Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Justice Department Prepares Assault on Pr0n
An anonymous reader writes "The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Justice Department is preparing to reawaken old laws to fight the war on ... no, not terrorists... porn! And not just the kinky stuff either. In the age of Internet connectivity, will this mean these jobs are headed to India too?"
All mediums are used for porn almost as soon as they are made, and AFAIK none has every stopped being used. No laws are going to stop it.
You'd think with it's war against religious fundamentalists in other countries (and one in which the Bush administration was touting that one of the reasons for attacking these countries is the lack of freedom the countries allow their citizens), that the U.S. would eliminate it's own Taliban killjoys. Nope. Instead these strict politicians get elected to office. My opinion is that people are just about the same no matter where in the world you go.. whether it's Afghanistan or the U.S.. the only difference is the magnitude of how corrupt the power hungry people have become.
Word of warning: Don't ever search for "indian woman" (without the quotes) on Google Image Search with filtering turned off.
This from a man who is *so offended* by the statue of Justice in the Supreme Court building, he ordered it covered up.
Talk about a right-wing freako nutcase. This is our government, folks. Get used to 4 more years when Bush steals the election again in November.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I mean, seriously, of all the things they could have picked........if there's anything us Americans like more than our booze and weed its porn and sex. Is Ashcroft BEGGING to have a lynch mob show up at his front door?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
No, really.
The only possible conclusion I can draw from this is "I don't partake, therefore it's bad and no one else should be able to, either". I guess this is the same line of thinking that still has people up in arms against homosexuality. "They're doing something I wouldn't do! Let's get 'em!".
Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance
Great, so we better shut down Nevada, kill all breweries, tobacco companies, coffee importation, and *gasp* Rock and/or Roll while we're at it!
They're going to try to go after a multi-billion dollar industry because its material "is obscene by community standards". Um, just who exactly do these people think are paying these billions? Hate to break it to you, folks, but Mr. and Mrs. Joe American. Consentual pornography is, by definition, acceptable by community standards. There wouldn't be so much of it if it wasn't.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
...is that instead of turning the other cheek, so many of them are bound and determined to be assholes about content that they don't like, but other people do.
I think Martin Luther put it best when he pointed out that chastity was unrealistic and stupid to try to hold priests to.
Most groups don't seem to try to legislate morality on other folks. I don't agree with, say, ecoterrorism, but I don't think that radical environmentalist speech should be suppressed. But religious conservative types *do* try to mobilize and dictate what content people want to view (or at least make it more difficult and uncomfortable for them.)
May we never see th
He's NOT right. The uproar caused by the exposed breast of Janet Jackson comes from people who are sexually repressed and conflicted due to the unhealthy mores of their various religions.
The last thing we should do is encourage this type of repression.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Apparently, if you're rich/famous (Janet Jackson) or a Warner or some large movie studio, you can get around the law by showing anything *but* the nipple on national TV. I have seen programs on "family" channels, which I couldn't watch with my family without a certain amount of awkwardness. And it's not just visuals...highly suggestive but just-under-the-legal-limit dialogs are okay too - if you are a large company.
I read in the article that they're planning to strike against some HBO programs too - and I hope they either go ALL the way, and get over their hypocrisy and sue everybody including their "pocket liners" in the industry OR even better, leave normal pr0n alone, and go after child-pr0n etc as is more logical/practical.
'turds.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Does anyone doubt our country is run by facists?
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
While obscenity is a Federal crime, the standards applied are "community standards".. So right-wing nutheads from will be determining what's "obscene" in San Fransisco. Presumably, pictures of gay couples getting "married" would be found obscene...
And you've got to love this:
The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.
NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!! Think of the Children! They'll grow up to be all, all.. European-like!!
Can't have that happening!
Can't the FCC step in and prohibit the use of the words fuck, shit, piss, cunt, motherfucker, cocksucker and tits? (New CHEESE tits!)
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.
It's interesting that the government looks for market-based solutions to behavior that actually kills people like dumping mercury into the air, serving arsenic-laden water to towns, or creating vehicular death-traps but when you offend their puritan sensibilities they go for the jugular--even when the market clearly says that a HUGE chunk of the electorate is all for a little obscenity.
