Slashdot Mirror
Ashcroft Pledges To Fight Online Obscenity
sil points to an article at Wired which says that Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress (specifically, the House Judiciary Committee) this week that "Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site operators that feature obscene images." "I wonder how one would be affected on the international level. So much for freedom of speech, and expression." says sil. Full article on Wired.
I tire so of the kiddie porn, terrorist threat, and espionage boogymen. Compare how many people are truely measurably harmed in anyway by all these things together things vs ..hmm.. say the chances of being seriously harmed or killed by smog in one of our major cities ... Yep, smog is bigger menace, and we all know the Bush administrations stance on environmental issues ... Protect us from online threats? -- Give me a break....
There's a site that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations
There have been a lot of them. In each of the cases I'm familiar with, someone got someone's name or address dead wrong in the database, and it amounted to a torte offense. They weren't sued because they were posting a list of pedophiles, they were calling someone a pedophile in print who clearly wasn't.
One local case, a fellow decided to post a list of rapists and child molesters in the area, obtained from the State Police, on a website and on printed flyers stuck on telephone poles in the vicinity of the supposed convicted. He got it wrong in at least one case, an upstanding father of three who had been accused of (not charged with, not convicted of) criminal sexual conduct back in the sixties. Well, the well-meaning loud mouth lists him as a twice convicted felon, convicted of abusing his own children. You know how well that goes over in court, doncha?
And when the spanking was over in civil court, the township fined his ass to the fullest extent for the illegal posting of fliers without a proper permit, and he was prosecuted for criminal trespass. You can't go walking up on just anyones property as you please to staple fliers to their trees, especially when you choose to tell the world lies.
Good job moderators, you moderated my previous post as flamebait. That's exactly what it was. Ashcroft is a fucking idiot.
Thanks again,
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
If Ashcroft really wants to make a difference, he should go after political graft and corruption in a city such as Chicago (and the non-Chicago parts of Illinois are begging for an honest prosecutor from the Feds to clean Chicago up).
The only thing that this latest effort is going to result in is some smaller pornsites having to shell out big bucks for legal bills. After much money is spent, 3-5 people will have some smears on their records, and the Feds will have spent millions. Perhaps 2-3 people will actually spend time in jail.
--
--
--
IIRC, it was exactly this topic that was being discussed when Justice Potter Steward uttered his immortal line: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
o/~ All God's children shall be free in Pirates of the Caribbean, when we reach that Magic Kingdom in the sky... o/~
It's a shame that the government would use Child pornography as a scapegoat to promote taking away someone's right to view pornography. Let me make some facts clear, first off my wife is the Euro Director of EHAP (Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia) so I have no problems seeing pedophiles go to jail or being killed (sorry I have no tolerance for those who hurt kids.) But using the kids is an excuse by the government to minimize the rights of people one step at a time.
There's a site that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations. Why doesn't governments all over allow these kinds of sites to run if they were so concerned with the children?
The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."
Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our nation's children."
Getting back to privacy, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what should or should not be seen on the Internet or other due to the impartiality of it all. For instance I find Rotten, Defacation Vacation, offensive as all hell, yet why shouldn't they have the same liberty to post their expressions? I also find the Catholic religion offensive so why shouldn't I have the same right to have those leaders arrested since it's not my cup of tea.
You cannot have fair laws which state The cow can't jump over the moon but the pigs can, because its not fair. Government was put in place by the people, all of the people, and to bend over to try and appease a select amount of people is hypocritical as all hell.
Aside from this all, how is this going to affect the future outcomes of privacy? First they say they're doing this for the people, then they'll say implanting your brain with whatever product they choose is in your best interest as well. Its extremely disturbing, and I hope groups like the EFF, ACLU, and others get involved to halt the government from overstepping their bounds.
Want Root?
Besides most animal are probably underage.
if you take a strict constructionist approach to the US Constitution because the 9th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned by the US Constitution or not listed but directly connected to one (such as the creation of new branches of the military) doesn't exist for the federal government. In other words the federal government can make an air force, a space force or whatever because the US Constitution says that it can build a military (by saying it can raise armies and navies, for those that don't know the USAF was once a part of the US Army), but cannot regulate pornography because no where in the US Constitution does it say that there is power to establish a national code of morality.
