For MSF to have any purpose and to serve any good, it has to run clean and behave with unassailable integrity. All of that has, in my estimation, gone right down the crapper.

I never thought I would see the day that I would agree with Tuonela on anything, but there you have it. Though I take exception with his conclusions and broadbrushing, he does have the moral high ground on this issue, and I frankly feel very stupid for not wising up to this sooner.
 
Josh: Regarding Canada, definitely talk to a lawyer about this. If anything Canada's laws are even stricter than in the United States. Transporting obscene materials across borders is a very big issue up there.
 
Mansa, the goal of MSF may have been to be equal footing for antis and WNs but... it definately hasn't been that at all since I found the place.

You, The only mod I was talking about was Kamandi. I am fine with the other mods there. Kamandi has made nasty pedophilic comments in the past, that is why I said those tendencies. He claimed to have been joking, as if joking about sex with underage children is even ok.
 
I specifically remember kamandi stating that he planned on making it his life's mission to count Prussian blue as one of his future sexual conquests, although HE MADE SURE to exonerate himself from legal responsibility by pointing out that he would wait until they were 18.

He received a mild rebuke from Mansa Musa at the time, for saying that.

But the point is that these are the types of people defending Yama.
 
Yo, whether you think doing such things is ethical or not is irrelevant to whether or not they're illegal. Conversely, pointing out that what he did didn't break the law doesn't defend Yama's ethics.

The example that you gave occurred in the real world, and, quite simply, the legal and jurisdictional issues are different on the Net.

Purveyors of anime porn are commercial providers, and, in fact, in 2004, the SCOTUS issued an injunction forbidding commercial providers from being prosecuted under the COPA, so they cannot be charged currently.

Quite simply, it's not convictable, and isn't even prosecutable under the current law.

Stalking laws are not applicable because: a) as far as anyone knows, he's made no attempt to threaten them offline; and b) no judge has issued a restraining order against him.

www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/california.shtml

I can't speak about Canada's laws, since I know nothing about them, but they're immaterial for our purposes, because our TOS only regards US law.

As far as the fact that Yama is involved with posting on our site goes, that has no bearing on our rules, which only regulate how members behave on MSF. Whether having him there "reflects" on MSF or not, he still hasn't commited a bannable offense on our site.

The fact someone does something others don't like doesn't mean they've broken our rules. If that changes in the future, we'll also change our ruling.
 
Kamandi, don't bother claiming you guys don't claim superiority. There is no reason for MSF to exist unless you believe you are superior in your views than SF.

We are - for example, we treat everyone equally under the rules, even if they do obnoxious things off-site.

The fact that we allow Yama to post on the forum doesn't mean we like and approve of him; there are many people that post there we do not.

It just means he hasn't broken the Terms of Service, which, to date, he hasn't.
 
What is the url to MootStormFront's terms of service?

I'd be willing to bet they were violated.
 
In all fairness, I remember that post by Kamandi, and I remeber it as definitely and clearly in jest. A joke made in bad taste? Maybe. But hardly "pedophiliac" in my opinion.

I do not believe that a reasonable person would take that post as a threat. Also please note that he did say "future conquest"-- in the context of that thread, which featured a lot of similar banter, I took that to mean "when they are adults"-- and even that was not an expression of serious intent.

I also remember a similar thread on the old PB forum (before it came down) in which PB's fans discusses how "hot" the girls were-- with April's approval, I guess. Hmmm, ou et le pedophilia?

You are taking this out of context, Oscar. Yama is a creep who well deserves all the trouble he is getting, Descendant is dead wrong and seriously undermines MSF for unbanning Yama, and I think Kamandi is gravely mistaken in his defense of Descendant's decision. That's about as far as it goes-- and I think it is far enough. Let's try to call things by their right name.
 
The truth us we have never had a clear and concrete set of guidelines though I have always advocated for one and I think that causes problems.

Never did the subject of TOS and the legality of Yama's actions come up in the Mod forum so the Terms of Service, which I think you only have access to when you register have never stood as a solid code of conduct.

Without a concrete (not necessarily complex) set of guidelines for posting Mods will never all be on the same page on issues.

Rach is the one who wrote some prototype guidelines in a thread that I don't even remember the title of and even she was on the "Ban Yama side", which in reality represented the majority of MootStormfront Mods.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Please - April Gaede has already expressed her desire to use her daughters as a sexual enticement for recruitment, albeit at age 16.

She can hardly feign surprise at that reaction, given her obvious attempts at sexualizing them.
 
Yo,, I already told you that it was meant as "hot" in the sense of, "what's hot right now". Last I checked saying something like Dakota Fanning is the hottest thing in the movie industry(Just as an example) can be taken wrong, if you already are inclined to think that dirty kind of way.

Kamandi this..We are - for example, we treat everyone equally under the rules, .. statement is false. Many mods agreed that not a one of my bans was for a bannable offense. Other than you and Descendant. I was not tequal at all. I seem to remember a Yama post where he posted a flame/insult at me, yet if I said boo back you would "warn" me. Notice.. his was allowed. That is "oh so equal" *rollseyes*
 
Kamandi this..We are - for example, we treat everyone equally under the rules, .. statement is false. Many mods agreed that not a one of my bans was for a bannable offense.
- That's false: flaming mods and posting obscenity are certainly bannable offenses under the posted rules.

Other than you and Descendant. I was not tequal at all. I seem to remember a Yama post where he posted a flame/insult at me, yet if I said boo back you would "warn" me. Notice.. his was allowed. That is "oh so equal" *rollseyes*
- I'm not familiar with the instance you're referring to, and, frankly, you have no idea whether he was warned or not.

The fact that he might not have been warned in public doesn't mean he wasn't warned.
 
She can hardly feign surprise at that reaction, given her obvious attempts at sexualizing them.

As far as that is concerned I saw a White Nationalist make a sexual comment to Yama about the girls. He said something about its better masturbating to them than it is to adult Asian women which I believe he called "gooks". Yama has the quote in his journal and I do recall seeing the original post. Even if it was hypothetical it was truly a perverted statement to make and April has indeed talked about them being sex symbols by the time they are 16.

Ofcourse alot of female teen idols are promoted in that way aswell.
 
Ofcourse alot of female teen idols are promoted in that way aswell.

Not usually by their mothers.
 
Well, Kamandi. Seeing as the post was allowed to stay there and not be moved to the dogpile shows that no mod did a damn thing.

As for flaming mods, when mods flame you first why not? What am I supposed to bend over for yoU?
 
As for flaming mods, when mods flame you first why not? What am I supposed to bend over for yoU?

If you're dumb enough to call a mod a "troll," you take what you get.
 
There are sick wackos in every group.

As for for April saying that, if she did, 16 is a lot farther along that 12 or 13. In many places 16 is legal. I don't remember but I think that it is that way in Cali. Here in Florida 16 is legal as long as the partner is under 18and 17 is legal as long as the partner is under 24.

In Hawaii the age of consent is 14, but, I don't think anyone needs to go there.
 
You were trolling. By YOUR standards of trolling that is what you were doing. You weren't adding anything to the thread.

However, let's not go too far off this subject, we already beat that one like a rented mule.
 
You were trolling. By YOUR standards of trolling that is what you were doing. You weren't adding anything to the thread.

That's for the staff to decide, and not you.
 
In Hawaii the age of consent is 14, but, I don't think anyone needs to go there.

Yes the age of consent in Maryland is also 14. I think the law says that if you are 22 or younger it is legal to be intimate with someone who is 14 or 15.

Thats highly disturbing that a highschool freshman can legally date a college senior.

The site isn't working so I can't check to be sure.

www.ageofconcent.com
 
As for for April saying that, if she did, 16 is a lot farther along that 12 or 13. In many places 16 is legal. I don't remember but I think that it is that way in Cali. Here in Florida 16 is legal as long as the partner is under 18and 17 is legal as long as the partner is under 24.

Irrelevant - a mother pimping out her adolescent daughters for her personal gain and ideological benefit is monstrous, and it's clear from their videos and photos that she's already sexualizing them as prepubescents.
 
Yeah sure... they have been oh so sexualized. *rolleyes*

Oh and since when is my opinion of you being a troll oh so bad. Last I checked opinions where allowed. At least, that is what you tell newcomers there. Several of the antis that have emailed me in support feel betrayed by you and Descendant. They thought it was a place to debate with WNs in an open forum and find that you are just as strict against WNs as SF is antis.

Not to mention being a safe harbor for criminals.

Mansa, I agree. That is very frickin' distrubing.
 
Yeah sure... they have been oh so sexualized. *rolleyes*
- Uh, yeah - they have been. The jailbait photo on the cover of Resistance, and their appearance in that video being two prime examples.

Oh and since when is my opinion of you being a troll oh so bad. Last I checked opinions where allowed.
- Not when they're flames. Non-flaming opinions are.

They thought it was a place to debate with WNs in an open forum and find that you are just as strict against WNs as SF is antis.
- You weren't banned for being a WN, and most of the WNs who post have not been banned.

Not to mention being a safe harbor for criminals.
- The fact you don't like what he did doesn't make him a "criminal."
 
Prime examples? Well, we already know you view them in a sexual manner so of course you would think that way. :)

I knew you would say that haha

The ones that don't fit your concept of an evil evil WN don't seem to last. If they are spouting off racial slurs and hatred.. that is what you want. The oher ones you want are the ones that won't rock the boat. Say goodbye to any that proves any of your members as the haters they are.

Kamandi, once you take some classes on legal/illegal things, then you can try and debate that. Out from his own mouth he wanted Lynx and Lamb to see that picture. He is guilty as much as Jan is. Jan would not have put it there if it wasn;t for him.

As has been proven in above posts, it was not legal to post it with the intent the girls could see it.

Just because you wish something wasn't true, does not make it untrue. By supporting Yama you are just as guilty as he is. Maybe not legally, but in the eyes of your members.
 
