FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn

ErikPeterson wrote to mention an Ars Technica article discussing the FBI's new emphasis on online pornography. From the article: "Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults."

Comments

What's deviant?

[seanadams.com]

Girl on girl? Black on white? The butt? Golden showers? DVDA?

Since deviance is obviously in the eye off the beholder, I suggest the FBI should begin by carefully cataloguing each type of porn, and then publishing a free,
up-to-date directory of all these deviant sites, so that we can add it to our firewalls depending on personal preference.

Re:What's deviant?

[Seumas]

Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government.

Re:What's deviant?

[Qzukk]

I suppose I can understand an anti-bestiality crackdown.

Thing is, bestiality porn and bestiality acts aren't illegal everywhere in the country.

This task force is almost certain to exist for the sole purpose of slandering people who the government doesn't like. They may never score a conviction, but they'll be more than happy to publicize how John Doe likes diaper porn or Susie Q does it with dogs. So much for constitutional protections of due process.

Re:What's deviant?

[kent_eh]

If content or expression is well within accepted community standards

Which community?

Orlando?
San Fransisco?
Fargo?
Salt Lake City?

Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?

Of course, we can just go back to importing Scanadinavian porn, just like our fathers did back in the 60's.

Re:What's deviant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love it if people actually read the Bible.

The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex.

There's two cases close to it. The first is a man who "seduces a virgin". He has to pay a 50s fine (which is done for purely economic reasons -- if she can't later find a husband because she's been deflowered, at least she won't slowly starve to death). It is not catalogued either as something worthy of death, or even as a sin -- it's simply an economic matter. (Ex 22:16-17)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus %2022:16-17&version=9;

The second is the fact that you can use and then throw away any attractive slave girls you can find. Their only recompense is that they have to be freed if they get discarded. While the Bible calls it marriage, it doesn't go through any of the normal rituals of marriage, and they don't even need to go through the normal process of divorce (which in OT times was just the writing of a divorcement notice to the wife). No real divorce, no real marriage. The man can sex her for as long as he want, and when they break up -- no harm, no foul.

This is fairly similar to the relationships we have today.

Also, it's important to note that Moses gave virgins as rewards to the conquering Israeli armies -- but he put all the captured women to death as punishment for having drunken orgies with the men of Israel, and getting them to worship Baal.

All in all, I think the Bible makes a lot of sense, I just think that a lot of churches these days are lying to their congregations in order to "do what's best for them." As a Christian, I find that to be anathema -- one should never misrepresent what the Bible says, even if you think its for a good cause.

At least a few churches are teaching the correct exegesis now. My friend's Methodist church, the, (ugh) UCC, my church remains quiet about it in order to avoid lying to teenagers that sex is a sin (the look away and whistle defense?). Even the main Jewish Church (the Conservatives) states that premarital sex is not against Talmudic Law.

In NT times, you had prohibitions against adultery and prostitution (same as the OT), and against general 'perversion'. The word for perversion was translated as 'fornication' which was then defined as 'premarital sex'. Some verses of the Bible are utterly absurd with this interpretation. Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication. (I.e., extra-marital sex, not pre-marital). The Bible has a word for Adultery, believe me. When you subsitute perversion instead, the verse actually makes sense.

Don't listen to me. Read the Bible, figure it out for yourself. Don't reply here until you've gone through the whole concordance on the topic of sex. The Bible prohibits a massive number of things (prostitution, adultery, incest, bestiality, drunken orgies, anal sex with little boys, even homosexuality) -- premarital sex just aint one of them.

Re:What's deviant?

[sTalking_Goat]

As far as community standards, even ultra-liberal (even pro-fetish) sex advice columnist Dan Savage thinks that poop-eating is out of bounds.

But thats not at all the point is it? Yeah, its disgusting and probably bad for you but so is cheap Vodka. Are we outlawing that?

Re:What's deviant?

[SamerAdra]

1 Corinthians 7:1-9 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Re:What's deviant?

[B3ryllium]

so is cheap Vodka. Are we outlawing that?

Y'all tried, once.

It didn't work out very well. Made a lot of not-so-nice people fairly wealthy, though.

Re:What's deviant?

[jcr]

Funny you should mention Salt Lake City, considering the history of the Mormon Church.

