Justice Department going after porn

[Peregrine]

Let's see, Justice Department spending millions of dollars and many man-hours tracking down terrorists...oh wait, not terrorists, porn? Hmm...


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."

[Suicane75]

"In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."

President John Kerry looks better and better everyday.

[sterlingice]

Sure, it sounds like a great job at first: look at porn all day. But there's some f'd up stuff out there and you can't just look for hot women in porn because that's probably all legal.

SI

[Peregrine]

you can't just look for hot women in porn because that's probably all legal.

Not anymore, that's the whole point. It actually specifically says in the article that they're not focusing just on child porn, which of course is horrible and should be prosecuted, but regular porn as well.

[sabotai]

....how is porn illegal again?

[yabanci]

This is for Ashcroft and his wacko followers:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Suicane75]

This is for Ashcroft and his wacko followers:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


But dude, It's INVADING Us!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[NoMyths]

You think this is big, wait 'till they go after Roe v. Wade.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

"Justice Department going after porn"

Aren't we all.. aren't we all... if only it weren't for all the damned popups :D

[wig]

Man, these guys are losing me. :(

[RendeR]

You think this is big, wait 'till they go after Roe v. Wade.


I hate to shock you here, but what do you think the new law regarding double murder for killing a pregnant woman is? and the recent ban on partial birth abortions?

these are just stepping stones they'll use as a basis for a sweeping ban on all abortions if given the time to do so.

ANYONE but BUSH in 2004!!!

[RendeR]

and as for Ashcroft, I think Robin Williams said it best in his HBO special:

"I'm sorry Mr. Aschroft, but the Dead man scares us a lot less than YOU...."

[John Galt]

....how is porn illegal again?

According to the Supreme Court, obscene material is not protected by the first amendment because it does not constitute free speech. The test for what is obscene is that it must be patently offensive, appeal to the prurient interest (using contemporary community standards), and without redeeming social value. All of those standards are slippery, but almost all porn fails the second prong.

There is an array of federal statutes (although most obscenity statutes are at the state level) that can be used by the Justice Department to prosecute obscene material cases.

The point of the campaign though is clearly to chill pornographic speech. Most prosecutions are too costly to appeal and most business people don't risk a long appeal process. Even worse, when it comes to the internet, a lot of telecoms and ISP's may just start regulating porn in order to avoid lawsuits (and then it isn't a first amendment issue anymore).

The key point, though, is that Ashcroft is a big weanie.

[albionmoonlight]

Disclaimer: I consider John Ashcroft to be the single worst aspect of the Bush administration.

However, if all he is going to do is enforce laws that are on the books, then he's just doing his job. Maybe Skinamax IS illegal. Perhaps by trying to enforce some of the laws on the books that most people would consider wrong, he will bring those laws to light and (maybe) get them changed.

Oh--but I do agree that this is not how I would be using the limited law enforcement resources of the federal government if I were in his position.

[albionmoonlight]

As almost always, points well taken, John.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The test for what is obscene is that it must be patently offensive, appeal to the prurient interest (using contemporary community standards), and without redeeming social value.
Thanks for spelling that out so succinctly.

What strikes me kind of sad somehow is that I believe relatively few people actually know the simple facts you just presented.

As for the rest of the case, I find it disturbing that some people seem to be more critical of people who are actually doing their jobs (in this case, Ashcroft) than they typically are about people who aren't doing their job.

Anybody who wants to fight to change existing laws regulating porn, have at it, you're well within your rights (perhaps even obligation) to do so. But damn ... it seems a bit much to bitch about efforts by DOJ to actually do one of their jobs.

[Samdari]

The key point, though, is that Ashcroft is a big weanie.

Thanks for spelling that out so succinctly.

[John Galt]

Thanks for spelling that out so succinctly.

What strikes me kind of sad somehow is that I believe relatively few people actually know the simple facts you just presented.