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." I hate it when I sit down for a nice family dinner and we get interrupted by a call from those pesky phone sex companies. Worse still are the unsolicited porno mags that I get in the mail daily. And there's nothing more annoying than coming home at night and finding a porno tape that somehow materialized in my VCR. Kudos to you John Ashcroft, you truly are a politician for the people.
http://ipod.fresh27.net/
It's really wonderful that we're able to focus on naughty pictures and movies that American citizens legally buy. Obviously all the terrorists, murderers, rapists, Enron execs, and thieving digital pirates are safely behind bars, otherwise we couldn't spare the manpower.
Wait... what?
Yeah, the violence is nothing to worry about right -- people getting beaten to a pulp (Fight Club), shot through the head, mutilated, etc. -- what damage could that cause to society?
On the other hand, people engaged in various consentual sexual acts, there's nothing dangerous or immoral about this! I'm not saying that violence should be banned either, just that it's bizarre to censor sex and still allow showing people getting their brains blown out.
No, the uproar came from people who let OTHERS tell them what the Bible has to say about sex rather than reading what it for themselves.
That is the major problem with religion, people won't read the Holy Books for themselves, they depend on others to do it for them and then 'explain' it to them. But the people doing the explaining sometimes corrupt the message for personal gain.
Blowing the shit out of civilians in foreign lands, taking stewardship of their natural resources, selling them land mines, protecting the opium crops of our allies, looking the other way as our allies sell nuclear weapons technology on the black market, channelling hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to the "defense" industry, making sure Joe SixPack is armed to the teeth back home, destroying our own natural resources, canceling Constitutional rights as necessary, etc. etc.? Good. A God-given duty, in fact.
Wake up, folks. The only thing the religious fanatics that have leached into our government do not insist upon is the use of burkas by American women. OK, they also allow them to be on the same floor in public buildings.
But John A vs the porn industry; John A doesn't have a chance.
Porn like weeds has its roots deep and will surface and thrive in any scrap of dirt, through the tiniest of cracks.
So I say let Johhny Boy fight his porn war, maybe that'll distract him from doing some real damage.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Terrorism, war, hunger, poverty, homelessness, child abuse, disease, et al. We should be dealing with those issues first. Leave consenting adults alone. But should be be surprised that this administration is wasting tax payers money on this?
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
The problem with the Puritanical morality of the US right now is that it's insincere. People claim to be "offended" by things because it's in style, not because they are actually offended.
Notice the subtle but highly effective sexualization in advertisements. We seem to accept this, and allow our children to view it. We let 10 year old kids walk around with halter tops and belly button piercings. I saw a kid no older than 5 in a restaurant recently wearing makeup. Nice. That's what I want to think of when looking at a 5 year old, sex.
And yet at the same time, Janet Jackson's boobie pops out and we all have a fucking heart attack. It's all fake, it's a fucking fake reaction that we are all mutually emulating. Other people seem offended, so by God, I should be offended too!
The thing is, nobody (or at least, hardly anybody) is really offended by it.
Americans are fucking schizophrenic, and it's only getting worse. This Puritanical neoconservatism is really, truly dangerous.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Diderot
Here in Los Angeles county where unemployment is higher then the national average, it's estimated that Pr0n accounts for over 100,000 jobs. Great idea Johnny Asscroft! Get RID of jobs during a recession!!
You take away a person's porn they will not vote for you!!! Mark my words :)
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
This is what bugs me so much about these ultra-conservatives. I may or may not feel that porn is wrong, but I don't want them deciding it on my behalf!
I guess they have nothing better to do... no terrorists left to hunt for, so they're going after "immoral" people. *sigh*
I personally feel that some kinds of porn ARE wrong.
Consider child porn. Some people say that children are capable of understanding sex. Some say they are not. Either way, the risk of psychological damage is great enough that that we should play it safe. (Actually, I think child porn is a horrible violation of a child's rights, but the "play it safe, because you can't be sure" approach is easier for some people to buy.)
But when you have consenting adults engaging in acts that are intended to be viewed only by consenting adults, who is being hurt?
Here, the "play it safe" argument lands on the side of choice. Children aren't born with much knowlege, so they are to be guided and protected so that when they grow up, they can make informed choices. Until they DO grow up, their rights are restricted. But once they have reached a certain age, the responsibilities for their actions moves from their mentors to themselves, and with that responsibility also comes many freedoms.
So, to play it safe with children, we shield. To play it safe with adults, we allow them to choose. This seems very reasonable to me.
So, while I may feel grossed out by seeing a scat video, I don't feel the need to restrict other informed adults from having a different reaction.
Now, you may ask, is it HEALTHY for people to be watching these sorts of things? Violence can teach violence, and playing with feces is linked to certain mental disorders. Could certain kinds of porn make viewers mentally unhealthy?
