More on the bogus "FBI forces Suicide Girls to remove pics" story

[swag]

Some might recall this thread which, unfortunately, found its way to the "Greatest" page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4888172

Another take on the matter is below the dotted line, in un-pink's well documented web entry on Suicide Girls and what's really happening. I would have provided a link to this archived thread, which discusses the pro-war neo-con worshipping male proprietor of SG,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3997417

in response to the phony "Bush Porn War on Suicide Girls" thread,
but DU was at level 3, I couldn't search the archives, and I was getting sleepy and distracted.

Here is the latest on the sg "war on porn" story:
----------------------
http://un-pink.blogspot.com/2005/09/suicidegirls-two-weeks-later-so-two.html

Excerpt:

Events as follows.

1.Suicidegirls removes many of its most racy and popular photos. The ones that contain blood, bondage or death! And, in the last recourse of many a scoundral, they blame Bush. You can read SG's explanation here, though it's been somewhat edited because of the next item on the list.

2. SG's recent troubles seem to be causing quite a stir in the media. As of today there are articles in Wired.com, BoingBoing, , Fleshbot, BMEZine (quoted in the addenendum), and elsewhere. These articles point out that Bush is not, in fact, forcing SG to remove photos. Some even point to the convienant timing.

3. SG admits it is removing photos because of criminal case against rival site Deviant Nation

4. SG threatens lawsuit against the lovely Dusty, an SG who recently was booted over modelling for the rival site GodGirls. The text of the letter is here.

You see, according to the latest from SG Headquarters, they own the girls. At least that's what I'm getting from the above letter.

[mongo]

1. Interesting

Thanks for posting this.

[swag]

2. You're welcome.

fleshbot has been covering the strange story pretty well, via links to other sites and reports of course. And for historical interest, here's an old Willamette Week puff piece (un-pink alludes to it in her earlier blog post), which reads as though it were written for the Business section of the Oregonian in which the retrograde politics of the proprietor are alluded to, and which hints at, in the "comments" from readers, some of the model/legal problems which are now in full bloom:

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=3716&page=2

I think even self-professed pro-war neo-cons should be allowed to post any sort of material they want on the Internet, of course, but treating models like chattel, and turning around and then falsely blaming Bush for the disappearance of some of the more popular photosets is loathsome.

[swag]

3. Oh, and here's the technorgasmic article from when things were

really blowing up publicly:

warning: BREASTS on link. But maybe the mods will let me get away with linking this, since the bogus story was on the "Greatest" page for a good day or two:

http://www.technorgasmic.com/archives/2005/09/13/suicide-girls-is-owned-by-a-right-winger-who-treats-women-like-shit-or-why-i-dont-link-to-them/

[mongo]

4. That Sean character sounds like a real asshole

His contracts are illegal and he treats his models like shit.

And as far as links go, as long as you put a warning in for folks surfing at work, it's OK. I end up posting links to Adult Video News all the time, and their ad's tend to be explicit.

[swag]

5. Kicking, just because the lie was on the "Greatest" page for so long.