As for the rest of the case, I find it disturbing that some people seem to be more critical of people who are actually doing their jobs (in this case, Ashcroft) than they typically are about people who aren't doing their job.

Anybody who wants to fight to change existing laws regulating porn, have at it, you're well within your rights (perhaps even obligation) to do so. But damn ... it seems a bit much to bitch about efforts by DOJ to actually do one of their jobs.

Well, I don't think it is that clear cut. The various laws are rarely tested and a great many are probably unconstitutional if enforced the way Ashcroft wants to (soft core, for example, has repeatedly been protected). Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court's fault for not making a better, clearer rule. However, I think Ashcroft isn't doing is job because he is enforcing laws that he should know are in conflict with the current interpretation of the first amendment.

[Subby]

I don't have a problem with Ashcroft doing his job, but let's face it - he gets to select the areas to which he turns the full attention of the Justice Department. If obscenity laws get the type of resource allocation talked about in that article one has to wonder what areas of enforcement suffer as a result.

In the end it is a judgement call, I guess - it just seems like the focus could be turned somewhere more useful.

(This is not to say that I don't think the porn industry should be regulated to a higher degree, but that is probably for a different thread).

[JonInMiddleGA]

... a great many are probably unconstitutional if enforced the way Ashcroft wants to (soft core, for example, has repeatedly been protected). Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court's fault for not making a better, clearer rule. However, I think Ashcroft isn't doing is job because he is enforcing laws that he should know are in conflict with the current interpretation of the first amendment.
I think, somewhere in this bit, you actually make my argument for me.

The possible conflicts I see are more "possibly" (future tense). As you pointed out, a lot of things haven't been tested and/or in the cases where they have been, the SCOTUS hasn't clearly tossed a lot out definitively.

In other words, the laws are still on the books & remain valid tools for law enforcement to use.

Is there a possibility at least some of them could be stricken at some point? Absolutely.

But until they are, I'd be far more upset with DOJ (or whomever) for not enforcing them than I am by their use of the limited tools they have at hand.

[John Galt]

I think, somewhere in this bit, you actually make my argument for me.

The possible conflicts I see are more "possibly" (future tense). As you pointed out, a lot of things haven't been tested and/or in the cases where they have been, the SCOTUS hasn't clearly tossed a lot out definitively.

In other words, the laws are still on the books & remain valid tools for law enforcement to use.

Is there a possibility at least some of them could be stricken at some point? Absolutely.

But until they are, I'd be far more upset with DOJ (or whomever) for not enforcing them than I am by their use of the limited tools they have at hand.

I guess that depends on what you view as the proper role of the Executive branch. I don't believe every law should be enforced until a lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court to have it struck down. There are so many laws at the state and federal levels that wouldn't survive judicial scrutiny that it is a waste of everyone's time and money to enforce them. The costs of litigation are too high and the process is too slow. I'm not talking about the close calls here (Ashcroft should enforce those if he is not diverting resources away from more valuable projects), but in cases like soft-porn, it is just a waste and will have an unnecessary chilling effect.

[cthomer5000]

Honestly... can't I argue that giving me something to spank off to gives porn redeeming social value?

[Desnudo]

I guess that depends on what you view as the proper role of the Executive branch. I don't believe every law should be enforced until a lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court to have it struck down. There are so many laws at the state and federal levels that wouldn't survive judicial scrutiny that it is a waste of everyone's time and money to enforce them. The costs of litigation are too high and the process is too slow. I'm not talking about the close calls here (Ashcroft should enforce those if he is not diverting resources away from more valuable projects), but in cases like soft-porn, it is just a waste and will have an unnecessary chilling effect.

My feelings exactly. Plus the Justice Department has limited resources. If you use them on X then Y will receive less. I would much rather see them focus on areas of more real and imminent danger. Our soldiers aren't dying in Iraq because someone just downloaded some pornography.

[CamEdwards]

you know, the one specific case mentioned in the article is a guy who deals in porn tapes that simulate rape and murder.