Prime examples? Well, we already know you view them in a sexual manner so of course you would think that way. :)
- As would any other unbiased commentator.

The ones that don't fit your concept of an evil evil WN don't seem to last
- They're all there now: Orville, Pedalpusher, etc.

Kamandi, once you take some classes on legal/illegal things, then you can try and debate that.
- Tuo, I'm a licensed paralegal, so I've had plenty of classes.

As has been proven in above posts, it was not legal to post it with the intent the girls could see it.
- No, it hasn't been "proven," because the Internet was used as the medium, and the Court struck down the federal law with regards to the Internet.

"Community standards" are now supposed to apply instead of the federal guidelines, but since that's impossible to do in the case of the Internet as an international communications medium, there is no clear law concerning "obscenity" on the Internet.

Furthermore, an injunction was placed on the Child Online Protection Act as well, preventing prosecutors from indicting under it.

The fact is, Tuo, you are not well-informed enough to participate in this debate, so you should not do so.

Just because you wish something wasn't true, does not make it untrue.
- I don't wish it was untrue - the fact is, it's not true. There's no law applicable to the Internet at this time.

The court is evolving standards, so case law may be put into effect regarding public forums on the Internet, but at this time, there's no such clear law.

You can keep citing the federal law, but the Supreme court struck it down, so it's not applicable.
 
Really? If it was struck down why do you still report it to missingkids.com? It wasn't. It is still applicable. Agent ******** said so himself.

So psychiatrist and paralegal? Somehow I highly doubt any of it. I must be a space man. Yup That's it.. a spaceman.
 
Pedalpusher

PedalPusher? Since when was PedalPusher a White Nationalist? According to him he is just conservative. I don't know he could be lying? Do you have proof he identifies as a WN Kamandi? I'm sure he would debate that contention.

As far as the perfect White Nationalist is concerned I disagree with Tuoni we have always been about taking on all comers. It is understandable that some Mods have little patience for someone who is always about putting us in the hot seat and discrediting us vs. debating the issues of racism. Borstal comes to mind.

Users such a Death Legion, Dan Dare, Lenaya (Roy H.) and Orville do not fit my description of an "Evil Evil WN". They can be very polite and often offer intellectual debate.

In fact the most vulgar of them are usually the ones who get banned because they cannot behave themselves, such as Incognito, AgainsttheWind, GuessWho!(aka GolfBall on SF) and Proud2BWhite, the last of which after being banned for flaming and trolling PM'D me and claimed he would seek his vengeance by launching a spam assault on the board. The next day we were spammed by 20-30 accounts most with the message "DeathtoZog". Those are the evil WNs who earn the term Net-Nazi.

By contrast Stormfront filters out the decent Anti-racist debaters in favor of the easiest to refute, the assholes who make anti-racists look bad and for good measure create joke anti-racist accounts or edit posts for satire rather than delete them.

In that respect treatment of opposition is in no way equivalent SF loses hands down.

Yes MootStormfront Mods sometimes get impatient with people who seem to be there to argue with their board policies and generalize them rather than argue about the issues. And sometimes that leads to rash decisions, or punishment out of frustration or impatience.

On the Yama issue I think you and Descendant are clealry in the wrong Kamandi. Descendant has expressed the desire to eliminate non-racists ("antis") that he considers to be liabilities or doesn't want to be associated with them, sometimes eveb suspecting that they may be pretenders. Some posters have been banned for this as well. In that respect Yama most certainly qualifies as someone worthy of being banned. His actions if not technically illegal at the very least have demoralized the membership, his presence is more harmful than his absence.
 
Really? If it was struck down why do you still report it to missingkids.com? It wasn't. It is still applicable. Agent ******** said so himself.
- Neither that website nor an FBI agent are legal experts, and their opinons are irrlevant. Cops are notorious for their lack of understanding of the law.

So, to sum up, the SCOTUS struck down the federal law as regards the Internet in 2004, so it's not applicable. End of story.

So psychiatrist and paralegal? Somehow I highly doubt any of it. I must be a space man. Yup That's it.. a spaceman.
- I'm not a "psychiatrist" - I'm an editor for an education trade publication with a PhD in clinical psychology.

Because legal aspects of education are key to our editorial coverage, I got paralegal certification to complement my professional credentials.
 
PedalPusher? Since when was PedalPusher a White Nationalist? According to him he is just conservative. I don't know he could be lying? Do you have proof he identifies as a WN Kamandi? I'm sure he would debate that contention.
- No, I have no proof. What he has to say seems to be WN, but I could be wrong.
 
Descendant has expressed the desire to eliminate non-racists ("antis") that he considers to be liabilities or doesn't want to be associated with them, sometimes eveb suspecting that they may be pretenders. Some posters have been banned for this as well.

I haven't noticed that to be true.

In that respect Yama most certainly qualifies as someone worthy of being banned. His actions if not technically illegal at the very least have demoralized the membership, his presence is more harmful than his absence.

While that's possible, it's still not in the rules.

I can't in good conscience ban someone that hasn't violated the stated rules, and, to date, he hasn't.
 
While that's possible, it's still not in the rules.

I can't in good conscience ban someone that hasn't violated the stated rules, and, to date, he hasn't.


If the rules were more clear cut I'd be with you but they are not. The fact that every Moderator besides you and Descendant approved of the banning goes to show that we have always relied more on our own personal judgement than a concrete set of rules and that is actually how he prefers it. It was the judgement of the majority of MSF Mods that Yama's actions were grounds for banning so I can in good conscience ban someone based on my personal judgement and the supporting judgement of the staff. In any case we could argue this for weeks it doesn't matter Descendant is the owner of Mootstormfront and he decided it was inappropiate to ban Yama. It can't be denied that his decision demoralized a good percentage of the active membership. Regardless it was still his decision.
 
There are not clear cut rules, and Descendant has demoralized a significant number of people with this decision. Sure, its his decision, but at some point he needs to start thinking about cause and effect and where his choices are going to lead.

As for who is exploiting the girls and what the age of consent is: good grief. Get real please. It is indisputable that April is exploiting her children and using manufactured sex appeal *right now* to sell her ideology and for her own personal gain. She has said so herself. Sixteen might be "legal" in most states but a mother who pimps her daughters at twelve with the goal of making them sex objects by sixteen is pretty depraved, narcissistic, and exploitative by any definition.

This also does not in any way, shape, or form excuse or rationalize Yama's actions. To say that someone has a "dirty mind" for seeing that is brazenly obvious is beyond insulting. Cut the crap now.

Turning a blind eye to this while raging about Yama (or vice versa-- no, I am not letting anyone off the hook here) only shows hypocrisy, and I think effectively demonstrates that the welfare of innocent children is not the real concern-- it is ideology.

Shameful no matter how you cut it.
 
Kamandi.First off my Agent friend is an ATF agent with no onnetion with this case, I just asked him if the law stands and it does.

Not to mention if the law didn't stand then you couldn't report violators. Even the dumbest person in the world would know that. More and more Kamandi you are sounding like some 20 something that works at Burger King and gives himself job titles whenever convenient to him online. You know shit about law. That fact is blaring out there.

My job for the day is plastic surgeon.. Yep that's it. Plastic surgeon.
 
Some other interesting observations. Kamandi. If you were really of any of any of the careers you have claimed, you would..

Not have time to stay online all hours of the day and night.

Be able to provide more proof to anything you say that is supposed to be along your lines of training.

If you truly worked in a school then you would do your damndest to not be associated with someone that commits crimes towards children. Guilty by association.

Kamandi, you are a fraud. You are lying to MSF antis about yourself just as much as you and "D" lie about the purpose of that site.

I can't wait to see what new career you come up with when there is a topic for you to try and win.
 
but a mother who pimps her daughters at twelve with the goal of making them sex objects by sixteen is pretty depraved, narcissistic, and exploitative by any definition.

So what you are saying is that the parents of every child who has gotten into acting, modeling, singing and basically every form of entertainment is depraved, narcissistic and exploitative by any definition?
I don’t see any mention of Brooke Shields mother or Gary Colemans parents on this blog.
Do you criticize Michael Jackson’s father?
What about Britney Spears mother?
Anyone who views this blog from an objective point of view will see nothing more than a tiny group of hateful pathetic people targeting one specific family solely on the grounds of racial prejudice.


Lynx and Lamb wanted to play music and they wanted to start a band together.
April encouraged them as any mother would.
They sing about racial pride and their heritage because they were raised that way, just like any other ethnic group.
They are two very beautiful girls and they are going to have sex appeal regardless of whether it is intentional or not.
You have zero criticism against Latino pride, Black pride or Asian pride.
In fact, you excuse any hateful racist sentiments from these groups towards the White race as being justifiable because of what other people have done in the past.
Once again you are hiding behind the façade of anti racism to conceal your bigotry.
Your beef with them revolves around your racial prejudice against Whites showing pride for their race and their heritage and there is no denying it.
If they went with the program and sang about the typical run of the mill garbage that is so prevalent in today’s music scene you wouldn't even know they existed.
You hate these girls because they sing White pride music and that offends you because you are a racist and you pick on them exclusively because they are defenseless little girls.
But when we defend them you recoil in horror as though we are the ones who are in the wrong because your racist attitude against Whites has governed your thoughts and ideas throughout your entire life.
This is why you can‘t comprehend why we oppose you.


This blog makes no criticism of any other White pride bands other than Prussian blue.
Why is that?
Are you afraid of picking on the skin heads?
To me and anyone else who can stand back and examine what is going on here, it is plain to see that you are nothing but racist bullies picking on two little girls from the safety of your computer keyboards.


When people call you degenerates and perverts because you are members of MSF, don't cry and complain that it isn't fair to judge all of you because of the actions of one individual.
Saying that Yamamanama didn't violate any of your guidelines because everything he did was off site is no excuse and it implies that you condone everything he has done.
He did what he did because he is a reprehensible pervert on a depraved racist crusade to terrorize two little girls and he has been at it for well over a year.