After all, they were driven out of Illinois because their neighbors considered polygamy a perversion.

-jcr

Re:What's deviant?

[Bios_Hakr]

The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them. When Jesus died, he completed the "old law" and began the time of the "new law". The old law was indexed by the 10 commandments and the rest of the 600+ Jewish laws expanded on the index.

The index (10 commandments) was arranged in order of severity. Worshiping other gods was more severe than murder. Coveting your neghbors ass is less severe than murder. There were probably 50 sub-laws that dealt with what is or is not coveting and what is and is not murder. Punishments were also laid down by the old law.

The new law had two commandments. The first was to love God. The second was to love your neghbor. There were no sub-commandments. And that's the problem.

Without any clear definition, early Christians had to "wing it" when it came to what they could and could not do. Is sticking it in the butt loving your neghbor? I dunno. And Jesus didn't really say.

So, now the old law is used as a reference. Christians can pick and choose what they want to apply. Is murder OK? Probably not. Is it OK to send your wife to sleep in the barn because she's having her period? Probably not. Should you covet? Probably not. Can you stone your son at the city gate because he didn't finish dinner? Probably not.

So, here's the deal. Christians can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.

Re:What's deviant?

[Lady Jazzica]

"The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex."

Sure it does:

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

2 Corinthians 12:21
lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Re:What's deviant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you flunk reading comprehension. The grandparent post asked you to read the entire concordance on sex in the Bible before forming your opinion. You not only failed to do that, you failed to even read his post fully.

The bible never used the word "fornication"; it didn't exist. It's not written in English. People translated it to fornication...and the grandparent is of the opinion that translation is incorrect.

Pick up a book sometime.

Re:What's deviant?

[Mattintosh]

Actually, just off the top of my head, there are several other commands to Christians.

- "Keep doing this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) This was uttered by Jesus at the Passover meal in 33 C.E., just a day before he was killed. It was an instruction to observe the Lord's Evening Meal every Nisan 14th to commemorate his ransom sacrifice as the ultimate Passover lamb.

- "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28: 19, 20) This was uttered by Jesus just before he ascended to heaven. This scripture alone shoots your argument down with the words "all the things I have commanded you." So, let's see if we can find some more.

- "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens." (Matthew 5:16) Part of the Sermon on the Mount.

- "If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and you there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away; first make your peace with your brother, and then, when you have come back, offer up your gift." (Matthew 5:23, 24) Another part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is immediately after stressing how letting anger and ill feelings toward one another build up can lead us to do something we would be judged adversely for. The next segment of that sermon contains information about adultery, and admonition to "tear [your eye] out" rather than do something God considers detestable. I believe this passage is what one of the original posters was referring to.

- "Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you." (Matthew 5:44) Another one from the Sermon on the Mount.

- "Stop storing up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal. Rather, store up treasures in heaven... For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) Another one from the Sermon on the Mount. This one shoots down your "love God and do as you please" theory. Doing as you please would be treasures on earth. Doing as God pleases would be treasures in heaven. This command doesn't just say "Store up treasures on the earth after you have some in heaven." It says "Stop storing up treasures upon the earth." (emphasis mine)

And one that really puts the finishing touches on there:

- "Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you." (Matthew 6:33) Keep on seeking first God's kingdom and God's righteousness (or righteous ways, as they apply to the one doing the seeking, i.e. "you") and these other things will be added to you. You shouldn't seek the "other things" at all. You should only seek the interests of God's kingdom and will. Of course, God hasn't changed his will. So when he says you shouldn't murder, fornicate, worship idols, etc., that intention for humankind hasn't changed. Of course, I can hear you chanting "but you probably eat pork and don't have a blue thread around your clothes" or something similarly clueless. Those things weren't matters of principle. Murder, adultery, and idolatry are! And things that seemed similar to the non-principled parts of the old law that needed to continue were reiterated (like the command to "keep abstaining from... blood" in Acts 15:28,29) to make sure true Christians are acceptable to God.

I could go on, but this is more than adequate to illustrate my point. There are a lot of commands in the Christian faith.