Granted, it might well be ruled legal, but I don't think we're talking about "vanilla sex" as Larry Flynt put it.

[rkmsuf]

this whole obscentiy craze is getting out of hand. Thank goodness for Ashcroft et all that they can save us from ourselves. How did we make it this long without such guidance?

[Shkspr]

It's pretty clear from the comments of the DOJ official in charge of obscenity prosecutions that they are, in fact, talking about vanilla sex.

"We want to do everything we can to deter this conduct" by producers and consumers, Oosterbaan said. "Nothing is off the table as far as content."

Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible."

"I can't possibly put it all away," he said. "Results are what we want."

The AG has already gone after statuary in his own office, remember. They're not just going after snuff and pedophilia.

[John Galt]

you know, the one specific case mentioned in the article is a guy who deals in porn tapes that simulate rape and murder.

Granted, it might well be ruled legal, but I don't think we're talking about "vanilla sex" as Larry Flynt put it.

Well, they also mention HBO's Real Sex as a target possibility. And "simulated rape and murder" is really not that telling. There is a lot of simulated rape and murder on "normal" TV.

[yabanci]

Lest anyone doubt the mindset of these fanatical wackos in the Bush Adminstration, focus on the words of Bush's top pornography prosecutor, Bruce Taylor:

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity."

[cthomer5000]

How do you draw a line between between standard film and pornography?

simulated rape and murder = fine in TV or movies, not fine in porn?

That's not exactly my thing... but it seems like it's awfully difficult to declare where art ends and "patently offensive" begins?

[Peregrine]

I was discussing this with a co-worker last night. What's so insidious about this is that they can use the weight of the Justice Department to force companies and individuals to plead guilty or settle the charges. If it actually came to a jury trial, I think most people are open-minded enough to think that whatever their personal opinions on porn, it shouldn't be illegal for consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... it shouldn't be illegal for consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
But the minute you distribute it, doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole "privacy of your own home" element of the argument?

In other words, I don't believe this is about material being created solely for "personal use".

[Peregrine]

But the minute you distribute it, doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole "privacy of your own home" element of the argument?

I don't really see how. It's specious reasoning to say that it's legal to own but not legal to buy something. Isn't that like the drug decriminalization argument? Sounds a bit off to me.

[Fritz]

I don't really see how. It's specious reasoning to say that it's legal to own but not legal to buy something. Isn't that like the drug decriminalization argument? Sounds a bit off to me.

You can own, but not buy something if you make it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't really see how. It's specious reasoning to say that it's legal to own but not legal to buy something. Isn't that like the drug decriminalization argument? Sounds a bit off to me.
FTR, I wasn't really attempting to argue pro/con (in that particular post anyway), I was just making note of something that seemed kind of obvious to me - that once it leaves your bedroom, the "privacy of your bedroom" has pretty much ended.

{searching for a quick example}... There's a criminal charge in Georgia (probably same/similar in other states too) known as "use of fighting words"

If I sit in my living room alone & use those words, there's not going to be a criminal charge. If I direct them at, say, the mayor when I bump into her on the street, I'm probably looking at a criminal charge.

Same action, different venue, very different result.

[rkmsuf]

FTR, I wasn't really attempting to argue pro/con (in that particular post anyway), I was just making note of something that seemed kind of obvious to me - that once it leaves your bedroom, the "privacy of your bedroom" has pretty much ended.

{searching for a quick example}... There's a criminal charge in Georgia (probably same/similar in other states too) known as "use of fighting words"

If I sit in my living room alone & use those words, there's not going to be a criminal charge. If I direct them at, say, the mayor when I bump into her on the street, I'm probably looking at a criminal charge.

Same action, different venue, very different result.

What if you have the mayor over for dinner and get into a huge argument about the Falcons and the merits of Brian Finneran running a deep out?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What if you have the mayor over for dinner and get into a huge argument about the Falcons and the merits of Brian Finneran running a deep out?
Criminal.