He has earned a well deserved reputation as a perverted degenerate and a stalker and who ever associates with him, especially those who know what he has been up to, will be dragged down with him.
That's human nature.
The world doesn't like people like Yamamanama.
Whether or not he gets banned from MSF has never been out goal anyway.
We intend to put him in jail.
Him getting banned from MSF isn’t of any importance and means absolutely nothing.
This has never been an issue of “us against them” when it concerns Yamamanama because it has nothing to do with our disagreements in political matters.
This is a criminal case that is to be handled by the authorities.

On the matter of criminal charges against Yamamanama.
I have filed several complaints against him along with many other people.
He can not be arrested on complaints from us, he can only be arrested when formal charges
Have been filed by the victims.
These charges are still being processed and they may not be filed for awhile, but they are going to be filed.
When Yamamanama stated that he wanted children to see the obscene image and even named his intended victims, he sealed his fate.
That, along with all the complaints that have been filed against him over the past year, will be end of him.
This is going to follow him for the rest of his life and will greatly affect any plans he has for a future career.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Oh, what's the use? The longer this debate goes on, nothing is going to happen, face it. Let's have the law judge what is the end result, while some of us are having our own make-believe laws, and certain hypocrises.
 
I agree I am not convinced of Kamandi's interpretation of the law, but I also don't care, it is a matter for law enforcement.

As far as MSF is concerned there has never been a clear cut set of guidelines there and people have been banned, considered for banning or been punished for things they did that were not illegal, not against percieved guidelines and even for offline activities, it is a fact and that is all I have to say about that.

As far as Prussian Blue getting so much attention over skinheads you can blame it on SomethingAwful.com.

They are a large popular site and by hosting an article about Prussian Blue they have given them immense publicity as far as the internet and White Nationalism is concerned. Regardless of what Eyzwydopen and any of their fans think to the average person what Lamb and Lynx sing about and represent is racial hatred. You can call it White Pride and complain but White Pride being considered a bad word but the fact remains that it is White Racists who made White Pride taboo.

I am aware of the racial pride double standard but I am also aware of what causes it. I have been told by my White friends that they consider White Pride in any form to be racist and it was I that had to explain to them the difference and why it is ok to show esteem for your heritage and ethnicity.

However White Nationalism is not about White Pride. 90% of the WNs I have seen I would not regard as someone who had a legitimate and honest value for pride in their race. They are fueled by contempt for other groups and cultures and their racial "pride" is more of a doctrine of elitism. So in my opinion I would say that the vast majority of White Nationalists are Racia Elitists not true advocates of White Pride. That isn't to say there are not Black Racial Elitists or Jewish, Asian etc. who profess ethnic pride but to say that this racial elitism has been so much part of European culture that once Western society recovered from the age of the racial extremists such as the Nazis and than Klan the term and principle "White Pride" has become taboo.

We could argue lyrics and intentions all day but the fact remains that when Lamb and Lynx sing about the infamous "Victory Day" and wear Hitler smilie face T-Shirts they are going to have a hard time convincing people they are not
the next generation of Neo-Nazi racist hate youth let alone that their band is really about White Pride.

The National Alliance is a Neo-Nazi racist hate group and anyone identified with it is going to be assumed to be just another racist hate-monger before someone gives them the benefit of the doubt that they are just "prideful people".

European-Americans have a dillema on their hands when it comes to ethnic identity. Most European Nationalities can enjoy expressing pride in their ethnic heritage without being labeled a racist or a hater. People of mixed European ethnic background only identify as White and being porud to be White is taboo. That is why White Culture in America is dying. Thats why you have the "Whiggers". White people who act "White" are considered to be acting "normal" and usually conform to some type of White sub-culture. Black people who act "White" are called Oreos. Asian acting "White" are called twinkies. Hip-Hop is gaining popularity and when American youth sees something new and exciting they will want to emulate it. So Hip-Hop culture isn't really acting "Black" it is just another sub-culture just spawned by a different ethnic group.

If White people want to have pride and advance their culture again they are going to have to shun the cause of the taboo. You cannot be a skinhead, Neo-Nazi, racist, White Nationalist or whatever and get away with saying you are proud to be White in our society. Because of instituionalized racism it may be too late to salvage White pride. You all may in fact have to conform to the reality of multiculturalism. By being a White Nationalist you are promoting White pride as a taboo. You are promoting the wild taboo.
 
Still noone can tell me why white pride is tabbo when black/hispanic/llama pride is not. I mean, Llama nationalists march every single day and threaten the Camels, but noooo... Llama Pride is still mainstream.
 
Not have time to stay online all hours of the day and night.
- I have as much time as anyone else does to do this. I was recently divorced, and, accordingly, have plenty of time on my hands.

Also, as managing editor, I'm the boss. If I feel like posting during work, no one can tell me not to.

Be able to provide more proof to anything you say that is supposed to be along your lines of training.
- I think I provide as much as is necessary without bogging down threads with technical details few would appreciate.

As soon as my father provides us with the relevant case law, I'll post it on MSF.

If you truly worked in a school then you would do your damndest to not be associated with someone that commits crimes towards children. Guilty by association.
- I don't work in a "school" - I edit an education trade paper.

Furthermore, I really don't have to worry about being branded "guilty by association" anonymously over the Internet.

Kamandi, you are a fraud. You are lying to MSF antis about yourself just as much as you and "D" lie about the purpose of that site.
- No, Tuoni, due to your vastly limited intelligence and numerous personality disorders, ad hominems are the only recourse you have while losing an argument.

I can't wait to see what new career you come up with when there is a topic for you to try and win.
- I have only one "career," and that's all I've ever had for quite some time. Read through my posts on MSF.

I don't have to make anything up to win an argument with you - that's one of the advantages of being your intellectual superior.
 
I just did.

White Pride is taboo because of institutionalized racism and racial elitism. Historically White Pride was used to oppress other people and look down on them.

When James Brown started singing "Say it Loud!...I'm Black and I'm Proud!" He didn't continue with "Now lets kill the Whites and the Jews!".

Black Pride was somewhat reactionary to decades of being told being Black meant you were a worthless savage.

The United States hasn't always had such a large Hispanic population. They are coming from different cultures and simply professing pride in that heritage and identity. I've seen several Irish Americans wearing Irish Pride T-Shirts, thats about the same as Hispanic Pride. I've never seen a White person wear a White Pride T-Shirt.

I've never seen a Black person wear a Black Pride T-Shirt either the closest thing to it would be Millions More March T-Shirts. I see Muslims wear T-shirts with the word Mecca on them.

That doesn't mean everything race oriented is only forebidden for Whites. By contrast Afrocentrism like White Pride has become a bad word. When someone is called an Afrocentrist it is meant as an insult even though there are many serious Afrocentric scholars who have valid teach valid studies not yet universally accepted by the Eurocentric establishment.

Thats because along with those serious scholars there were Black Supremacists and nut jobs teaching people that Ancient Egyptians could fly and levatate objects. That Aristotle plagarized and stole what he learned in the universities in Egypt. That the original Samurai were indegnious Black Japanese negritos based on an old Japanese saying that "To be a great Samurai you must have a little Black blood". They even taught that high quantities of melanin in the skin can give a person superior spiritual and intellectual powers. Also that Whites weren't actually Humans (Hue-Man).

So along with the serious scholarship people began to discredit all Black scholars who were looking at history from an African viewpoint and called them Afrocentrists making it a bad word.

Now that Neo-Conservatism is gaining strength and both parties are becoming more moderate politicians are also trying to make Liberal a bad word even though there are radical conservatives who's views are the polar opposite and equally as extreme as the radical liberal. Just being a Liberal period is supposed to be bad.

If you want White pride to be more accepted by the mainstream Tuoni the worst thing you could possibly be is a White Nationalist. You are siding with the ones who reinforce the taboo. Everyone who ever called you a racist or a Nazi for being an Asatru can now point their finger and say "See I told you so" if you decide to join the National Alliance and declare that you are a "White Nationalist".

Racial double standards do exist and they are not all against White people but many are. You don't like the double standard don't reinforce the taboo.
 
OH no, now everyone is starting with teh ad hominems. This is gonna get ugly.
 
That last post was directed at Tuoni's last post obviously.
 
Kamandi.First off my Agent friend is an ATF agent with no onnetion with this case, I just asked him if the law stands and it does.
- And exactly what understanding of First Amendment case law did you expect an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency to bring to the table, Tuo? Duh!

When your friend gets a juris doctorate, then I'll consider his opinion. Until then, he's a cop with no understanding of the law, just as you have none.

Not to mention if the law didn't stand then you couldn't report violators. Even the dumbest person in the world would know that.
- As the dumbest person in the world, Tuo, I'd expect you to think that you can't "report" someone to the police if the Supreme Court strikes down a statute.

You can report ANYONE for ANYTHING, and if non-legal expert cops feel like it, they can make an arrest, regardless of whether or not a prosecutor thinks they can make a case. They'll hold him for 24 hrs, while the US attorney makes up his mind.

Furthermore, if a federal prosecutor wants to challenge the court's interpretation on some point, they'll issue an indictment anyhow and hope the courts will grant them an exception based on a legal theory they'll come up with.

The whole subject is a massive grey area prosecutors would like clarified, so they'll look for as many test cases they can find, oftentimes whether they have genuine merit or not. Since there are few established laws or precedents, it would be very difficult for Yama to sue for abuse of process.

So, please just shut the fuck up before you embarass yourself even futher.
 
I agree I am not convinced of Kamandi's interpretation of the law, but I also don't care, it is a matter for law enforcement.
Law enforcement can't really do anything, because Yama lives in Canada, outside the jurisdiction of US federal law. The chance the Canadians will extradite him is next to zero, and the offense was committed on an American server.

According to my relatives practicing law in Canada, there's little to no chance he'd ever be charged there for what he's already done.
 
Kamandi, are you smoking crack? Yama lives in Boston. He goes to Bridgewater U.
 