Oh, and one more nitpick: there is no "new law". There are only a collection of principles and commands. The "New Covenant" is not a law, it's a contract, and closely resembles a settlement between two parties that have decided to forego a lengthy and painful court battle. The drafting of the new covenant finished with the words "Keep doing this in remembrance of me."

Re:What's deviant?

[adrianmonk]

The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them.

...

The new law had two commandments. The first was to love God. The second was to love your neghbor. There were no sub-commandments. And that's the problem.

...

So, now the old law is used as a reference. Christians can pick and choose what they want to apply.

Aha! You're 90% of the way towards understanding Christian ethics. One of the fundamental ideas behind Christian ethics -- perhaps the fundamental idea -- is that there is no system of code that can completely and correctly capture the distinction between right and wrong. Laws are useful as guidelines, but they are never definitive.

So yes, Christians can pick and choose. But how can such a system make any sense? How does it result in anything other than just total chaos where everybody just does whatever they want? The answer is that you're supposed to be seeking a good outcome rather than relying on a set of rules. In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul makes it clear that this is the Christian perspective: "'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial."

And, even more fundamental than understanding the purpose of the laws is to lead you toward a good outcome (and that following the laws is in no way an end unto itself), you're supposed to be relying on God's direction to know what's beneficial and what isn't. That's a higher standard than following a set of rules. When you realize the rules aren't always right, what this means is that you should seek to do better than you do by following the rules alone. And this does not just mean "legalism is bad thing". What it means, in the Christian point of view, is that anything which attempts to substitute for following God's lead is inferior, whether it's rules or anything else.

Naturally, this kind of system is prone to abuse. But then so is a system of laws -- people simply break them, or they find ways to do wrong without technically breaking them, or they make the rules into such a big deal that the system of enforcement becomes wrong and hateful and counterproductive. So what's needed ultimately is an attitude of wanting to do what's most constructive and beneficial. Then, even though the rules are non-binding, you still want to consult them because there is a lot of wisdom in them, and they are right 90+% of the time anyway.

For more info on this, I recommend Dietrich Boenhoeffer's book Ethics, which I understand was written as a result of trying to work out the apparent conflict between Christian ethics and the feeling that it was his moral duty to support a group that attempted to assassinate Hitler. (Blowing up several people with a bomb doesn't really feel like a Christian thing to do, even if one of them is Hitler.)

Re:What's deviant?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Jesus was a nut selling a death cult; there are very few useful particulars--just (sometimes) good general advice, much of which had already been given previously and in better form, such as the Golden Rule. Once you go through picking out the good parts, you're making it all up on your own, so you may as well dispense with the pretense of following someone else and get on with thinking for yourself.

Interesting.

[Seumas]

Isn't this the sort of thing the Taliban did - only to a more restrictive degree?

I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.

Re:Interesting.

[mtrisk]

RAmen to that, brother. I guess that whole emphasis on fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe was just for show - the real battle is the battle of the sexual deviants!

Either that, or the Justice Department has a new plan to protect the Homeland: by turning the U.S. into a socially suffocating clone of an Islamic Republic, Bin Laden won't have any reason to attack us at all! Three cheers for their heroic insight!

Re:Interesting.

[BandwidthHog]

Granted, imprisoning people for thoughtcrime is a far sight better than killing them for it. But can it really be considered fundamentally (heh) different in spirit?

Re:Interesting.

[Qzukk]

The Taliban murdered people who didn't toe the puritanical line.

So, if the government put all these people up on the web with a picture, name, and address, just like the anti-abortionists do with abortion doctors, you're perfectly fine with that, not murder at all? Because thats all this is going to do is swell states' sex offender lists, where getting drunk and pissing in a parking lot is already up there with raping and killing children.

If you're fine with that, I think I'll go scream fire in a crowded theater a few times, see how the government reacts when its not them inciting crowds of people.

Re:Interesting.

[radish]

If he's a British citizen (which I believe he is) then the only "papers" that would usually need to be in order are his passport. If that's not valid then he wouldn't have been allowed on the plane out of the UK. So the chances are the US decided not to allow him in on the visa waver program, thus requiring a visa, which he may not have had seeing as UK citizens don't normally need them. Thus, the decision to refuse him entry on the VWP, whilst perfectly legal, does seem a little suspect.

Re:Interesting.