Possibly. But consider the FDA and the Surgeon General. The FDA has laws which protect consumers from unknowningly buying foods which contain harmful chemicals, etc. Science has been used to prove that certain chemicals and microbes are harmful. Similarly, tobacco and alcohol containers sport labels which warn of their potentially harmful effects. But once again, science (and many DUI deaths) have proven that people need to be warned about these things.
But (a) Science has not shown any compelling evidence that porn is bad for your health, and (b) you are still allowed to buy alcohol and tobacco.
So, if the government wants to put a warning label on porn that says "we're not absolutely sure, but watching this could possibly harm your mind", then I'm all for it!
But that is the extent to which they should interfere. Oh, and I am definately in support of prosecuting child pornographers.
Or alternately we are offended by crass commercial exploitation of sexuality. The stunt was offensive and ridiculous. I can handle mature representations of sexuality on television, but that shit is just stupid. Don't assume the two groups are the same.
This, my friends, is why the second amendment is so critically important.
The USA has no king, since we overthrew George III in the late 1700's We did not establish a theocracy in place of the monarchy, whatever Mr. Ashcroft may wish.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
for all Ashcroft's conservativism, when he was in the GW hospital here in DC recently, I recall hearing from a doctor there that he could not believe Ashcroft was not an alcoholic, based on the condition he was in for. no facts to back that up or anything, but an amusing idea nonetheless. and frankly, i wouldn't be surprised; the more pious he seems in public, the more decadent he probably is in private. look at me, i'm american and cynical!
Karma: T-rexcellent.
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..."
Huh?
I don't know about you, but porn doesn't send me mail, call me, pop in my VCR (even if I had one), or switch my (can't-purchase-individual-channels-yet) cable tv channels to make me watch it. If he wants to pick a fight with malware that pushes porn into the machines of people whose only crime was to be stupid enough to use ms-outlook that's fine, but somebody needs to explain to him the difference between push and pull technologies (insert sexual pun here).
I'd really like to know, is this legitamite? I mean, sure porn is morally bad or disgusting or whatever you want to call it, but only from someone's subjective viewpoint. If someone likes to watch porn in their freetime at home, it's nobodies business stop them (given it's not illegal, such as underage, etc). But really though? Can this be considered an attempt to violate some sort of right to privacy? I think it is. I think it only funnels more immaturity, as it taboos further and further the human body. Pretty soon everyone of all ages in America will view nudity and sexual expression as some sort of taboo. Who doesn't like watching porn? It's entertaining, comedic sometimes. If you don't prefer to watch it, then don't. I remmeber a nice quote but I don't know who said it: I am a human being, nothing human is alien to me.
I found this interesting (from the article):
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."
Mail? In all my life my family has never received porn advertisements by mail. I find this interesting. Maybe others have different stories.
VCR? HOW CAN IT INVADE MY VCR?! Does the tape walk over to my house and pop itself in?
Cable TV? Well, when i was little the video was scrambled but the audio was fine and clear.
Internet? Well I won't argue that. It is all over the net, and bless the fact that it is, but i do find bestiality emails rather repulsive.
Most interesting seems to be the suggestion that the 1970's ruling, which required the application of community standards of decency, must consider the community into which the product was introduced. Here we see a product released over the internet. The producers say this is subject to the [average] standards of the community of the whole internet and not just the town where the order was sent. Of course these internet standards will be different than those of the folks in Pittsburgh. But this raises even more questions...
If a purvey of putrid porn is prosecuted under state law, but the standard of decency is that of the internet as a whole, do we expect a jury of local folks to be able to set aside their personal feelings and understand that the rest of the world feels differently? Or must we find a way to draw a jury from the whole of the internet? Certainly states cannot compell jurors from other jurisdictions... the problem goes on.
In the end, I suspect we'll endure the total federalisation of yet another aspect of the law.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
... I actually read the article.
The investigation team seams to after some very extreme stuff.
Anyhow I find it curious that they mentioned something like near-european like tolerance of pornography. What's that supposed to mean?
Yes, believe it or not, you can see naked women on billboards advertising skin lotion. You can see naked women (and/or men) on magazines. Open them up and you see: Guess what? Naked women and/or men. Just that. No extreme posing, no sick and somewhat unaestetic pussy tearing or any of that kind of stuff.
As prudish as a large portion of US citizens may be, the most extreme (and sick) porn I've ever seen comes from the US. I strongly suspect there's a link there somewhere.