He knows about these laws because he took a Internet Crimes course. The same one I am taking in January. The only embarassing person I see here is you. You realize very few of your fellow MSF'rs believe a damn word you or "D" say anymore. You have lost all respect from them.
 
Show me proof that the statute I quoted above has been struck down. Post it on here.

18 USCA 1470. Post it. It shouldn't be hard for you to find the proof. Let's see how good a paralegal you are.

Oh wait, you are going to find some excuse.
 
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001470----000-.html

OH oh oh.. what is this? what is this?

Cornell is wrong?!?!?! So the paralegal knows more than them?

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity_stats.html

Dept of Justice is wrong as well.. Hmm, Damn Kamandi, you MUST be good.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1470

Caselaw is wrong to. I am friggin' impressed that you know more than them.

Stuff it Kamandi, you are a liar and a fraud.
 
So tell us again, oh great Kamandi that knows all, is it still not against the law.

You just proved to everyone you are a dunce.
 
Hey Yama!

This is in your future..

Penalties: Imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a fine of up to $250,000.
 
OH oh oh.. what is this? what is this?

Cornell is wrong?!?!?! So the paralegal knows more than them?

- No, dumbass, you'll notice that it doesn't mention the Internet - that's because the SCOTUS ruled in 2004 that the Internet isn't held to the same standard in US v. ALA.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity_stats.html

Dept of Justice is wrong as well.. Hmm, Damn Kamandi, you MUST be good.

- Once again, dumbass, you'll notice it says nothing about the Internet. That's because it doesn't apply to the Internet.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1470

Caselaw is wrong to. I am friggin' impressed that you know more than them.

- No, dumbass, that also says nothing about the Internet.

Stuff it Kamandi, you are a liar and a fraud.
- No, dumbass, you've just made an even bigger fool out of yourself. Once again, shut the fuck up and get back to Stormfront where everyone else is stupid enough not to notice.

Now, for some actual case law, the following recent decision in a California defamation case should shed some light on the unique status of the Internet:

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Ellen L. BATZEL, a citizen of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert SMITH, a citizen of the State of North Carolina; Netherlands Museums
Association,


As the majority opinion noted:

Opinion by Judge BERZON. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Judge GOULD.

BERZON, Circuit Judge.
There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.

This case presents the question whether and, if so, under what circumstances a moderator of a listserv and operator of a website who posts an allegedly defamatory e-mail authored by a third party can be held liable for doing so...

The specific provision at issue here, § 230(c)(1), overrides the traditional treatment of publishers, distributors, and speakers under statutory and common law. As a matter of policy, "Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines or television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others." Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C.1998). Absent § 230, a person who published *1027


In other words, under that federal law, the Internet is given special status that immunizes a poster on an interactive web server from liability for obscenity.

In discussing why that was so, the judges mentions the following:

Congress made this legislative choice for two primary reasons. First, Congress wanted to encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet, and to promote the development of e-commerce. Section 230(a), "Findings," highlights that:

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
§ 230(a). Similarly, the listed policy objectives of the section include:

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.
§ 230(b).


Because of that immunization, this suit was disallowed.

Now, this has nothing to do with Rehnquist's 2004 ruling in US v. American Library Association, and it only applies to a special case, but it does show the special status that the Intenet has been accorded by both legislators and the courts.
 
Kamandi, are you smoking crack? Yama lives in Boston. He goes to Bridgewater U.

- It was said earlier that he's Canadian. From Josh Mallon:

I would also note that the person (if you can call him that) who posted the image is from/lives in Canada. So perhaps the laws of Canada can also be brought to bear in this case. International conspiracies and what-not.

If that's not so, you can bring it up with Josh.
 
Hey Yama!

This is in your future..

Penalties: Imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a fine of up to $250,000.


This is in the future for you: psychiatric incarceration - no one has ever been prosecuted for Internet obscenity for a post on a message board, and no federal prosecutor is ever going to pick it up with a Supreme Court ruling in the way.

It's a pipe dream.
 
"Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines or television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others." Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C.1998). Absent § 230, a person who published *1027

The ISP is held blameless not the poster.

- It was said earlier that he's Canadian. From Josh Mallon:

I would also note that the person (if you can call him that) who posted the image is from/lives in Canada. So perhaps the laws of Canada can also be brought to bear in this case. International conspiracies and what-not.

Jan is from Canada, Yama is from Massachusetts. Jan is the one who posted the photo, at Yama's request.
 
- No, dumbass, you've just made an even bigger fool out of yourself.

Come on Kamandi, your copyin' and pastin' isn't exactly making you look good either.

This case presents the question whether and, if so, under what circumstances a moderator of a listserv and operator of a website who posts an allegedly defamatory e-mail authored by a third party can be held liable for doing so...

This case has absolutely ZERO relevance in the case against your ass-clown friend Yamamanama. Dumbass.
 
Really, nothing to do with the internet? Go and read the Center for Missing and Exploited Children again jackass.

"It is an unfortunate reality of the Internet that children will encounter obscene material online. Many times this material is attached as an image(s) or hyperlink(s) sent to a child in an unsolicited E-mail or "spam."

To combat this problem NCMEC takes reports of unsolicited obscene material sent to a child. It is a violation of criminal law for any person to knowingly or attempt to send or transfer obscene material to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years (18 U.S.C.A. 1470).

Please report any incidents where a child may have received visual depictions of persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene. "

It is ANY transfer of obscene material.

Once again you are proven a liar and fraud.

Why don't you just crawl away from this one. You won't win.
 
Kamandi, seriously. Give up before everyone starts laughing at you. I mean it is too late for some from what the emails I have been getting, but maybe less people will be laughing at you.
 
The ISP is held blameless not the poster.

- No, Josh - read the decision again. What the judge said was:

Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.

Note that it says "providers and USERS of interactive computer services." Not just the ISP, but the operators of the service and users are immunized.

Jan is from Canada, Yama is from Massachusetts. Jan is the one who posted the photo, at Yama's request.

Okay, I stand corrected on that. I don't know any more about Yama than was posted here.

The Canadian obscenity law is much stiffer than US law, but they're unlikely to extradite him for an offense on an American server, nor will the US even try to prosecute Jan.
 
This case has absolutely ZERO relevance in the case against your ass-clown friend Yamamanama. Dumbass.

- Uh, yes - it does, dumbass, becauser the judges ruling establishes that the federal immunity applies as follows:

Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.

The website was an "interactive computer service," and Yama and Jan were users, so the immunity applies to them.

Now shut the fuck up.
 
Really, nothing to do with the internet? Go and read the Center for Missing and Exploited Children again jackass.
- Dumbass, the CMEC isn't a legal authority, so their opinion is irrelevant.

It is ANY transfer of obscene material.
- No, dumbass, it's any transfer of material that's ruled obscene that isn't circumscribed by federal law and Supreme Court ruling.

But Congress legislated that he's immunized from liability in the case of an interactive web service, and the Supreme Court ruled that the federal standards don't apply to the Internet in US v. Ala.

All federal law is subject to SCOTUS ruling and federal case law.

Now shut the fuck up.


Once again you are proven a liar and fraud.

- No, you've proven that you're a liar and total idiot, dumbass.

Why don't you just crawl away from this one. You won't win.
- I've already won, dickhead. You're just too stupid to realize it.
 
Since there seems to be some confusion on this point, let me reiterate it:

The federal law regarding interactive computer services doesn't apply just to lists or web groups - it applies to ANY interactive computer service

The PB forum was a forum, and therefore an interactive computer service.

It also immunizes all users from liability for defamation or obscenity when the material was provided to them by a third party. Not simply an e-mail, but ANY material posted on an interactive web site.

Yama didn't create the drawing, so it was provided to him, and neither did Jan, so they're both immunized under the federal law AND under the case law.

Neither civil nor criminal liability can attach, so they can be neither prosecuted nor sued.

That law circumscribes the federal obscenity statute specifically in the case of an interactive web site, for the reasons the judge mentions:

Congress wanted to ensure the development of the tecnology, and to encourage self-policing of such sites, as well as offer a unique opporunity for the expression of opinions and points of view.

Because of that, although you can report it all you wish, the case will be thrown out by any federal judge, respecting both the law and the precedent.

No federal prosecutor will touch the case for that reason.

You might be able to convince an FBI agent to look into the case, because FBI agents aren't experts on the law, but no prosecutor is going to issue an indictment.
 
Uh,Oh. Looks like another blog war. I wonder if you are going to get De-moderated for this too Kamandi, considering that my activities in the blogs was one of the things Descendant cited to justify my De-Moderation.

Yama's activities were irrelavent to the board and he was unbanned yet somehow arguing with PlayFair and Muaddib

was a valid thing to hold against me.
 
Of course, I can't comment on that, but I'm sorry about what happened, Mansa.
 
April Gaede allows her 13 year old daughters to be around men in their thirties that tell the world they are sex symbols. Any thirty year old man that will consider Lynx and Lamb sex symbols should be in jail.
 
Hehe whatever Kamandi. You know more than every real law enforcement officer out there, you know more than every law school. You seem to know more than the Center of Missing Kids, nevermind they work hand in hand with law enforcement. Yes, you are a bright cookie. Sure. *sarcasm rampant*
 


Jass546 said...

Any thirty year old man that will consider Lynx and Lamb sex symbols should be in jail.


I guess this should include Kamandi, seeing as how he's a 30 something male who considered Lynx and Lamb to be future sexual conquests of his...

Yeah Yeah Yeah, I know you antis will be saying I took the quote out of context, but under what context would that quote be appropriate?

Hell, even in an over 18 pornographic magazine I don't know if it would.
 
Yeah Oscar, especially wrong for someone that supposedly works in a school.
 
The PB forum was a forum, and therefore an interactive computer service.

Lynx and Lamb are not a computer forum, they are real people and they are minors.
Yamamanama and Jan deliberately sent an obscene image to them personally and they even named them as their intended targets.
Yamamanama even stated his desire to cause them psychological trauma.

