The Sword reports that “The Spencer/Travis oral scene has been pulled from the Fratmen site, and Spencer’s live gay sex shows aren’t available on sister site Fratpad,” while at the same time, “multiple gay porn bloggers have been asked to remove promotional images of Dustin Zito/’Spencer’ engaged in gay sex,” and “Fratmen has sent specific requests to highly-trafficked gay porn blogs and forums, including JustUsBoys and WayBig, to remove Spencer’s gay sex images.” The site notes that “Fratmen is deliberately removing the scenes and attempting to scrub the internet of the content that’s responsible for the most publicity and national exposure they’ve ever had” and speculates about why that might be the case.
Hilariously, Fratmen’s action has prompted The Sword to publish many of those images, which are now more accessible than they once were. While Dustin acknowledge his past on the first episode, it was glossed over, as if he was just naked in a house with other men, not having sex with them.
Incidentally, I was one of the people who received a request from Fratmen; one of its representatives asked me to edit this post so it would no longer link to a compilation of screenshots from an oral sex video because the site I linked to was infringing on their copyright.
I wrote back and explained that I don’t edit past posts for content, and that screenshots were newsworthy, and they certainly constitute fair use, which is permissible use of copyrighted content. The response from Fratmen was surprising, to say the least:
“As a journalist and TV critic, I’m confident you are aware of the perils of posting links to pages containing sexually explicit content that fail to maintain the labeling required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257. And furthermore, if that link were truly ‘newsworthy’, I would have thought you would have gotten your story straight before you posted it, if only to avoid the journalistic embarrassment of having to amend it. Maybe the purported video never was on the site; maybe the primary producer had been forced to remove the video because one of the performers was under 18 years old on the date of production… Maybe a pack of wild dogs broke into the Fratmen data center and destroyed the content with their magnetic teeth.”The joke of the last sentence aside, the two possibilities he suggests are crazy: 1) He says the video never was on the site, which of course it was (how else would everyone have screenshots?) and 2) one of the performers may have been underage—in a video they distributed! The Fratmen representative obviously meant this as a threat, suggesting that I would be in trouble for linking. But considering his company produced those images, that’s an insane argument.
Via http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_real_world_25/2011_Mar_16_fratmen_bloggers_dustin
