Guest Interested

Most ever Punternet users online

23 posts in this topic

I note from the bottom of the page...

"Most users ever online was 1,642, 30 September 2009 at 23:57"

That was the day it all kicked off with Harriet Harman calling for Punternet to be banned. She actually greatly increased interest in this site then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I note from the bottom of the page...

"Most users ever online was 1,642, 30 September 2009 at 23:57"

That was the day it all kicked off with Harriet Harman calling for Punternet to be banned. She actually greatly increased interest in this site then.

Blimey. You don't miss much, do you? ;)

Have you been away somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punternet will still be here when HH has long gone--and it can't happen soon enough !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny I had a client the other week that found punternet because of a newspaper article,it's opened up a whole new world for him and he's loving it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I note from the bottom of the page...

"Most users ever online was 1,642, 30 September 2009 at 23:57"

That was the day it all kicked off with Harriet Harman calling for Punternet to be banned. She actually greatly increased interest in this site then.

Well spotted sherlock, only took you four and a half months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was the day it all kicked off with Harriet Harman calling for Punternet to be banned. She actually greatly increased interest in this site then.

As I recall, many of the WGs on here reported similar increases in their site traffic too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Punternet will still be here when HH has long gone--.................................!

I think that is probably correct- and I would like to think that our freedom to choose along with the integrity of the idea of free speech, would protect us from the notion that any politician can stifle free choice/speech for his/her own political ends by censoring a website on intangible moral grounds.

Somehow I have a suspicion that something is afoot. Somehow somewhere. Political Swords are being sharpened, Laws are being honed & made ready and morals being chosen to be labelled "outraged" for presentation to the public as a riteous reason to walk over democracy and smash the right of a unsupported unfashionable minority to choose what we see do and enjoy.

Our "rights" whatever they might be are no barrier to political wordsmiths. Remember this business is held in the same esteem as any criminal enterprise ( yes we know what we do is legal - its just not palitable to the moral makers/enforcers, often mistaken as illegal even by people involved in it.)

We are looked on as no better than crimnals by most of the lawmakers and a lot of the general public too.

When youre a minority- and a socially unclean and "criminal" minority associated with drugs abuse, trafficing, pimps then we can expect no voice to speak up for us.

Something tells me somethings brewing. I hope Im wrong and I hope no lawful website will ever be removed whatever its content.

These sites are lawful....at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, Helen. that is a depressing thought.

My hope is a new government in May/June will start to sweep back the aparatus of government. We need a smaller cheaper, less perfidious government to roll back the freedons lost during nu-labour IMHO

Whether the tories will deliver is another question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These sites are lawful....at the moment.

This website and it's proprietor is based in the US thereby protected under 1st amendment, but I guess the UK government could force the IWF to add this site to their blocklist, hence make it difficult to access for its main target audience, the UK punter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well spotted sherlock, only took you four and a half months.

First time anyone has actually mentioned the actual stats Watson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the Daily Express at work the other week and there was an article which mentioned punternet, can't remember what it was about though, i only found out about this site after reading a newspaper article in 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This website and it's proprietor is based in the US thereby protected under 1st amendment, but I guess the UK government could force the IWF to add this site to their blocklist, hence make it difficult to access for its main target audience, the UK punter.

Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction

from the pandora's-box-just-opened... dept

One of the issues we've talked about repeatedly over the years is the question of what is the "internet jurisdiction." Since content is available anywhere there's an internet connection, under which laws should it apply. If you think that just because it appears on the internet, anyone's laws apply, then you reach an untenable situation where all online content is controlled by the strictest, most draconian rules out there. That makes little sense. And yet some courts still think this is the appropriate interpretation of the law. In the US it's already troubling enough that the issue of indecency is measured on an amorphous "community standards" basis, but when it comes to the internet, what community applies? As we discussed a few years ago, this raises all sorts of legal questions. Chris points us to a recent ruling in the 11th Circuit Court of appeals on a pornography case, where the court seems to have made a ruling that effectively says all online content should be held to the standards of the strictest communities. Thus, an erotica website targeting a NY subculture should be held to the standards of a southern bible belt rural community? That seems ridiculous, but it's what the court said.

In this case, a guy who produced porn content in California was tried in Tampa, Florida, because investigators downloaded his content there:

The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities.

In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime.

Of course, the court did say that punishment had to be limited to just looking at how many people in that smaller community accessed the content -- which could limit the punishment given by the court, but it still seems problematic. Other courts, including one in California, have found differently on similar questions, so it seems likely that, at some point, this issue will finally go back to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will focus on what counts as "community standards" rather than whether or not laws against obscenity even make legal sense under the First Amendmenthttp://techdirt.com/articles/20100205/1309128066.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction

from the pandora's-box-just-opened... dept

Yikes, sadly neither the left wing or right wing are likely to defend the sex industry.

The right wing are opposed for religious reasons while the left wing are opposed for feminist reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at today's Financial Times.