This was not a nameless faceless computer program sending obscene advertisements via random pop up ads.
This was a personal calculated assault against two specific minors with malicious intent.
And also the fact that Yamamanama has been stalking and harassing the girls and thier family for well over a year with numerous complaints against him will be a major factor in the case against him.
 
This whole situation has driven me. Tomorrow I finally am putting in my application for school. My major? Computer/Internet Crime. I plan to use Yama as my learning subject in class. That way I can get credits for hunting his ass down.
 
Jass546: At least one man that I know of whom April has "introduced" her daughters to is in jail for a violent crime. She has actively promoted her daughters as sex objects, and really should be held responsible for that. The law has to have boundaries, though, and as it stands, unless she is actually physically violating her children or allowing someone else to do the same, there is not much that can be done however much you may find her behaviour to be inappropriate.

The same goes for Kamandi's comment on MSF. He made a joke, a rude joke, but the fact is nobody is going to prosecute anyone for making a joke on a web forum. No reasonable person reading his post in context is going to intrepret his comment as an expression of pedophilia. Time to get real guys. Be as upset as you want, but there is no way that you can collude Kamandi's post with Yama's actions. Everything you are saying about this just sounds like pure hysteria.

Furthermore, as much as I deplore what Yama did and feel that he should be banned for his actions, Kamandi is making worthy points about legislation. I still think that since the intended of the intended recipients mage in question are underage children he is far from off the hook. If that were not a factor, then I would agree that it would be unlikely that any action would be taken even in the case of an image that is this repulsive.

All of this legal arguing though is beside the point: I don't know why you are debating it here. Either Yama is going to have the book thrown at him, or he will narrowly escape prosecution. That is up to law enforcement. I still think MSF should firmly and permanently boot his ass to the curb for what he did.

Tuonela: Speaking as an educator here, it is highly unlikely that anyone is ever going to give you credit for stalking someone, no matter how justified you feel you are. I think you will find if you actually studying the legal issues behind "cyberstalking" that prosecution, espcially across state lines is a slippery business. Does Yama belong in the doghouse? YEs. Will he go there when all is said and done? Jury is out on that one.
 
Yo, I am not stalking Yama. If he stayed away from The PB sites and my own site I wouldn't deal with him at all. However, he refuses to stop spamming those sites and that is still illegal.

I have always wondered that? How the Hel am I stalking him when he comes to our areas? Not to mention, I have never posted on any of *his* websites. No, nobody notices that. Yes, I have lurked at them to make screenshots for proof but every time I have talked to him it was either on MSF, here or OUR OWN SITES.

He has been stalk/harassing those girls for years, yet noone ever asks him to "stop stalking".

Nice try on calling me a stalker though, Too bad the term doesn't fit.
 
As for whether or not I get credit. Maybe not, but it will sure give me alot of practice. ;)
 
Lookie, he just posted yet again on my site. Despite the fact that I have told him he is not allowed. That makes it stalking/harassment because I have said you can't post here. Now someone please show me where I posted on his journal.

My username is Paganbutt
 
Chill Tuonela. I am sorry I called you a stalker. And yes, I agree with you this guy is off his rocker. The only thing you can do is NOT RESPOND to him at all (including here, I might add, since it just feeds into this) and then do what you can to block him.
 

Yo said...

All of this legal arguing though is beside the point: I don't know why you are debating it here.


Why shouldn't we argue it here...

You admitted Yama is basically a total scum bag, and that Kamandi made some dumb-ass joke about making sexual conquests out of Lynx and Lamb that us white nationalists somehow took out of context, and then you in the very next sentence will praise Kamandi for bringing up a brilliant point concerning legislation about getting Yama off the hook...
 
I suppose finding someone's full name and putting it up where Oscar and Xuxa can see it isn't stalking, right, Tuonela?

Paganbutt doesn't exist on GFF.
 
Hehe whatever Kamandi. You know more than every real law enforcement officer out there, you know more than every law school. You seem to know more than the Center of Missing Kids, nevermind they work hand in hand with law enforcement. Yes, you are a bright cookie. Sure. *sarcasm rampant*

- One more time, dumbass: cops ain't lawyers. They're civil service workers with no legal training. Their opinions on legal matters are therefore negligible.

When you can get a prosecutor to say that immunity Congress saw fit to grant to interactive web services is irrelevant, and they're willing to indict, then you'll have something.

Until then, as always, shut the fuck up.
 
I still think that since the intended of the intended recipients mage in question are underage children he is far from off the hook. If that were not a factor, then I would agree that it would be unlikely that any action would be taken even in the case of an image that is this repulsive.

- No - because it was an interactive web service, and the material was third-party, he has blanket immunity from both civil and criminal prosecution for obscenity OR defamation.

The two girls status as minors is irrelevant. Congress didn't make any exceptions to the immunity.

Thinking logically about it, because interactive web services like discussion forums are typically public, minors could ALWAYS log on and view such materials.

What would be the point of granting immunity, and then granting an exception to it which could ALWAYS be true, negating the immunity?

Congress' real point was that policing discussion forums should be the job of web operators - admins, moderators, etc. - and not the criminal justice system, and the punishments should be banning or deletion, and not jail sentences.
 
Lynx and Lamb are not a computer forum, they are real people and they are minors.

- That's really immaterial - he posted the image to the discussion forum, and didn't email or PM it to them. The laws regarding interactive web services are therefore what apply.

It doesn't matter who could have seen it; what matters is where it was posted, thanks to the act of the legislature already cited.

Yamamanama and Jan deliberately sent an obscene image to them personally and they even named them as their intended targets.
Yamamanama even stated his desire to cause them psychological trauma.

- Once again, it doesn't matter what it his intent was - all that matters is that he posted it on an interactive web forum, and didn't send it to them directly.

This was not a nameless faceless computer program sending obscene advertisements via random pop up ads.
This was a personal calculated assault against two specific minors with malicious intent.
And also the fact that Yamamanama has been stalking and harassing the girls and thier family for well over a year with numerous complaints against him will be a major factor in the case against him.


- There's not going to be any case against him, period, because he has complete immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for obscenity or any crime relating to obscenity under the federal statute.

He can't be indicted and he can't be sued. It doesn't matter what his intent was.

If April cares about the matter, she should look into a restraining order; at that point, if he contacts them in any way, he can be arrested. However, in the absence of a court order, there's nothing she can do legally about what he posted on her discussion forum.

OTOH, his buddy Jan better hope the Canadian authorities don't find that image on his hard drive.
 
If April cares about the matter, she should look into a restraining order; at that point, if he contacts them in any way, he can be arrested. However, in the absence of a court order, there's nothing she can do legally about what he posted on her discussion forum.

I am convinced by Kamandi's intrpretation of statute. What he is saying is very likely true. And yes, I still think Yama is slime.

I am wondering why April *doesn't* get a restraining order-- given everything that has been said, I would think she would have a justified case. Like Kamandi said, then it would be simple: any more contact from Yama and he is toast.

If the goal is to put a stop to any level of harassment, I think you should A.) Apply for a restraining order, and B.) Resrrain yourselves and *stop responding to Yama in any way, directly or indirectly. Its pretty clear that what he wants is to get a rise out of you, and you are effectively giving him a lot of attention and validation by your response.

I am not trying to blame the victim here but one of the first thing law enforcement tells people who complain of harassment or stalking is *don't feed into it, don't respond*.

Your intent might be to raise awreness of this issue, but I think your actions are backfiring and actually *encouraging* Yama to harrass these underage girls. Stop giving him attention and the whole thing is very likely to stop.
 
Oscar: Ethics and the law do not necessarily collude. Someone can be very wrong, very nasty, lower than scum really-- but still not be in violation of the law.

Furthermore, anytime you talk about creating laws to govern human behaviour you have to take on the issue of where the boundaries are to be drawn-- i.e., what is prosecutable and what is not; when do you (for example) take the children away for their own protection and when do you accept that there are different standards of parenting out there; when does someone's vile behaviour (for example Yama's) step over the line and become something prosecutable for which you can lock him up.

There really isn't any way around making these decisions-- its a part of being a law-maker. These decisions are often going to be controversial because you are simply not going to find uniform agreement on where the boundaries should be drawn.

Example in point: I think April is a vile parent who is doing her daughters a lot of damage. Some people would even argue that her children should be taken away. I would not agree with that ebcause once you start taking children away from their parents because you just don't like how they are being raised, where do you stop, how much surveillance and intrusion are you willing to put up with,in our and where do you take the children? Therefore: the law in our country has a very high standard that must be met before children can be taken away from their parents-- there has to be a specific kind of compelling evidence that children are in immediate physical danger or suffering from gross neglect. Other countries, such as Sweden, have a very different standard. In Sweden you can be prosecuted for speaking to your children in a humiliating way.

Another example: Clearly what Yama did is vile and disgusting and I have nothing good to say about. I think he should be banned from MSF. Is this a prosecutable offense though? Its sounds like the law is not interested in pursuing prosecution over comments or images posted in public webforums. If you take the point of view that this post endangers children, that may be hard to hear; however another point of view would be that once the law takes it as its job to patrol web forums and go after people for every offensive remark they make, the level of government intrusion would be too extreme to be constitutional or even practical.

Does Stormfront want to have its forums patrolled and monitored? I expect not. The ironic thing here is that legistlation that is protecting Yama is also protecting you.

If you are going to argue that the law is wrong and that the presence of children in the middle of all of this is a sufficient bright line and a reasonable cause to tip the scale toward prosecution, I would be inclined to agree. I think though that you need to differentiate between the discussion of what is morally wrong and what is actually illegal. Kamandi is talking about the latter.
 
All I have to say is Kamandi, you know jack shit of what you are talking about. Sorry to tell you. From this point on I am not even going to respond to your ignorance. Until you PROVE you know what you are saying, you are in "DUH" land. All you have to do is prove it, or prove my points wrong other than what you THINK is wrong.
 