I met an american once who noticed the same. He said like 'Yeah, here in germany you keep turning your head for those magazines laid out right next to the newspaper and you're all mixed why no one's irritated. But when you look inside it's cuddly inocent naked girls, much softer porn than what you see in the american editions.' Right on.
I'd say it may be time for you across the pond to lighten up a little, no? Ok, so some people say the US may be founded by all the crazy religious fanatics that got chucked out of europe a few centuries ago, but aren't things changing for the better over there? Or are they getting whorse?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
There is an interesting problem in ethics that arises from the pornography debate (and some other debates also.)
Assume for the sake of the argument that it is proven that use some kind of pornography leads people to behave in ways that damage others. (E.g. by watching violent pornography, men become more likely to commit rape.) Furthermore, assume that there is no damage involved in the production of the material (E.g. they are filming simulated rapes, not real ones.)
Is this grounds for banning that type of pornography?
The Utilitarian argument: Availability of this material provides entertainment, which is good. It leads to more rapes which is bad. The badness of the rapes very heavily outweighs the goodness of the entertainment, so overall we are much better off to ban the pornography.
The Libertarian argument: Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If a man commits rape, he is 100% responsible for having done so, whether or not he has watched violent porn. It is unjust to prevent one person from choosing to use this porn because its availability might lead some other person to choose to commit a crime.
(I personally would argue for a middle ground between these extremes, but here I'm more interested in presenting the issues than in arguing for a particular resolution.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
And, according to the linked article (emphasis mine):
Other than spam, which I'll grant does sneak in, if this is an "invasion" we've outdone the French in surrendering to it.
Porn doesn't sneak into your phone, VCR, or cable TV: you have to call a 900 number, rent a video, or order pay per view.
And so many Americans are doing those things -- to the tune of billions of dollars a year -- that the argument that the porn "violates community standards" is laughable. Porn is the new community standard.
But Ashcroft will find a way around this: Ashcroft had the case against Rob Zicari's Extreme Associates filed in the conservative Western District of Pennsylvania -- jury shopping so that the "community standards" of the whole country will be decided the citizens of the most conservative counties of the state that elected Rick Santorum senator.
And realize, all of you who think this is a good idea, that when
is to the exclusion of anything else Lam Nguyen could be doing -- like looking for Osama bin Laden, or the next Enron fraud, or even kiddie porn (which is covered under a different statute). Resources are finite: every dollar and every hour spent on this witch hunt means real and dangerous criminals are going to get away.
But I guess that's ok: we've won the war on terrorism, Iraq is a happy democracy, and the arch-villain Tommy Chong is in prison!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
So let me get this straight, John Ashcroft, whos never even seen a woman penetrating herself with the local prize winning giant cucumber, wants to tie up who knows how many police, fbi agents and judges pursuing a massive 'war' on pornography so that thousends of people can join prisioners from the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terrorism'? Actually this is a great idea, now the police that would otherwise be busting 12 year-olds for downloading music will be doing something else and im sure the porn industry outside america will be delighted with the news! btw europe is laughing at you guys, you cant even swear on tv!!? you cant even show 1 nipple?!?! land of freedom? dont make me piss myself!
:(
er 50 quid says blair or the eu will follow with their own draconian war on porn within 6 months
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Do not trust the pusher robot. Shoving will protect you.
Do you seriously believe that Democrats will automatically uphold free speech any more than Republicans will? Consider which president signed the Communications Decency Act (which was ruled to be in violation of the 1st Ammendment). Hint: his last name starts with a C.
Sure, the Republicans are doing a great job fucking us all over right now, but that doesn't mean you have to run to the Other Guy like a docile, trusting sheep. At least the militant "Anyone But Bush" types tend to focus on the issues/performance of the specific men involved, rather than some party doublethink that usually turns out to be exactly the same on both sides.
Either way, Nguyen, father of a 2-year-old girl, and his co-workers spend their days scouring the Internet for the most obscene material, following leads sent in by citizens and tracking pornographers operating under different names. The job wears on them all, day after day, so much so that the obscenity division has recently set up in-house counseling for them to talk about what they're seeing and how it is affecting them.
Time to call Childrens Services, Nyuyen surfs porn all day, he must be an unfit parent. Take his child away.
The knife cuts both ways, go after the puppets in government with the same tactics. This is why you triple check your IRS reportings, and make sure that girl you making home sex tapes is over 18.