Two pieces on the evangelical influence on the Conservatives.

Where do you think the infatuation with nuclear families comes from. If the Tories get in will undoing Labour's security & spy state be a priority??

I don't think so. Stand by for the anti-abortion and family values onslaught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First time anyone has actually mentioned the actual stats Watson.

Erm....not quite so. Some sat watching the 'on line' number increase that night, wondering whether it would top 2,000.

Helen, I will share your frissons (if I may) as I also have the feeling that it is going to get worse. I don't know what happened to it, but Trish Godman MSP proposed an amendment to the effect that advertising, selling or buying sexual services should be an offence. And down here, the run-up to an election is always good for those wishing to adopt A High Moral Tone. Especially if they aren't claiming for their 'companions' on expenses ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm....not quite so. Some sat watching the 'on line' number increase that night, wondering whether it would top 2,000.

Helen, I will share your frissons (if I may) as I also have the feeling that it is going to get worse. I don't know what happened to it, but Trish Godman MSP proposed an amendment to the effect that advertising, selling or buying sexual services should be an offence. And down here, the run-up to an election is always good for those wishing to adopt A High Moral Tone. Especially if they aren't claiming for their 'companions' on expenses ;)

Lets not forget -We dont actually have any "rights" as such - we have presumptions that an action should be or has always been allowable and there is no law against that action so we presume we can continue that action unchallenged..

The terrorism laws cast a huge shadow over any percieved rights we have.

Those laws are abused daily - remember the protester at the Labour conference a few years ago?

Take this recent Facebook senario. As unpleasent and disgusting as it is, I honestly believe its wrong for a government to ask for the removal of pages from facebook, on the ground that it is socially unacceptable.

The subject matter (prisoners friends taunting victims) shouldnt be the issue. The right to freedom of speech is the issue- all speech should be able to be heard not just sanitised speech where a body is only happy to let people hear what it thinks they should hear.

Replace Facebook with an I.S.P. or hosting company, replace "page" with website, replace socially unaceptable taunting with socially unacceptible behaviour (prostitution) and bingo. Harriot the harlot buster and her genre have succeded in another control exercise.

This morning I heard the tail end of a news item dealing with what may become monumental news regarding how the internet works if the I.S.P's get their way..

It seems there is an unwritten agreement that bandwidth is allocated by the I.S.P. companies equally to all internet traffic regardless of content.

The I.S.P. companies want to change this and allocate bandwidth on a commercial basis. Omama in the U.S. is against it- as we all should be, but I'm sure you can imagine the impact of commercialising what content we get above other content on our computer screens.

Its much worse than paid for search engine placings ( Which google dont do right now)

With billions upon billions of dollars to be grabbed at, will the I.S.P. comps be looking to keep ministers happy, and pander to pressure groups to remove - not the rights or the sites but the allocation of bandwidth in order to.......

Keep politicians happy (and therefore onside).

Take the massive amount of BW used by porn - they wont discriminate between paid sex and porn, and sell it back to so called "Legitimate" business.

Just a "could happen" senario. I dont pretend to know the intricacies of politics and business - but I do know when they get together their power is far greated than the sum of their parts.

If we think this and other (incuding our own private) websites dealing with paid sexual issues are untouchable, because of some rights or other we believe we have, then I think we are deluding ourselves.

Once you have vast amounts of money running into the trough then the big piggys are going to make sure they get every drop they can, and will do everything they can to maximise their profits- including trampling over whore and whoremeisters pretend rights..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, Helen. that is a depressing thought.

Yes well lets not shoot the messenger here !

I just get a Frazer moment when I think about Harmen. If she knows something we don't shes a wiley woman. ( and as a top politician she has to be at least on parr with the sneakiest and most conniving gene pool we have)

If she has made a gaff then she will be out to prove something and reclaim her ground.

Either way someday somehow is suspect ...We're doomed ..all doomed capn'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a Frazer moment

You mean Smokin' Joe? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean Smokin' Joe? :)

No I mean Dads Army :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we actually have the right to free speech in the UK?

I was under the impression that we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a look at today's Financial Times.

Two pieces on the evangelical influence on the Conservatives.

Where do you think the infatuation with nuclear families comes from. If the Tories get in will undoing Labour's security & spy state be a priority??

I don't think so. Stand by for the anti-abortion and family values onslaught.

Indeed. What will be interesting to me is assuming the new law goes through and the Tories do get in, how vigorously they will try to enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I mean Dads Army :)

Don't tell 'em your name Pike :) !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. What will be interesting to me is assuming the new law goes through and the Tories do get in, how vigorously they will try to enforce it.

Or even if it somehow doesn't get through before the General Election, will the Tories even be required to finalise it (or will stopping it be too much hassle). My knowledge of the British parliamentary law making process is woeful. Does anyone really know the time-line for this new, much discussed, law becoming valid and live ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now