"Chill Tuonela. I am sorry I called you a stalker. And yes, I agree with you this guy is off his rocker. The only thing you can do is NOT RESPOND to him at all (including here, I might add, since it just feeds into this) and then do what you can to block him."

So I should just let him post his obsecenties all over Prussian Blue's blog and forums without chiding him? I think not, Yo.
 
all that matters is that he posted it on an interactive web forum, and didn't send it to them directly.

He did that too.
He sent obscene and threatening e-mails directly to them.

And do you understand what malicious intent means?
What you are talking about is if some troll pops up and posts a porno image then runs away laughing.
He didn't post it for anyone in particular, he just posted it to shock the members of a forum.
It is an annoyance on all websites and is the reason why forums have moderators.
Law enforcement isn't going to take action everytime some idiot posts a dirty picture on the internet, unless it's child porn.

Yamamanama and Jan are different.
They registered at Prussian blue for the sole purpose of displaying a pornographic image to two minors who they named and who yamamanama has been stalking and harassing for well over a year.
We have screen shots of them conspiring to do this and we have screen shots of them carrying it out.
They posted the image in a section of the forum where the girls frequent and would most likely see it.
Yamamanama even stated that he hoped it would cause them emotional trauma and he has stated his desire to harm them in this way in the past.

He singled out two specific individuals and commited a crime against them.
That is malicious intent.

Let me give you another idea of how this works.
If a person is arrested for shoplifting and it is discovered that they had no money on them when they entered the store, the shop lifting charge can be changed to burglary.
Because they had no money on them when they entered the store, the prosecution can prove that they entered the store with the intention of stealing, which constitutes burglary.
That is malicious intent.

Yamamanama and Jan committed a calculated deliberate assault on two minors who they named specificly and said that they hoped it would cause them emotional stress.
Are you getting it yet?
This isn't an internet crime, this is a crime that was committed on the internet.
 
It should be interesting to see how this plays out one way or the other.
 
All I have to say is Kamandi, you know jack shit of what you are talking about. Sorry to tell you. From this point on I am not even going to respond to your ignorance. Until you PROVE you know what you are saying, you are in "DUH" land. All you have to do is prove it, or prove my points wrong other than what you THINK is wrong.

I already did, dumbass - I gave you a citation directly from the federal case law which was more than enough to prove my point.

The federal circuit court judge's legal opinion outweighs your reading of the statute, and the idiotic statement of your supposed friend, the cop.

Now, either come up with a legal point or an indictment, moron, or shut the fuck up. You would have to come up with case law that demonstrates the Congressional immunity doesn't apply for some reason.

I realize that your low IQ and mental illness place severe limitations on your functioning, but the above should possible even for you.
 
He did that too.
He sent obscene and threatening e-mails directly to them.

- That's an entirely different matter than the posting of this image, and, if true, would have a completely distinct significance.

I'm only discussing the Cookie Monster post.

And do you understand what malicious intent means?
What you are talking about is if some troll pops up and posts a porno image then runs away laughing.
He didn't post it for anyone in particular, he just posted it to shock the members of a forum.
It is an annoyance on all websites and is the reason why forums have moderators.
Law enforcement isn't going to take action everytime some idiot posts a dirty picture on the internet, unless it's child porn.

- Sorry, but unless you can find a "malicious intent" exception to the statute, that's irrelevant. Immunity means just that - "immunity."

BTW, there is no such exception to the federal law referenced in the above case law.

Yamamanama and Jan are different.
They registered at Prussian blue for the sole purpose of displaying a pornographic image to two minors who they named and who yamamanama has been stalking and harassing for well over a year.
We have screen shots of them conspiring to do this and we have screen shots of them carrying it out.
They posted the image in a section of the forum where the girls frequent and would most likely see it.
Yamamanama even stated that he hoped it would cause them emotional trauma and he has stated his desire to harm them in this way in the past.

- What part of "blanket immunity" don't you understand?

He singled out two specific individuals and commited a crime against them.
That is malicious intent.

- Dopen, the fact that you want there to be a "malicious intent" exception to the immunity in the federal statute doesn't change the fact that there isn't one.

Unless in the law itself Congress stipulated that you could still be charged with obscenity despite the immunization under the stated fact pattern if "malicious intent" existed, you can't be.

You're welcome to present us with such an exception in the specific statute, but I'll warn you in advance, there isn't one.

Yamamanama and Jan committed a calculated deliberate assault on two minors who they named specificly and said that they hoped it would cause them emotional stress.
Are you getting it yet?
This isn't an internet crime, this is a crime that was committed on the internet.

- Don't think so: the laws applicable to the Internet still apply BECAUSE it was commited on the Internet.

The laws that apply to indecency on television, for example, don't apply to magazines, and so it is with the Internet as well.

Because Congress wanted the Internet to be self-policing, they created a blanket immunity from liability for third-party materials posted on interactive web services.

It doesn't matter how old the viewers were.

It doesn't matter what his intent was.

It doesn't matter what the posted image in fact was.

He has full immunity because the legislature gave it to him with an act of Congress.

You're welcome to provide us with any exception that appears in the text of the act itself, or any precedent in the federal case law which specifically strikes that provision down.

But there aren't any, and the federal statute stands. He can't be prosecuted.
 
If you guys really care so much about this, why don't you encourage Gaede to get a restraining order for her daughters against Yama?

With the evidence you've collected, it shouldn't be difficult. That would be more constructive (and effectual) than your current bogus posturing.
 
If you are going to argue that the law is wrong and that the presence of children in the middle of all of this is a sufficient bright line and a reasonable cause to tip the scale toward prosecution, I would be inclined to agree. I think though that you need to differentiate between the discussion of what is morally wrong and what is actually illegal. Kamandi is talking about the latter.

Exactly - not everything immoral is illegal, and everything illegal isn't necessarily immoral per se.

Look, as much as it pains me to ever agree with racists, I don't like what Yama did any more than they do in this case. That doesn't make it a crime.

On the other hand, I'm frankly impressed at the level of concern some of our white nationalists have shown here for the welfare and best interests of children, even if they happen to be venomous little Nazis like those two.
 
Regardless of federal law I still stand by my desicion to have the situation addressed in the Mod Forum. Because of his actions Yama's presence damages the site and I believe he should have been banned. It isn't a matter of TOS and subjective rules it is a matter of tolerating a member who does something flagrantly damaging that involves the site.

Because of his actions and the descision to unban him Yamanama's presence has demoralized the membership of MootStormfront and it will continue to do so as long as he posts there.

He should have kept his word and left the site alone like he told Dopen and myself that he would, all he has done by returning is shown himself to be a proven liar just as he did when he tried to cover up his actions. Unbanning him was a big mistake and the consquence will be that the majority of active membership on MSF will be taking a different stance when it comes to that message board I haven't come across a single person that isn't bothered by Descendant's unbanning decision Kamandi. Regardless of what Descendant said about his reasons for unbanning Yama I know he values the image of the board and doesn't like it when people disrupt the focus of the board.

In this situation his decision did alot more harm than good and as far as the illegality of Yama and Jan's actions is concerned, we'll see. Its his a matter for the Gaede family, law enforcement and the courts to decide where it goes from there.

I'm not convinced that the statute has been struck down or not but it doesn't really matter it is no concern of mine.

It is such as shame that Yamamanama has given these people so much ammunition to use against him and MootStormfront by embraces his immature habits.
 
Well stated Mansa. I agree. And for this reason you will notice that I no longer post on MSF.

Kamandi, I have to say I was wondering the same thing. If someone tried to pull this on my teenage stepdaughters, I would have a restraining order pronto-- because that is what would actually offer protection.

For what it is worth, the standard of evidence one needs to get a restraining order is not very high-- all you have to do is tell the judge that you have reason to feel threatened. In a case like this, especially with children involved, no judge would refuse such a request. Once a restraining order is in place, *ANY CONTACT* from Yama would result in immediate arrest and grounds for prosecution.

Going on and on about it in a public forum does *not* protect the girls. If anything, this behaviour just escalates what is already a very hazardous situation.

Why would April Gaede do such a thing? It might be that she has the same problem as Yama-- she is a narcissist who is frankly enjoying the attention, and like a Muchhausen-by-Proxy mother, doesn't mind jeopardizing her children.

Shameful.
 
So I should just let him post his obsecenties all over Prussian Blue's blog and forums without chiding him? I think not, Yo.

Tuonela, if you are really interested in seeing this end and putting a stop to this behaviour, you should DELETE his posts immediately WITHOUT COMMENT.

Your "chiding" gives Yama EXACTLY what he is seeking-- he wants your attention, he wants to upset you, and he enjoys the control he has over you. When he posts, he is effectively snapping his fingers-- and when you post back you are effectively jumping at his command. That is his game and you are playing right along. You are FEEDING into the problem and making it worse.

Please google "narcissism" and read up on how to deal with people who seek excitment in their lives by trolling, stirring up other people's emotions, and making other people feel upset. Read about how to deal with these emotional vampires.

The advice is the same across the board-- your reactiveness and your response to someone who behaves in this way is just like giving crack to a drug addict. Shut off the supply, and he will go away.

I am not dismissing your feelings. I am giving you advice that I am POSITIVE will actually work.
 
We don't ban people just for being demoralizing; many posters at the site have that effect.

Furthermore, if we set the precedent that actions elsewhere on the internet are grounds for banning, we would have to apply it to everyone, and we'd be doing nothing but dealing with offsite drama.

TBH, I'm not aware of any forum that has banned users for things they did off-site online. When Stormfront starts banning its users for trolling our site, we'll start banning our users for trolling theirs.
 
We don't ban people just for being demoralizing; many posters at the site have that effect.

I wouldn't be so sure of that but then again the examples I can think of are due to on-site activity.

Furthermore, if we set the precedent that actions elsewhere on the internet are grounds for banning, we would have to apply it to everyone, and we'd be doing nothing but dealing with offsite drama.