The right wing controlled Government will go after you with all its powers, and any little law can be used against you. Fight back with the legal system, they will use it against you. (A man sued a judge in montana, the judge classified him as a terrorist.) (A gay couple has to fight all the way to the supreme court to fight for their right to be gay. You can thank Texas.)
The legal system is neither just nor fair. The hardcore religious faction is on par with the Taliban, they just use the courts instead of violence. The voilence comes after you loose in court, while you are being handcuffed and thrown in a cell.
So remember folks, BUSH is pulling the FBI off terrorism to fight PORN. PORN didnt bomb the trade towers on 911.
In the case of Janet Jackson, occuring in the context of the performance it was unquestionably sexual in nature. The entire performance was about sex. You're right that there's a lot of hypocrisy, but that doesn't automatically invalidate every argument of that side.
My own view is this:
Adults can watch other consenting adults if they want. I personally don't like it, but I'm not being forced to look at it.
Children who do not understand what is going on, nor should not in any way be encouraged to repeat it should not be subjected to sexual things.
Nudity is not automatically sexual.
As the parent post pointed out, there are plenty of things that are not explicit sex or nudity that are sexual.
So, by those rules, I DO have a problem with MTV's half-time performance. I DON'T have a problem with the statue of Justice showing some skin, which means I DO have a problem with Ashcroft.
As far as the article goes though, I'm not entirely sure what they're going after, and I'm not sure I want to know...
The difference between Janet Reno and John Ashcroft is the Ashcroft hasn't killed children, yet.
Dude, you need to start making campaign contributions. Seriously, they are only going after your industry because they think there won't be repercussions to their bottom-line. Buy a congressman or two, they are surprisingly affordable.
PS, this is not a joke. Freedom is not free, you gotta pay your toll if you want to keep it.
This article provokes a knee-jerk reaction against John Ashcroft, but the man has been quite fair in his carrying out of the laws of the United States, regardless of his personal beliefs. If you don't like anti-porn laws, fine. But then please work on your congressmen to deal with Title 8, Part I, Chapter 71 of the U.S. Code, at a minimum.
Much of the porn for sale in the United States is being sold solely because law enforcement has looked the other way. Nonetheless, the sale of the stuff routinely violates national, state, and local laws. You can't blame the attorney general when he devotes resources to battling clear violations.
Personally, if porn is the mark of an enlightened Western society, I'll take a little less enlightenment.
It's human nature to investigate such a thing when you read a post like this. DO NOT DO THIS!!!! It's horrible! Spare yourself! I'm gonna go bleach my eyes.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
I understand your objection, but here's something for you to consider: I've seen murder in movies, but it doesn't mean that actual people died in their filming. All of the things you refer to (particularly the rape porn) could have been staged by the porn company to get customers who want, well, rape porn. Sick, I know - but hardly *bad* if the whole thing was staged and the filmee was willing.
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
This isn't a crusade against porn. This is that scumbag Bush and his scumbag friends bitchslapping a $10 billion industry for not contributing to the kickback fund.
It's obvious that the current administration is in it for as much money as they can get away with stealing. The porn industry would probably do better coughing up a few mil in 'contributions' than it would legal fees incurred fighting the good fight.
when are these morons going to wake up and realise.. hey, its just a body, in its natural form, doing what its supposed to do, or what it enjoys doing. Oh hang on, their religion is built on crap like "sex is evil, sex is a sin" to keep everyone but the REAL wierdos sinning. Now Im not advocating child pornography, nor anything in which all involved parties have not consented to the action, but really, its 2004 for cripes sake, GET OVER IT ALREADY. if you werent all such prudes, you wouldnt mind explaing to your kids how sex works, without geting all embarrassed. I mean, it is HOW THEY WERE CREATED!!!!!. Note that this rant (and yes I realise it is a bit) is not aimed at all americans, or even the majority of americans(in fact the issue is world wide), just at those people who are too silly to realise a natural human act and desire when they see it. Unfortunately, these can screw it up for everyone else.
watch "the money masters" on google video
I hear there's quite a few recently unemployed ex-Taliban who are highly skilled in the areas of repression, banning things and generally sticking their nose into other peoples business.
They should be perfect for the role.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
> Temporary injunctions also work well for business disruption.
That Bush administration, always looking for jobs.
How many people does the porn industry employ? From production to video stores in has to be a giant industry.
This is what you get when you mix politics and religion, people.
Lets restate that a little bit, it is the only way that is acceptable to you.
And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what is acceptable to me?