1) I ain't likely to be inviting her over any time soon.
2) I couldn't afford to feed her anyway.
3) There's very little merit to Finneran running a deep out anyway http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[CamEdwards]

Well, they also mention HBO's Real Sex as a target possibility. And "simulated rape and murder" is really not that telling. There is a lot of simulated rape and murder on "normal" TV.

by "they", you're referring to the author of the story.. I didn't see anyone from DoJ saying they were going to bust the producers of "Real Sex". If they do, by the way, I'll consider that as ridiculous and egregious as banning Catcher in the Rye. But the only concrete example the reporter is able to mention is the "federal five", which probably would fit the definition of obscene in most communities.

[John Galt]

FTR, I wasn't really attempting to argue pro/con (in that particular post anyway), I was just making note of something that seemed kind of obvious to me - that once it leaves your bedroom, the "privacy of your bedroom" has pretty much ended.

{searching for a quick example}... There's a criminal charge in Georgia (probably same/similar in other states too) known as "use of fighting words"

If I sit in my living room alone & use those words, there's not going to be a criminal charge. If I direct them at, say, the mayor when I bump into her on the street, I'm probably looking at a criminal charge.

Same action, different venue, very different result.

The analogy falls apart because of the differences between fighting words and obscenity. Fighting words are not protected speech because of their effect on listeners (making violence imminent). Obscenity is not protected, but not because of its effect on listeners (that is an argument the U.S. has not embraced, but Canada has by adopting the MacKinnon/Dworkin regulations on porn). The location isn't what makes the fighting words in your example subject to prosecution, it is that you are inciting violence with another person (which as was pointed out above, can occur in your home).

The trickier point is why is obscenity not protected? Fighting words are said to be conduct and not speech - that is a tough line, but still defensible. Obscenity, on the other hand, is largely limited just because people don't like it. The legal basis for excluding it is unclear and I don't really have a clue what it is even after reading all the Supreme Court's obscenity cases.

[Senator]

Don't listen to Cam. He is now in the inner circle. Beltway mentality I have heard it called.

Step away from the ivory towers Mr. Edwards!! (this is better if you use the voice from the father on King of Queens).

[John Galt]

by "they", you're referring to the author of the story.. I didn't see anyone from DoJ saying they were going to bust the producers of "Real Sex". If they do, by the way, I'll consider that as ridiculous and egregious as banning Catcher in the Rye. But the only concrete example the reporter is able to mention is the "federal five", which probably would fit the definition of obscene in most communities.

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."

I see the "they" as the Feds in that paragraph.

And has been pointed out above, the Justice Department did just hire Taylor who has previously said:

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity."

There is also the issue of forum shopping by the Feds (trying the Federal Five case in Pittsburgh) - that is a sign of extremely aggressive and ethically suspect prosecution.

I don't think the allocation of resources behind this can be dismissed. I'm more than a little worried about Ashcroft's crusade.

[CamEdwards]

Don't listen to Cam. He is now in the inner circle. Beltway mentality I have heard it called.

Step away from the ivory towers Mr. Edwards!! (this is better if you use the voice from the father on King of Queens).

hush your mouth. I'm far from the ivory towers.


well, okay... I'm not that far. Too far to walk there, however.

[Glengoyne]

There are no Justice Department Officials stating that "Nothing is off limits". That was a pseudo quote that was unattributed to a source. Did a couple of guys say "Nothing is off limits. We will be reviewing everything"? I am suspecting that Chicken Little should have a by-line on the article, or maybe the boy who cried wolf.

That said. I am a God fearing Christian man, and if the DoJ tries to take away my porn, they'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hand.

[Bonegavel]

The analogy falls apart because of the differences between fighting words and obscenity. Fighting words are not protected speech because of their effect on listeners (making violence imminent). Obscenity is not protected, but not because of its effect on listeners (that is an argument the U.S. has not embraced, but Canada has by adopting the MacKinnon/Dworkin regulations on porn). The location isn't what makes the fighting words in your example subject to prosecution, it is that you are inciting violence with another person (which as was pointed out above, can occur in your home).