TBH, I'm not aware of any forum that has banned users for things they did off-site online. When Stormfront starts banning its users for trolling our site, we'll start banning our users for trolling theirs.


Ignoring the problem has never seemed to dispense with the drama, at some point you have to think about what should not be tolerated when it comes to offline activities RELATED to the site. I agree we always got Stormfront trolls who would harrass members of MSF and one of them even admitted it. Stormfront does nothing about such people.

I've always stood by the fact that even if Yama trolls other boards related to racism it is none of our business unless it can be proven his actions were illegal. IMO if the actions are related to the board and the person is using the same ID he uses on the board it is just as bad as promoting the activity directly on the board.

In any case it doesn't matter anymore. Yama has been unbanned the consequences of that decision will be apparent soon enough. Despite the fact that the majority of the Moderator staff disagreed with you Kamandi you may be right when you say that technically Yama did not promote his behavior on the board and technically what he did may not be illegal.
 
Ignoring the problem has never seemed to dispense with the drama

- Perhaps, but setting the precedent would certainly increase it.

at some point you have to think about what should not be tolerated when it comes to offline activities RELATED to the site.

- The simple fact that he posts on both sites doesn't make his actions "related" to the site.

If he did it in some way that INVOLVED the site, like using an onsite email system to spam or claiming that the staff put him up to it, that would constitute involvement IMO.

Despite the fact that the majority of the Moderator staff disagreed with you Kamandi

- And I quite rightly yielded to the majority will. Of course, his unbanning had nothing to do with me or my arguments for it.
 
And I quite rightly yielded to the majority will. Of course, his unbanning had nothing to do with me or my arguments for it.

Yes indeed that is so.
 
TBH, I'm not aware of any forum that has banned users for things they did off-site online. When Stormfront starts banning its users for trolling our site, we'll start banning our users for trolling theirs.

When I first joined stormfront there was a thread about a member who had been banned for posting some sort of smutty photo on someones website.
The administrator reported it to Don and that person was immediatly banned with no further questions.
Everyone in the thread agreed that having someone like that on their board makes a very bad impression on the entire website.
And it really does too.

Your talking about people trolling MSF, but have you ever thought that maybe alot of it is in retaliation for their websites being spammed?
That is one of the draw backs of having a member who harasses other websites.
You all have to suffer the consiquences for the actions of one disruptive trouble maker.
You all must be aware of yamamanamas adventures outside of MSF.

The trouble is, he goes out and kicks a hornets nest and then runs back to MSF with all the hornets in hot persuit and you all get stung.
And he does it over and over again.
So what a person does off of your website will effect the rest of you.

I do know one thing for a fact about SF members trolling your website.
If they become a nuisance and Decendant complains about it to Don, that person had better knock it off or he will be out the door
and they will only get one warning.
If they post porn, they are gone.
Not to many of us are amused by that sort of behavior or being associated with a skuz bag that does things like that.

And by the way.
If any of you have noticed.
Prussian blue is no longer up.
Yamamanama may be thinking that it is a great "victoly" for him, but I have to burst his little bubble.
I took it down.
I was sick of the service because it was always going down, scrambling passwords, slowing down and it is really a pretty crappy website service anyway.
I couldn't do anything with it.
I can do more with my blog than I could with that site.
I couldn't even put a hit counter on it.
The page that comes up and says it was deleted for either lack of use or for violation of TOS is a default page.

Prussian blue is going to return on a much better website ($$$$)
Which I have already purchased.
So when it comes on line you guys are more than welcome to come over and register with out any worrys about your posts being edited for amusment or anything like that.
I want to try to bring an understanding between us and do away with all the damn friction and mistrust.
Both sides have valid points to make and if we can rid our selves of the constant bickering I believe we can have some really interesting discussions and learn from each other.

Take Mansas ancient Egyptian thread for instance.
I read some of it and I found it to be very interesting.
I know very little about the Nubian civilisation and he did quite a bit of research on it.
To me it was educational and if everyone else could see it that way without all the hostility, we can have some very productive discussions.
So I hope to see you all there when it opens.
 
Thanks for the compliment Eyz, I've done alot more research on Ancient Egypt, Nubia and proto-Afroasiatic culture which I hoped to share in the near future which is all the more frustrating because of this ridicolous situation. If things stay the way they are that unfortunately might be the last thread I work on on MSF, considering the amount of research I put into it which I would be finished with by now if I could get the proper sources together.

I agree, you can't just turn a blind eye to this type of stuff, as long as a user on your board that is identified as one of the favored user base E.G. the non-racists on MSF, uses that same identification and can be traced back to your board their behavior is a relfection on your board whether you feel it is your place to do anything about it or not.

That doesn't mean we have to respond to every rumor which Kamandi has brought up as a concern, sure it sets a bad precedent to respond and acknowledge every supposed mishap a member might be involved in and if we repsonded to one we might be chasing around a bunch of complaints to no end.

This wasn't the case with Yama I'd seen conclusive proof of his actions before creating the thread about what to do about him. First it was the "Dead nazi" pic in which we all decided it was best to tell him to cool it off, then it was the cookie monster pic which was just uncalled for.

It's up to you whether you want to moderate strictly be technicalities or by a policy which has the interests of your site in mind. I believe Eyz when he says that Don Black would do such a thing because they do seem to be concerned about the image of their board. If you want your board to be productive you will consider the consequences of tolerating certain behavior on and off-site.

If someone raises a legitimate complaint and has evidence to back it up their complaint should be taken into consideration, it should not be ignored for fear that the issue will turn into a soap opera.

When the majrity of the Mods decided it was best to ban Yama we were diffusing the situation, I even offered him a chance to comeback provided he denounce his actions which he turned down.

Now he is unbanned, he is back posting just as freuqently as ever and sense everyone knows what he did they are expressing their disapproval. I can only imagine how many emails Descendant got expressing disapproval and asking that he re-consider his behavior to ban Yama. If Yama went by some unidentified name that has no connection to MootStormfront then it is someone elses problem if they don't know he is a member they can't complain.

But when he goes by the same name and openly does what he does leaving a slime trail back to MootStormfront it should be the board's business what he is doing, because it isn't what some random guy on the net is doing it is what an active MSF member is doing that people will see and the other members won't want to be associated with that type of person. The opposition won't want to interact with people who would tolerate that.


I have chastised Eyzwydopen, LordPlayFair and several people for using Yama as an excuse not to come to MootStormfront not knowing what a vile miscreant he was capable of being but now look. Now that everything is out in the open its not just them but MootStormfront's own members who don't want anything to do with such a site.

They say that you are who your friends are by association. In this case MootStormfront has become the associate of an obsessive pervert and will continue to be viewed as such until it breaks ties with that pervert.
 
Your talking about people trolling MSF, but have you ever thought that maybe alot of it is in retaliation for their websites being spammed?

- Probably not, because it began long before the Yama situation and hasn't changed significantly since.

You all must be aware of yamamanamas adventures outside of MSF.

- No, in fact, until this most recent spate of revelations, I wasn't at all certain that any of these allegations were true.
 
Eyz, I am switching jobs to one with much higher pay so sometime in the next month I will see about sending you enough money to cover half of the purchase price of the forum software. I will also try to contribute monthly.
 
US man on Net stalking rap
By John Leyden
Published Monday 26th April 2004 14:23 GMT
A South Carolina man has become the first person to be charged under US laws prohibiting Internet stalking.

Robert James Murphy, 38, of Columbia, South Carolina, denied 26 counts of using his computer to "to annoy, abuse, threaten and harass" Joelle Ligon, a 35 year-old Seattle woman, at a US District Court hearing last week. Conviction of each of the charges is punishable by up to two years in prison. Murphy was released on bail of $50,000 pending further hearings.

His prosecution is the first to rely on a 1997 amendment to federal telecommunications law outlawing cyber-harassment, AP reports. The law criminalises sending obscene email in the same way earlier regulations punished individuals who made threatening or abusive phone calls.

Ligon, then resident in Salt Lake City, Utah, dated Murphy between the ages of 15 and 22. The seven-year relationship broke up 13 years ago.

Prosecutors charge that Murphy sent "obscene and sexually explicit messages and pictures" to Ligon and her co-workers from 1998 onwards. These messages continued even when Ligon moved job or state. Ligon ignored these email for four years before approaching police, who allegedly tracked these messages back to Murphy.

Last week Ligon came face to face with Murphy for the first time since 1991. "He didn't give me any eye contact," Ligon said after the hearing. "He has been a faceless entity to me. I wanted to see him, and I wanted him to know that I was looking at him."

Murphy's trial is due to begin on 6 July. ®


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:E7XjvwjM89kJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/26/internet_stalking/+obscene+internet+conviction+2004&hl=en
 
Probably not, because it began long before the Yama situation and hasn't changed significantly since.

Kamanadi, Yamamanama was stalking and harassing those two girls and spamming websites with porn long before Mootstormfront came into existance.
When your site first opened there was a thread about it on Stormfront which I am sure you all read.
One member said that any site that would allow yamamanama to be a member has got to be screwed up.
I had never heard of him until I read that post.
But it is obvious that he had already earned the reputation of being a nut case before MSF was started.
When I heard that he had been posting porn and sending death threats to two little girls I began investigating him, you should have too.
He brought the curse of Yamamanama to your board and all the luggage that goes with it the minute he signed up.
As long as he remains on your board he is going to be causing you problems because he doesn't know when to quit.
Even while all of this cookie monster business was going on and he was in the hot seat over it, he was still lurking at Prussian blue and getting GFF members to spam us.
He doesn't care about anyone and he doesn't care what he does to your board.
look how he got Jan involved with his porn spamming.
He found a dim wit that will do what ever he tells him to do and he sent him over to Prussian blue to post an obscene image for him.
Then when Jan the rocket scientist returned and told Yamamanama that he mentioned his name in the post, all he cared about was himself getting into trouble over it.
He didn't give a damn about jan.
He didn't say to go back and delete the post, he said to just edit out any mention of him being involved because he didn't want to get into trouble.
Posting that porno picture was more important to him than anything else, even his friend.
And don't think for one minute that any of this has put a damper on his activities.