If your only answer is your belief then just believe what you want and let others believe what they want.
Not doing so makes you equally close minded as Islamic fundamentalists (who incidentely will quite agree on this specific issue of sex and marriage)
This is truly a disturbing parellel.
This guy basically just looked at something that a LOT of people shell out their hard earned money for and said "I don't like it, let's crack down".
This guy is absolutely off his fucking rocker. I want to know what he bases this crackdown on? Has a large portion of the consenting adult population suddenly decided to go on a porn-free diet? Does he have persuasive documentation to show that a significant number of children are being adversely affected by pornography despite a reasonable effort from parents to monitor their children?
I don't know how many more people I speak for when I say this. But, Mr. Ashcroft. Get the fuck out of my life. If you don't have better things to do with your time than this, you don't have anything worthwhile to do with your time, and I'm tired of paying your salary.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
This will end up like the war on Alcohol (1920's) and the War on Drugs. Miserable failures that do nothing but give more power to organized crime. If they have a problem with porn then they should put a tax on it, Same with drugs. Ashcroft strikes me as the type that would make it illegal to copulate accept for the purpose of procreation.
Actually I prefer the war on porn.. with no porn who is going to fund all the evil DRM projects 8)
Now really...
If you're in the prawn... er, pr0n industry and you are fearing outsourcing, I don't think you should be worried about India.
Regardless of whether you're an actor, a cameraperson, a producer, or a computer geek - you should be worried about Central and Eastern Europe.
This outsourcing wave has been underway for years already. On 01 May it's going to become a whole lot cheaper, as certain borders vanish into memory.
So please, before you take yet another jab at the Indians, have a look around the industry in question.
It's really shocking how often self-proclaimed "open-minded" (or even self-proclaimed "smart") people around here default to these borderline-racist positions.
This Like That - fun with words!
You're assuming that the consumers of pornography would otherwise be "normal" people if they weren't exposed to porn. The majority of people can look at porn without it becoming a problem. It is the minority who are affected, when "it undermines their relationships with others."
It's a big assumption to say that they are capable of having a normal relationship with others in the first place. Perhaps the reason they turn to porn is because they are, in fact, incapable. Porn is not the cause of problems, it is the effect.
And, similarly, taking it away doesn't fix those problems. In fact, if porn were made illegal, I think we'd see an increase in rapes and similar crimes -- from people who need other outlets for their sex drive.
Honestly, it's rather narrow-minded to believe that all people are "normal," and it's things like porn and drugs and alcohol that turn them into freaks. Of course the "normal" people can be content without porn and drugs and alcohol. They have good genes, they were raised right... They have what it takes to be happy, without needing vices to get them there.
Everybody else, though, needs certain things to help them through their struggles. If they need those things, then taking them away won't make their struggles any better, and would often make them worse.
So there's no benefit in going after porn. People who choose to view it do it for a reason. If they don't need porn to get them through life, fine. Nobody's forcing them to look at it. But if they do need it, then taking it away would be infringing upon their rights.
Remember: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. "
Conservatives *are* for free markets. Bush, Cheney and Asscroft aren't conservatives. They're right-wing radicals.. i.e. fascists.
I wish more people would realize this. I generally vote either independent or democrat, but I tend toward libertarianism (not the kind represented by the Libertarians, but that espoused by President Jefferson). I do not believe a completely unregulated free market is the right way; otherwise, we end up with corporations in control, as they wield all the power. (Kind of like we have now.)
Just wanted to clarify, so you know my biases.
But: those fuckers in control right now are *not* republicans in anything but party affiliation. I've known too many republicans, held intelligent and useful discourse with republicans, and generally agree with most of their viewpoints.
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and the others in charge of our country do *not* practice republican ideals: small government, reduced spending, fiscal responsibility, and a respect for personal liberty and responsibility.
They are fascists, pure and simple.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I really don't give a shit, it's your life not mine. Whatever happened to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Indeed... I think all this really illustrates how we've strayed from the founding principles of this country... as such, we're definitely on a fast track to being totally fucked.
pherris quietly puts on a fire retardant suit and watches his karma head south.
If you're modded down, it's truly a sign of how screwed up things are and how brainwashed the masses have become...
It's interesting, because I just looked at your site, and I really don't consider it to be porn at all. Not even softcore. There's nudity, but no sex. Why shouldn't people teach me how to use some basic Unix tools in the nude? They could be wearing any other sort of clothing.