[Seraphim_72]

You Sir have misunderstood. Certainly you understand that we are at war, a war that we must win. I would have thought that your daily two minute hate would have helped you understand, but let me explain the matter. We have always been at war with Oceania, this can be easily looked up in any textbook. Our war on terror, drugs and now porn are simply facets of that, certainly you can see this comrade. No one wants eternal war, but this is what Oceania has forced on us, even though it pains us. Comrade, you have the chance to help the State and yourself, even your own children. Certainly you know people that harbor these anti-state feelings. Surrender their names, we promise no one will be harmed and your stay in Minitrue will be short and profitable.

Priorities....

[nebaz]

Is'a always amazing to me to see what priorities the government has about crime. Let me first start off by saying that things like child pornography are truly terrible, and should be investigated and prosecuted.

However, the article also mentions things like urinating and defecating on people, which while I think it is disgusting, is really not hurting anyone, with the possible exception of spreading disease.

It is intersting that they can show the body of a dead hooker on tv, but then thex pixellate the nipple when the camera goes there.

This is a country where graphic depictions of violence is not only allowed, but glorified, but gets in an uproar over a boob at a half time commercial.

We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful.

Re:Priorities....

[Medgur]

Considering what a huge segment of the market cumshots, BDSM, humiliation, public nudity, and other "deviant" pornography make up I think it's fairly obvious that the American consumers are going to look elsewhere for the product. As such, they'll probably replace all physical porn purchasing with online porn, if they haven't already, from other countries. At the very least this crackdown is only going to hurt the multi-billion dollar American porn industry.

Midget Porn?

[Ken Broadfoot]

Is Midget Porn deviant?

Yes?

What if you are a Midget?

Can a midget watch "large people" porn?

I am scared of deviant midgets I guess...

Nothing Better To Do?

[Vicissidude]

Let's see... We have the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. The FBI should have plenty to keep them busy with those first two things. Nope, they want to start a War on Porn.

Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic.

Re:Nothing Better To Do?

[Vicissidude]

First, porn with two consenting adults is not completely legal -- after all, there are some laws against it, or restricting it, no? Whether or not it should be legal does not mean that it is legal.

As an adult, then it is completely legal for me to view porn of two other adults. The only laws that come into play are access issues when it comes to children viewing such porn. There is no debate here, although you are attempting to create one.

Second, do not equate an Islamic $GOVERNMENT with a fascist government...

Interesting because I did not, you did.

Third, do not grant the agressive moralists the title of "Christians," since that is not what their actions are, despite what they say.

The fact is these people are Christians, regardless of your attempts to label them otherwise. The believe in the same Jesus as other Christians. However, their attempts at moralizing are not limited to their own actions. They want everyone else around them to believe the same things that they do. This is no different from less aggressive Christian sects sending missionaries to third world countries attempting to "save the heathens". Their targets are just a little closer to home.

Fourth, do not assume that pornography does no harm to society. To say so would violate scientific principle (since it has not been established as the best competing theory).

Excuse me?! It has never been proven scientifically that porn does any damage, so how is it thus "violating scientific principle" for me to say so? If you have proof that it causes damage, then show your proof. You are the one making that claim, so back it up.

The real question is not whether porn is harmful to society, but whether government should or should not be regulating it, monitoring it, or prosecuting it.

The government should not be in the business of regulating, monitoring, or prosecuting something that causes no harm to society. This is particularly true if the alleged harm is merely the result of religious distaste.

Is it the government's right or responsibility to criminalize issues of a moral nature, that are not part of the common law (murder, assault, deprivation of property, etc)?

Interesting that you attempt to equate porn with assault and murder. The difference would be that there is no victim when porn is created or viewed. In this case, no, the government has no right attempting to criminalize porn.

Re:Goodbye 1st Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, what does strict constructionism have anything to do with it? In fact, I would say that a strict constructionist would be less likely to do something like this, because they would see that the literal words of the constitution protect against this, regardless of how they feel. That and strict constructionist is a term used for judges, and this is the Department of Justice, which are prosecutors.

Face it, by strict constructionist, you meant Republican. And by Republican you meant religious zealot. Stop lumping them all together.

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 70's "Black man on white woman" porno was considered obscine.