The trickier point is why is obscenity not protected? Fighting words are said to be conduct and not speech - that is a tough line, but still defensible. Obscenity, on the other hand, is largely limited just because people don't like it. The legal basis for excluding it is unclear and I don't really have a clue what it is even after reading all the Supreme Court's obscenity cases.
I have never physcially harmed another human being via fisticuffs. I could scream at somebody and tell them I'm going to kill them 1,000 times, but I would never do that. That should be protected speech. If they can define a crime as a hate crime simply by getting into the heads of the accused (as opposed to simply trying them for the actual crime), there shouldn't be laws against me screaming "i'm going to kill you."

[John Galt]

I have never physcially harmed another human being via fisticuffs. I could scream at somebody and tell them I'm going to kill them 1,000 times, but I would never do that. That should be protected speech. If they can define a crime as a hate crime simply by getting into the heads of the accused (as opposed to simply trying them for the actual crime), there shouldn't be laws against me screaming "i'm going to kill you."

First off, fighting words aren't illegal because they actually do get into someone else's head - it is more complex than that. The test excludes all but the most violent inducing speech/conduct.

As to your example, it is not fighting words per se, but it is definitely not protected speech. Threats of killing someone are illegal for a reason. Would you want someone to send you death threats day after day, sent you drawings of him killing you and your family, and come to your door and tell you they are going to kill you and have the police do nothing until he actually pulls the gun out of his pocket to kill you? Threatening somebody with bodily harm with speech is just like threatening them with a weapon - if it creates a risk of imminent harm, it should be punishable. And if you believe threats are protected speech, then you would be prosecuted for murder if someone repeatedly threatened you, came to your door with a gun, and you shot them. That is hardly the world we want to live in.

There are all sorts of speech that aren't protected because it is really conduct in disguise. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Some things just create a risk to everyone and don't do anything positive. Slander is another easy example.

[Bonegavel]

I do agree that, no matter how disgusting or perverse a subject is, we should be free in this country to talk about it and show it to any willing/wanting party. However, if Ashcroft is simply enforcing what is on the books already, what is the problem here? Sounds like we have some laws that need adjusting, not DoJ's enforcement.

If this approach is used (i.e., "I think they should focus on X not Y") how do you come up with a list of "what should be tackled?" Some might say not to go after murderers because the X is more important. Or, don't go after drug offendes because Y is more important.

Also, do you honestly think that this is all they are focusing on? This gets a lot of attention because it sells advertising spots for the media.

[Bonegavel]

from the article: But administration critics and First Amendment rights attorneys warn that the initiative could smack of Big Brother, and that targeting such a broad range of readily available materials could backfire.
Here is to hoping that the same "administration critics" are taking on the McCain an co's attack on free speech via their campaign reform legislation. Doubt it.

from the article: The law itself rests on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. California, which held that something is "obscene" only if an average person applying contemporary community standards finds it patently offensive. This is rather strange to me. Who decides whom an "average person" is?

[John Galt]

Here is to hoping that the same "administration critics" are taking on the McCain an co's attack on free speech via their campaign reform legislation. Doubt it.

This is rather strange to me. Who decides whom an "average person" is?

The courts. A great many court tests use the standard "reasonable person" tests. Over time, what a "reasonable" or "average" person gets fleshed out, but it is kind of a necessary evil in creating tests for adjudication.

[Bonegavel]

The courts. A great many court tests use the standard "reasonable person" tests. Over time, what a "reasonable" or "average" person gets fleshed out, but it is kind of a necessary evil in creating tests for adjudication.
Interesting. Not being a lawyer, I didn't know that.