:P
You should really have used your Powerbook for the picture at the top of the main page, though. Nothing takes away from a nice nude pose quicker than a bunch of legacy ports on the back of a notebook.
So let me get this straight. Does this mean if your under the age of 18 and you get caught masturbating, you can be charged with performing a sex act on a child?
I guess that means just about everyone between the ages of 12 and 18 needs to be registered as a sex offender.
Do these people actually think that a nation full of sexually repressed people are GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER?????!!!!!??????
Welcome the land of the free and home of the brave. Please pick up your shackles, and cower down in the nearest corner of your own convenience.
~X~
"Who here thinks Canada is starting to look good?"
~X~
if you werent all such prudes, you wouldnt mind explaing to your kids how sex works, without geting all embarrassed. I mean, it is HOW THEY WERE CREATED!!!!!.
To ad on top of your point of view, then its ok to show people get killed and beaten on tv but not making love.
Or let's talk about fear factor, I think its les degrading for a human being to make love live on tv than to eat cow turd just to entertain the masses.
Anyway I am certainly not advocating to ban any of those issues I am just saying that using the public money and resource on those matters is the most stupid thing that a government can do.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
He covered up the statue of Justice.
You can't get any more ironic, symbolic, or prophetic than that.
Leviticus 18:18 "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time." So its not okay to sleep with your wife's sister if it will vex your wife. (yeah i know it says beside the other, as well, so you could take it even further but i'm not gonna). That's your wife's SISTER. What if your not married? If it's okay to sleep with your wife's sister if it doesnt' vex your wife, then if you aren't married, well, there'd be no one to vex would there be? And definately there'd be no one to vex if it was A PICTURE OR MOVIE. The bible doesn't say you can't look at naked women and get aroused by it. Nowhere does it say that. It doesn't even imply it. What it does say is you should be loyal to your wife and not try to make her jealous. (and that you shouldn't sleep with relatives lol) The fact that all these laws (against sleeping with your FRIGGIN RELATIVES!) had to be spelled out to the jews of old leads me to believe that they were PRETTY FUCKIN' HORNY PEOPLE! And they prolly slept around, took multiple "wives" and did other crazy sexual stuff all the time. Especially compared to our current society. Lets put it this way: You walk into a room of people...There's 20 people there. God says "dont have sexual relations with those 6 over there, that would be a sin." What the hell does that imply? Is it not obvious? What in the world would a "reasonable person" take that to mean? Sure seems like god didn't ban you from multiple sexual partners or sex before marriage or whatever, he just didn't want you to disgrace your family, upset your wife, or whatever. So based on what I can see in the bible, vexing your wife by looking at porno would not be good in the eyes of god. She's your wife, you gotta treat each other good. If your wife and you wanted to watch a porn tape together I dont think god would have an issue with that! If your not married, you have no one to "vex", but yet you've got those urges, I really just can't see god up there saying "damnit extra, stop sinning for looking at that jpeg." Uhmm...no.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Now under the Jewish faith, you are judged by your actions. I think we all can imagine a few of God's ordinances we break as a result of watching porn.
Christians have a harder time. To a Christian, fantisizing about adultery or fornication is as bad as doing it. Of course, it's also assumed that we are all sinners at heart. So while God isn't pleased by it, he still loves us.
Thus watching porn, in of itself, is ok. The emotions and desires that it stirs up are part of our sinning nature. Even without the porn, the corruption is there.
What the big guy upstairs cares about is what you do to overcome that corruption? Do you let your boys out to play then fall asleep? Not ideal, but mostly harmless. Now, acting on those desires in other ways... well we are back to being judged by our actions again, aren't we.