The only exception to that rule is for-profit pornography because that is interstate or international commerce. However if no money is made by the site owner (intentionally, not the result of bad business planning) then it isn't commerce and thus cannot be regulated. And for the morality police among us I would say.... most porn I agree is disgusting and unethical, if not all of it, but I like to think of myself as a man of principle and thus I won't make an exception here.
First Email Response:
Fuck You.
"bestiality" ISN'T a reasonable "fetish" just as
;)
neither is "pedophilia" isn't one either.
Bestiality is a non-consensual action taken with an animal who can't consent.
Given, one could argue that an animal consented... "he got hard, he mounted me, he licked me.."
BUT
One cannot expect that an animal exactly understands the actions taking place.
And an animal certainly can't give verbal, nor written consent nor non-consent to the actions.
This is the same argument against pedophilia -- that a prepubescent child can't fully understand whats involved, and can't really consent.
As far as bestial pornography goes, it really exists in a legal morass. It's probably illegal in more places than most people realize, although IANAL -- I would guess there might even be a website somewhere that details these laws.
And, besides, can you get an animal to sign a model release... not to mention, should it be 18 in dog years or human years before being able to Star in Lassie Does Dolly?
The other one is it is for your safety. They have metal detectors and x-ray machines at federal buildings because of the Oklahoma bombing. If they had metal detectors then, McVeigh would have been prevented from driving a bomb up to the side of the building.
Fight Spammers!
While I am still alowed to say the word fuck, and while I still have my freedom, I would like to say FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING CUNTRAG MOTHERFUCKING BITCH-ASS MOTHERFUCKER PIECE OF SHIT/b?, Ashcroft. take that for obscenety, the first amendment guarranties free speech, and was intented to protect the most obscene and radical ideas from censorship. They say only one generation wrote the constitution + first 10 amendments, indeed. America has a good system but bad people running it.
which has a very specific and well-defined legal meaning (at least here in Canada -- and I would suspect also in the U.S.) and includes such things as depiction of rape and child pornography. I highly doubt they are going to run around censoring `typical' adult sites -- especially since many Americans hold freedom of expression to be essentially inviolable. So, don't worry, your porn will still be available!
We really need a [+1 Flamebait].
sulli
RTFJ.
First name "Ben"
Last name "Dover"
--something witty
The problem with Ashcroft's statment is that defining obscene will probably just as bad as trying to define what pornography is. If anyone remembers, Dave Barry, Mark Russell, and several other comedians had a FIELD DAY when the supreme court tried to define pornography, and STILL nothing was done. I don't think that "obscene" can be defined except on a personal level and truly be defined, since I find things obscene that others do not. If the Government wants to take action against pedophiles, underage porn, etc, they need to define their speech as such. They also need to look at more than just the end product, the dirty pictures, they need to look at how the underage people are being exploited, WHO is doing the exploiting, and what caused the underage people to end up in the situation they're in, otherwise they're just putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Ummm... since when does an ultraconservative think he somehow "represents" us ALL? Where does he GET OFF acting like he's God? What will he do about the Hun and other offshore porn sites not within U.S. jurisdiction? Putting operators of "obscene" sites IN JAIL?! W. T. F.?! "Obscene" is now an offense punishable by IMPRISONMENT? Umm...
;-)
"We're sorry citizen, but wearing that shirt critising your government is Obscene. You are under arrest."
"We're sorry citizen, but those George Orwell books have been determined to be Obscene by the Party. You'll have to come with me."
"We're sorry citizen, but YOU have been deemed obscene. Your skin is not white, your eyes are not blue, and your hair is not blonde. Please follow me to the vaporization chamber."
Where the HELL are we going with this? When will america wake up to the power hungry, wannabe-DICTATORS in charge?
-Kasreyn
P.S. Yes, this is a very alarmist and off the wall post. Check your browser - you're at Slashdot! Whoops! Looks like you don't need to flame me for it.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
The second comment you quoted was (most likely) posted with the nice dry humor that is *so* hard to get across online. :)
Read it again, and think "<sarc>"
---
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
Nah, it'll be someone named 'Bubba'
that refers to political speech, you cant yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and you cant yell "Hi Jack" in an airport. If you publish untruths as truths you are subject to punishment. so why is pr0n off limits?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...