[Ksyrup]

It's a community standards test. What's acceptable in your community may not be in mine. Back when I first came to Tallahassee for law school (1993), the local DA took on nudie bars and video rental places. He kicked the nudie bar's ass (we had one that opened and the first day everyone was arrested, the second day they opened and no one came, and the third day it shut down), but the movie rental places, to pretty much everyone's surprise, won. Now we have Rick's Toy Box and a few sex gadget/movie places, in addition to the local rental places that sell movies behind a black drape.

And the guy is still the DA. I guess no one really gives a crap either way...

[Jon]

The courts. A great many court tests use the standard "reasonable person" tests. Over time, what a "reasonable" or "average" person gets fleshed out, but it is kind of a necessary evil in creating tests for adjudication.


I'm also an attorney and have done extensive research on First Amendment issues and find the whole area fascinating. (Although I must confess, my main area of expertise is the free exercise and establishment clauses, but that's another discussion.)

Anyway, unfortunately, with the Miller v California case (the case establishing the test), the Court has made obscenity very difficult to prosecutre and dependent upon where you live. The standard is the average person applying the community standards of where the person is being prosecuted. So, what's considered obscene in Mississippi is not obscene in New York.

This creates an interesting conundrum with respect to internet porn. In fact, there is massive competition in the different U.S. Attorneys' offices to prosecute internet pornographers. (I got this from an AUSA who'se been with DOJ for fifteen years). The DOJ's position is you can prosecute (1) where the material is being sent, (2) where it is received, or (3) wherever a server is located that the material passes through. As a result, there have been many people who have been convicted of obscenity in the Deep South although the main hq was in New York and the subscriber was in California. It just so happened that the service provider was in Mississippi.

[Peregrine]

However, if Ashcroft is simply enforcing what is on the books already, what is the problem here? Sounds like we have some laws that need adjusting, not DoJ's enforcement.

I'm not sure how valid the "what's on the books" standard is. Especially given the example of forum shopping in the one federal case, they can always find states and localities where almost anything is still on the books. Alcohol prohibition laws are still on the books in many states. Bans against mixed-race couples marrying, ditto. All kinds of weird laws from the 19th century, in fact. I think that the obscenity laws, when applied to "normal" pornography (I'm specifically not defending child porn, illegal porn because of underage "talent" etc) are an example of selectively prosecuting "what's on the books" because of a bias in the current AG, and his desire to appeal to the conservative base that supports the current administration. Of course you might argue that every AG does this to some extent, and it's probably true. I still find it a waste of money and manpower that could go to more important things. I would argue that most people don't see the societal harm in pornography. Yes, it can be addictive, yes it can really harm people's lives (and families) if they are addicted to it, but so can many legal products and services.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would argue that most people don't see the societal harm in pornography.
Umm ...

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t297.pdf

[John Galt]

Umm ...

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t297.pdf

Being opposed to something is not the same as seeing societal harm in it. I think most people who find porn to be bad do so for reasons of taste, not because they believe it is harmful.

[Peregrine]

I think most people who find porn to be bad do so for reasons of taste, not because they believe it is harmful.

Exactly. I was talking about this with a co-worker last night, who is definitely opposed to porn, because he thinks too much of it is in email spam (which it is.) But I asked him if he would honestly convict someone for owning or distributing "legal" pornography, and he said no. As JonGA pointed out in his link, only 38% of people think there should be laws against distributing it to anyone in 2002. Thus, a solid majority of people don't see enough societal harm to pass laws against it, whether they find it personally distasteful or not. That's why we have such a great country, most people may find something distasteful or offensive, but most people would not vote to ban those things. That's why the Justice Dept. using selective prosecutions and forum shopping to go after people for this is so disturbing to me. What happened to personal responsibility? When did it become the government's job to regulate our behavior, even when the behavior is distasteful but not illegal?

[sabotai]

First time I ever learned anything from Jon or a link posted by Jon...

Them jews sure do like their porn. :)

[RendeR]

Quite honestly, the entire move this nation's leadership has taken to the self riteous, conserviative flank makes me unmistakebly ILL.