I'm glancing through the New Testiment, and I find a lot of passages about the corrupting influences of money. I don't see a thing about porn.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
As far as I'm concerned John Ashcroft is waging war on the American people. I don't see anything difference between him using the power of the state to attack pornography, and other regimes using the power of the state to attack political dissidents. Porn is harmless. I don't particularly like it myself, at least not the crude garbage that accounts for 95% of it. But even though I don't like it doesn't mean I don't appreciate its value as a tool for creating a healthier society. Porn serves a very important purpose, and that is to make sex and sexuality something that is seen as ordinary and commonplace. When talking about sex is as uneventful as talking about the weather then society will be a lot better off. As it stands right now there are still an awful lot of neurotic people out there. Talk about sex and they get all twittery. Some even become angry or embarassed. Why? Because they've been conned into thinking of sex as something bad, or something to worry about. That is not just stupid, its sick. For many people like that there just isn't anything that can be done, except wait for them to die that is. Luckily people aren't born that way. Instead they are psychologically conditioned to have those thoughts and feelings. This conditioning is little more than mass brainwashing. Its end result is a person who has fixed ideas and emotional responses that don't change, even if he or she has experiences that would warrant that they change. They are impaired from thinking, impaired from forming their own conclusions, and impaired from changing their minds when the facts dictate that they should. They feel bad and anxious about sex because they were made to feel that way about it. This brainwashing depends upon lies. And not just lies, but lies told within an environment where the truth is hidden and questions and curiosity are strongly discouraged. This is what has commonly been called sexual repression and it is a form of mental and emotional torture. Porn undermines it, and if for no other reason than that it is a positive influence. Not because porn shows sex accurately or truly, but because it prevents sex from being made into a secret shame. I hate to say this because I'll sound Alec Baldwin, but if Ashcroft's crap is allowed to fly, I do belive I may leave the country.
This country is going to shit in a hurry in general . The american people are stuck between neo-bolshevik nimrods on the left, and puritanical pinheads on the right. How are we supposed to elect a wise and prudent government when this what we have to build it with?
Ashcroft has, in one fell swoop, angered and incensed me more than just about any of the crap I've seen come from the left over the past decade. You have to go all the way back to the 60's to find something that the left has done to top this nonsense.
Any SOB who will put a man like Ashcroft in power and give him free reign to persecute the American people sure as hell isn't going to get my vote.
I'm at a loss for words. I think my beer money's going to be going to the EFF and the ACLU this year.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I personally am not worried about actions against porn. If it were gone, I wouldn't really care. IMO ideas, ideals, thoughts, beliefs, inspirations, etc... must not be censored whether I believe them or not. Artwork - images to evoke a reaction (wherever that reaction may be) is up to society as a whole to compromise on what is an acceptable standard. Images that promote excitement about abuse of rights or innocence (child porn, bestiality, rape, torture) need to be destroyed and their producers disabled from ever creating it again.
The huge pro-porn posts on here are incredibly defensive. I'm happlily married with a bunch of kids and don't have any obsession with porn that needs to be defended.
Porn to me is a small piece of reality torn out of context. Refined beyond benefit. It is like drugs, refined sugars, white flour. People try it and say "I like it. And it didn't kill me. Everyone is full of crap when they said this is bad for me."
Those that keep that attitude and show no restraint end up OD'd, too fat to get through the bedroom door or dying of a myriad of complications and diseases. They also often greive everyone that cares about them.
Sex is a perfectly good thing and so is the human body. I teach my kids that. I don't have any problem with real art that portrays the form of the body for what it is. I don't have any problem with my kids seeing the naked indian tribes on National Geo channel. I don't have a problem with my wife nursing in public. I don't have a problem with "lady justice" statues.
I do have a problem with the sex based purpose of dating in movies and tv, sex in commercials, and in general, the huge obsession that our society puts on sex. It is ONLY a good part of a full life.
People who sit in at a computer for hours (days, months, decades) at a time browsing porn really need to get out and meet real people, contribute to society and get involved. There is alot more out there. Every relationship that I have ever seen that lasted was based on a broad spectrum of things that sex was only a part.
Many relationships that I have seen fail ended with "he/she cheated on me", "the sex was great but there was nothing else", "we just weren't in love anymore".
The whole obsession with romance and sex is crap. marriages last longer in countries where they are arranged. They understand choosing to love instead of "falling" in love.
When my kids are forming their ideas about relationships, I don't want them pushed into a fictional, fractional view of what will be. I don't want them to think that porn is what life is about.
I also don't want them living in the kind of world that I see now where the 6 year old kid down the street gets mollested by the neighbor kid because the neighbor kid saw something "really cool" that his father had videos of.
This is my view. Flame away.
Without any God, there is no right or wrong.
Okay, say I admit I believe in God. And He is Eros.
Clearly, without a doubt, the pornographers are "right". The DOJ is "wrong". Ashcroft has condemned himself to an eternal life without any happiness. In fact, he's already started. ("Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance ...") Maybe he has already crossed over.
Do you mean to tell me I am "wrong" about God? How can that be? You said God defines "right" and "wrong". If your view of "right" and "wrong" does not match "mine", then obviously you are the one mistaken about God!
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Uh, metamoderators who want to feel their oats and encourage thoughtful moderation can go ahead and punish the moderators for excessive gullibility.