If you examine all of the friction between SF and MSF since it opened you will see that 99% of it revolves around Yamamamana.
 
Murphy's trial is due to begin on 6 July. ®

Note the key difference between Murphy's situation, and Yama's:

The law criminalises sending obscene email in the same way earlier regulations punished individuals who made threatening or abusive phone calls.

What he sent was an obscene email:

Prosecutors charge that Murphy sent "obscene and sexually explicit messages and pictures" to Ligon and her co-workers from 1998 onwards. These messages continued even when Ligon moved job or state. Ligon ignored these email for four years before approaching police, who allegedly tracked these messages back to Murphy.

That law, however, does not apply to posts on a discussion forum, for reasons already discussed - because Congress created an exception to the obscenity and defamation laws specifically for interactive web services.

Yama therefore can't be prosecuted under this cyber-stalking statute.
 
Kamanadi, Yamamanama was stalking and harassing those two girls and spamming websites with porn long before Mootstormfront came into existance.
When your site first opened there was a thread about it on Stormfront which I am sure you all read.
One member said that any site that would allow yamamanama to be a member has got to be screwed up.
I had never heard of him until I read that post.
But it is obvious that he had already earned the reputation of being a nut case before MSF was started.


Be that as it may - and it may be - Yama didn't join the site until about two months after the Descendant opened the site, and his first post didn't come until a few months afterwards.

There's no way that thread at the time our site began could have referenced MSF as being connected to Yama, because he didn't belong to it at that time.
 
Yes, but Yama also allegedly sent 'threatening' emails to April and the girls via their posted yahoo email account.

Also it should be noted that the law covers more than just emailing someone. Using any online activity "to annoy, abuse, threaten and harass" is still illegal under the law.

Another side note, regarding SCOTUS or CA rulings. They are quite specific as to what they strike or allow:

[18] At the same time, Congress’s purpose in enacting § 230(c)(1) suggests that we must take great care in determining whether another’s information was “provided” to a “provider or user of an interactive computer service” for publication. Otherwise, posting of information on the Internet and other interactive computer services would be chilled, as the service provider or user could not tell whether posting was contemplated. To preclude this possibility, the focus should be not on the information provider’s intentions or knowledge when transmitting content but, instead, on the service provider’s or user’s reasonable perception of those intentions or knowledge. We therefore hold that a service provider or user is immune from liability under § 230(c)(1) when a third person or entity that created or developed the information in question furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the position of the service provider or user would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet or other “interactive computer service.”


[19] We therefore vacate the district court’s order denying Cremers’s anti-SLAPP motion and remand to the district court for further proceedings to develop the facts under this newly announced standard and to evaluate what Cremers should have reasonably concluded at the time he received Smith’s e-mail. If Cremers should have reasonably concluded, for example, that because Smith’s e-mail arrived via a different e-mail address it was not provided to him for possible posting on the listserv, then Cremers cannot take advantage of the § 230(c) immunities. Under that circumstance, the posted information was not “provided” by another “information content provider” within the meaning of § 230. After making such an inquiry, the district court must then evaluate whether Batzel adequately has demonstrated a probability that she will prevail on the merits of her complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

As I said the court was quite specific in its findings. This case had very little to do, actually, with the supposed 'defamatory comments' that Smith made in his email; and much more to do with what degree of civil liability, if any, the defendants faced as a result of publishing it.

47 USC 230

(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) CIVIL LIABILITY- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).


(d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS-

(1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) STATE LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

Kamandi, I do believe that this effectively quashes your argument against Tuoni and the others.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm
 
I should note that § 230(c) is as follows:
(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) CIVIL LIABILITY- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).


It deals solely with the issue of civil liability, and has no effect on any criminal proceeding.
 
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc223NEW.htm

47 USC 223
(d) Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18$SSRH0


Whoever--

(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly--

(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or


(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(e) Defenses

In addition to any other defenses available by law:

(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsection (a) or (d) of this section solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility, system, or network not under that person's control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or other related capabilities that are incidental to providing such access or connection that does not include the creation of the content of the communication.


(2) The defenses provided by paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be applicable to a person who is a conspirator with an entity actively involved in the creation or knowing distribution of communications that violate this section, or who knowingly advertises the availability of such communications.

.........................

In the words of one of my law professors, "Conspiracy is a bitch."
 
Yes, but Yama also allegedly sent 'threatening' emails to April and the girls via their posted yahoo email account.

- This may be true - I really don't know, and I have no way of verifying it - so my comments should only be understood to pertain to the infamous "Cookie Monster" image.

Also it should be noted that the law covers more than just emailing someone. Using any online activity "to annoy, abuse, threaten and harass" is still illegal under the law.

- The federal law says nothing about the use of interactive web services which can be viewed publically to post things some party doesn't like. It prohibits using the web to effect a kidnapping.

As far as state laws go, conflicting jurisdictions and standards negate the possibility of enforcement or prosecution.

Think about what the implications would be if anything you posted that someone found "annoying" could be held to be "cyberstalking."

Kamandi, I do believe that this effectively quashes your argument against Tuoni and the others.

- Nice try, Ace, but you've failed to take into account the fact that this specific segment of the Telecommunications Act of '96, otherwise known as the Communications Decency Act, was struck down by the SCOTUS in '96 with its ruling on Reno v. ACLU.

More specifically, for a variety of reasons fully discussed in the majority ruling by Justice Stevens, Reno v. ACLU found that the CDA's indecency provision with its "patently offensive" standard was overly broad and unconstitutional.

Because the court found that only 223 (a) was severable, 223 (b) - (d) were struck down.

A severability clause requires textual provisions that can be severed. We will follow §608's guidance by leaving constitutional textual elements of the statute intact in the one place where they are, in fact, severable. The "indecency" provision, 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a) (Supp. 1997), applies to "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent." (Emphasis added.) Appellees do not challenge the application of the statute to obscene speech, which, they acknowledge, can be banned totally because it enjoys no First Amendment protection. See Miller, 413 U. S., at 18. As set forth by the statute, the restriction of "obscene" material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that for "indecent" material, which we have held unconstitutional. Therefore, we will sever the term "or indecent" from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. In no other respect, however, can §223(a) or §223(d) be saved by such a textual surgery.

http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html

So 220 (d), which applies the act to interactive web services was found unconstitutional.

Furthermore, 223(h) adds the following to the text of the Communications Act of 1934:

"(h) For purposes of this section

"(1) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section...does not include the use of an inter active computer service.


220 (a), the only remaining provision in the law, thus specifically excludes interactive computer services.

So, despite the fact that Reno DID in fact technically allow the obscenity portions of the CDA to stand, it nullified its applicability to interactive web services, thus extending the immunity to criminal liability as well.

The Children's Online Protection Act was also set under injunction as well, making it unprosecutable.

In the words of one of my law professors, "Conspiracy is a bitch."

- As I'm sure he also says: "Read the case law."
 
As far as the cyber-stalking part goes, the Massachusetts law applicable to Yama reads as following:

Chapter 265: Section 43. Stalking; punishment.

Whoever

1) willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and

2) makes a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury

shall be guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or both.

Such conduct, acts or threats described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct, acts or threats conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications and facsimile communications.


Since it's not clear that, with the "Cookie Monster" image, Yama made any clear immediate threat of bodily injury, it's hard to see that this applies to his post.

The California law under which the Gaedes live requires that the following be proven:

The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.

And the law defines "credibly threat" as:

a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.

It's very hard to imagine that posting that image constitutes a threat with the "intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target" to fear for their safety.

I can't believe it's possible to meet the elements of those crimes on the basis of what he actually did, given the above. In and of itself that image is hardly a "credible threat."
 
Prussian Blue's real names are Lynx and Lamb Lingelser. Their fathers name is Kris Richard Lingelser. Check out a new blog that exposes the Gaede(Lingelser)klan. http://www.movementexposed.blogspot.com/
 
Celtcwolf

Who fuckin' cares.

Last I checked their real last names are noones business but their own.

What is it with all the fucking losers out there that have to pick on children.
 
well, at this point all I have to say is this:

I find PB's outlook on life to be utterly wrong and hideous. I think April Gaede is a poor excuse for a mother. I criticizing what this group stands for and its propaganda is just fine.

However. So much negative water has gone under the bridge, I think that any further chasing-them-down activity is just pointless and only exacerbates the negativity. On the one hand it feeds into April's obvious narcissism-- I think she really does get off on the attention. On the other hand, it is just plain ugly. What is sad is that the girls are getting it from both ends, and I just do not see how that can be good.

I close friend of mine just died this past week-- someone whose life was positive, creative, and joyful. What I take from this horrible loss is that life is just too damned short for thsi kind of nastiness. I want no more of it. I don't have time to listen to it-- and I mean that literally.

I am going to go on my way, do what I can to make the world a better place, channel my efforts into creative and positive endeavours and I will just assume that most good people know better than to buy into this kind of negativity. If April and her family want to spend their lives wallowing in hatred, its their choice. A regretful one, but everyone has to choose their own path.

Just my thoughts. Please do not take this as criticism anybody. I just have to make some decisions about where my efforts are going to go.

Yours Truly,

Yo
 
FUCK PRUSSIAN BLUE ANDF THIER FUCKED UP MOTHER
 
I'm of mixed race, and am simply disgusted by this 'april' character. I'm about the same age as her children, and am appalled that three people could be filled with so much hate! This blog was funny at first but this post is downright hideous. Remember Amethyst, you have young readers, too.
 
Why is this post so hideous, 'Formerlytyron'?
 
Perhaps I was going too far. But as I was reading the post, I got a mental picture of what a drawing like that what look like! Ughhh...
 
If April Gaede is so bad as all the sites say then how come I only heard about her three days ago?!
 
Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?