I don't much care of people watch porn, go to strip bars, or post naked pictures of themselves on the internet. Its not my business and it doesn't affect me, nor does it affect anyone but the persons involved in the act.

Quite frankly, if something offends me, I believe my first action should be to alleviate myself from the situation, unfortunately, the self absorbed of the world seem to think its better to take rights away from everyone else to suit their own sensibilities.

[RendeR]

I wanted to ad: Very good posts on both sides of this, I've been amazed at just how well written some of our members really are.

[Axxon]

I wanted to ad: Very good posts on both sides of this, I've been amazed at just how well written some of our members really are.

We can't have this. Quick Peregrine, delete this thread post haste!



;)

[Leonidas]

My libertarian inner self is in deep conflict now. Dare I sacrifice the right to view this "objectionable" material to keep a man out of office I believe likely to raise taxes and introduce more social programs designed to make the masses rely on the largess of the government? This is a case of one personal, moral evil vs another. Maybe I will vote on principle this year and throw my vote away on a hopeless cause in the name of making a statement.

[Buccaneer]

It's funny to read all of the biased bashing when Lieberman said the same thing and the DoJ was doing the same thing under Clinton. Some of you just have short-termed warped memories.

But it's your fault anyways.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Tobacco because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Gun because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Smokestacks because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Bad Foods because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big SUVs because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Bad Speech because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Anything because it was hurting someone and now you complaining that they are going after Big Porn???

How hypocritical, shame on you. If you are just now bringing up the First Amendment (or any other Amendments), where the fuck were you when you let them invade our lives earlier? :mad:

[Axxon]

It's funny to read all of the biased bashing when Lieberman said the same thing and the DoJ was doing the same thing under Clinton. Some of you just have short-termed warped memories.

But it's your fault anyways.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Tobacco because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Gun because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Smokestacks because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Bad Foods because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big SUVs because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Bad Speech because it was invading our lives.

You wanted the Trial Lawyers and their Democratic allies to go after Big Anything because it was hurting someone and now you complaining that they are going after Big Porn???

How hypocritical, shame on you. If you are just now bringing up the First Amendment (or any other Amendments), where the fuck were you when you let them invade our lives earlier? :mad:


Wow, I didn't want any of these even though I don't smoke, own a gun or an SUV or a smokestack for that matter. I don't want the current administration going after porn or any of the above things either. I don't know what to say except I was in the exact same place I am in now, shaking my head and weeping for our future.

[Buccaneer]

Wow, I didn't want any of these even though I don't smoke, own a gun or an SUV or a smokestack for that matter. I don't want the current administration going after porn or any of the above things either. I don't know what to say except I was in the exact same place I am in now, shaking my head and weeping for our future.
Should have spoken up years ago, including during the Clinton Admin when a lot of this was happening as well. It's just continued downwards trend, as long as people want the govt to DO SOMETHING.

[Axxon]

Should have spoken up years ago, including during the Clinton Admin when a lot of this was happening as well. It's just continued downwards trend, as long as people want the govt to DO SOMETHING.

Maybe, but it appears to me that no matter what somebody wants the government to DO SOMETHING and as nature abhors a vacuum stopping them from doing one thing just raises the voice of someone wanting something else.

That being said, I'd say porn hits closer to home than the things above that I already don't have or want. :)

[Leonidas]

As Thoreau so aptly said, "The best government is that which governs least, or preferably not at all."

Since when did it become popular to want the government to fix things?

[Buccaneer]

Since FDR? Since the Great Society? Since the poll-driven obssesity of political leaders? Since we expected and keep voting for it?

[Easy Mac]

As Thoreau so aptly said, "The best government is that which governs least, or preferably not at all."

Since when did it become popular to want the government to fix things?
Ok, I went to the Republican Sneate debate tonight (a whole other thread, but I don't want to Republican bash... yet), and Charlie Condon repeated the "government" phrase in all but 2 of the 9 times he talked. So please, no one use that phrase for the rest of my life.