I'm pretty sure "black man on white woman" porn is obscene *today* as well. I have no problems with heterosexual consensual sex between members of the same race, but black men having sex with white women is just disgusting.

Fantastic!

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

I am so happy to see that the government is cracking down on the real threats to this nation! Far too long we have put up with pornographers and their damaging effects which could even possibly culminate in losses of life! I can't imagine anything more threatening to this nation than a 17 year old boy wanking violently in his room while looking at deviant nakedness, except possibly naughty words on television, which causes wanking, which causes taking the Lord's name in vain ("Oh god!"). This is a cycle dammit!

If we don't stand up together and fight against this very real threat to the impurity of our nations willies the terrorists will have won! You don't see them wanking off in their spare time! No! They are taking up hobbies, such as flying!

Everybody, I want you to stand up with me now, yes, even those with your spigots in your palms, stand up right now and put your hand on your heart. Now join me in a small prayer to save this nation from all its threats, one of the top of which is hurricane, war causing, terrorism supporting out of control yogurt squeezing. Let us begin:

Oh God!

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe the answer to problems is to allocate money to government programs. Republicans believe the answer is to declare war on it and allocate the money to specific military-industrial contractors.

Contradictory.

[sTalking_Goat]

If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value...

According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

In Kansas maybe this two staements would jive, but take a walk through Folsom Street fair in SF and tell me "sadistic and masochistic behavior" between consenting adults isn't within community standards.

I thought foolishly that this shit would stop when Ashcroft left office. I guess not.

Re:Contradictory.

[Reziac]

Good point. And if "community standards" are going to be the dividing line ... get your damn straights out of our sight!! ;)

The current political ideal seems to be modeled on that old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden."

Re:Contradictory.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem there is aggravated assault, not pornography. If you damaged someone's eyes, why should anyone care whether or not the weapon happened to be a sex organ?

Hey, Aren't You All Happy?

[CrazyDuke]

I guess this means the war on terror is over, we've caught Osama bin Forgotten, and we are 100% disaster proof at this point. Hey, these jerkoffs keep telling me to look at the good side of things. I'm just doing that...

Oh, does this mean we get to search the computers of all these sexually repressed people? In Virginia, sex outside of marriage, not in dark, not vaginal, or not in the missionary position is considered deviant. That makes almost all porn "deviant."

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?

I believe the theory is known as the "WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" WAPTOC greater theory of social conformity, where by society is deemed to be best lead towards at state where no child can ever encounter an object or idea which may cause them to ask a question that in any way makes their guardians uncomfortable. This theory has the added benefit that when children reach adulthood they will be uncomfortable asking questions of their new "guardian", i.e. the state.

WAPTOC theory also enables both males AND females to remain completely ignorent for the maximum possible time of any details regarding their icky reproductive anatomies, enabling even minimally trained medical professionals to charge exorbident fees for "expertise" otherwise rudimentary knowladge.

A Definition

[mollymoo]

Sexual Deviant: one so insecure and repressed about their own sexuality that they must impose their twisted views on others.

What's more perverse: having a woman shit in your mouth or dedicating your life to seeking out women shitting in mens' mouths (something you would could never come across by accident) just so you can tell them not to do it?

Re:A Definition

[slavemowgli]

The FBI (as part of the federal government) planning to crack down on "indecent" porn sure sounds like imposing their view on society in general to me.

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[Anonymous Coward]

I really dont think the horse gives a shit.

what's next.....

[wlvdc]

... to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography

i guess i depends on what what is understood to be abnormal and what not. where is the borderline - i guess they meant those producing violent porn?

and what will happen to deviant talk, music, art, technology, science? frightening idea that an authority will define what is natural and normal and what is deviant.

No one finds it ironic?

[ring-eldest]

I find it quite ironic that this organization, which had as it's most recognizable leader a fat, cross-dressing megalomaniac, is now seeking out and putting an end to deviance. Ironic and scary.

"get all up in other people's grill"

[Anonymous Coward]

Have some self-respect. You're not a nigger so don't act like one.

Re:Deviant Porn?

[untaken_name]

Well, you know, gotta fight those winnable wars. Like the one on drugs, the one on porn, the one in Iraq....