And Bucc, all the things you mentioned are things that potentially harm people. Bob jacking off in his bathroom hurts no one, unless his sprays his load out of the window and it hits an SUV with a driver who is smoking and eating a hamburger while shooting a gun and that pierces a smokestack owned by the world's greatest carbon dioxide emmiter.

[Fritz]

Since FDR? Since the Great Society? Since the poll-driven obssesity of political leaders? Since we expected and keep voting for it?

obssesity?

[Easy Mac]

its related to obesity

[Buccaneer]

Easy Mac, read the long list of complaints about porn from family organizations, feminists groups, rape and sexual awareness groups, psychatrists, pastors and councelors, school teachers and administrators, workplace and sexual harassment advisors, etc.

[Buccaneer]

obssesity?
Bad spelling. It's the word for the act of being obsessive, if that's even spelled right.

[Mac Howard]

Australia has had strict Internet anti-porn laws for a couple of years now. It prosecutes them with considerable vigour. The last I heard, government had spent $300 million ($4 billion scaled to USA proportions) and it had closed down, erm......., two sites. :rolleyes:

Porn is as available here on the net as it ever was, it's merely off-shore.

[sabotai]

Isn't government great?

[yabanci]

most people seem to worship it.

[Peregrine]

But it's your fault anyways.

I think your post is going a bit overboard Bucc. First of all, who exactly are you accusing of this, beyond an amorphous they? Second of all, nice way to smear together about ten different issues as if they were part of some giant conspiracy.

Tobacco - I don't personally smoke, and don't really have a problem with it. If they really were aiming advertisements towards kids, I have a problem with that, just as I would if porn was being targetted towards kids. But adults should be able to smoke or do whatever they want.

Guns - Own all the guns you want, I don't care. I'm against gun control.

Smokestacks - Lumping the environment in with an argument like this is pretty unnecessary, it's really a whole separate argument. I'm pro-environment, but not generally pro-environmentalist. I just want some realistic protections that will actually help people and keep some parts of our wilderness areas separate, without going overboard and trying to protect every wacky species and stop progress whenever possible.

Big Foods - Who actually supports this? This is one of those things where a few lawsuits by fringe types gets blown out of proportion.

SUVs - Again, who actually supports this? I haven't seen any serious lawsuits trying to stop people from owning them. Should the CAFE standards be adjusted? Hell yes in my opinion, just because I get tired of seeing an entire industry shoved through one tiny loophole. Beyond that, drive whatever you want, it's your choice.

Big Bad Speech - Are you serious? I'm not even sure what you mean by this. If you mean the establishment of religion stuff, again, you're confusing some lawsuits by fringe elements with mainstream support.

Obviously you don't like trial lawyers, that's all well and good. I personally despise some of their actions, especially the malpractice lawyers like our former Senator from NC, Edwards. But don't use that as some kind of smokescreen to support any administration to attack personal decisions that we should be free to make, distasteful or no. Alcohol causes a host of societal ills, alcoholism, drunk driving, is a major factor in spousal abuse, etc. Should we make it illegal? No in my opinion, because ultimately it comes down to an individual choice. People are free to object to porn and find it distasteful, that's their right and they should exercise it. But to take that to the next level and try to legislate that dislike on everyone else is unacceptable to me, by any party or government.

I voted for Bush the first time around because I thought Republicans were the party of personal liberties and responsibility. Apparently trying to legislate morality is throwing that out the window, I'm disappointed more than anything else.

[Buccaneer]

Overboard? Perhaps. Just making a point in reaction to those saying govt has no business in legislating porn but they will favor legislating many other things that govt still doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so. Maybe this whole list is not a good one but not one of them is constitutional either. If you want to throw up the "welfare" clause from the preamble, then porn certainly falls into that as well. That's where the hypocrisy comes from. They don't mind having things legislated but once it touches them, watch out.

Here's an exercise. Someone find the congressional authority providing the basis for the latest DoJ crusade. I think you would be surprised (hint, it wasn't under Bush).