Re:Great

[Fnkmaster]

No, the fact that 55% of our country believe that God created man in his exact current form has relegated the Democratic party to semi-permanent minority status. The Democratic party: the party for the other 45% of us.

Seriously - I have no interest in reasoning with people who are basic rejectionists of the scientific method. Kierkegaard taught me that people of faith and the insane are functionally indistinguishable.

The fact is that electing Bush as President has put in place a far more moralizing attitude within the attorney general's office and other enforcement-related branches of the government. I may personally find scat porn, BDSM, etc. distasteful, disgusting or even offensive or demeaning, but if you want to do that in the privacy of your own home, that's your business. I think the vast majority of democrats (Hillary and a small cadre of "save-the-children" panderers aside).

Re:Republican here, Bush SUCKS

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Yeah, I voted for him too and am finally removing my BUSH/CHENEY '04 bumper sticker. He's dramatically increased the size of government since he took office in '00 with the Dept of Homeland Security, War on Terror, etc. The US Dollar has also plummeted since he took office. Next time I'm going to "throw away my vote" and vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Remember, it's both Democrats and Republicans who were going after Take-2 for the GTA:SA Hot Coffee mod. Both parties want to regulate us into their vision of conformity.

If two consenting adults want to do unspeakable things to each other, then sell a video of it for profit, so be it. The larger question is this - The audience of people who consume "urine, defecation, S&M, etc." videos is rather small. What's the real reason for getting the FBI involved?

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[bedroll]

Don't forget that a key element in WAPTOC is that the parent should not have to actively monitor their children in any way. Their children should be able to go to places that without such heavy-handed regulation may not be "safe" - like the internet - without their parents having to sit with them or take any precaution to insure they don't encounter the questionable things. That's why they're trying to crack down on cable television and declare the VChip a failure, parents have to exert effort to use the VChip so the answer is obviously to force their views of what is acceptable onto the rest of society.

I find ABC Family's content to be obscenely stupid, maybe I should lead the charge to get it declared pornographic. I mean, won't anyone please think of the children who are watching that crap?

Re:violent porn

[cpu_fusion]

I think they're talking more about porn where violence, rape, coercion is depicted, even if fictional. I'm all for cracking down on suck things.

I'm not against a restriction on such things as well, but let's be consistent here: let's ban real and fictional footage of violence too, right?

I shouldn't have to see pictures of terrorist attacks on my television, nor depictions of murder on my crime dramas, nor violence in movies. All those things are fictional or real depictions of crime, they are being SOLD to me, or offered for free to sell advertising.

Really, America -- WAKE UP. If you want to protect the children, TRY TO BE CONSISTENT. Kids are great bullshit detectors, and when they see tobacco and alchohol being glorified, they tend to disbelieve warnings about things like cocaine. Similary, when they can turn on the TV and see a pretty vivid portrail of a violent crime on NETWORK TV, they will see it as hypocritical for someone to say they can't see some other footage or depiction; especially if they believe "it isn't real."

Let's not forget that it is the CREATION of pornography which is typically the true crime. Go after the people making and selling the turly awful crap. Once you cross over the line into chasing down people who have seen something, who did not create it, you run the risk, as another poster above put it, of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. "Let's humiliate this guy over here." "Let's humiliate her, she spoke out against us." GO AFTER THE SOURCES.

In China, DVDs of the 9/11 tragedy were sold FOR ENTERTAINMENT. There are people in this country that get off over videos depicting real deaths. ("Faces of death.")

We need to draw the line here clearly, be consistent, and above all, send a CLEAR and CONSISTENT message about WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, and just as important -- WHY.

Re:Great

[theonetruekeebler]

To the moderators:

Thank you for declaring this "flamebait." That you're doing it to supress somebody for badmouthing the President whose appointee is responsible for this is all the irony I need in one day.

As Lenny Bruce once said, if you take away the right to say "fuck," you take away the right to say "fuck the government." And I can't think of a more fuckworthy government than the one we have now. They have done horrible, horrible things to defile the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment:

They have detained and deported foreign nationals for speaking out against American tyrrany. They have created "free speech zones" to corral and observe those who speak out against them. They hosted the G8 summit on an island and refused to let any but approved press observers come.

And in this case, they have decided to impose their own sexual mores on us by outlawing the transmission of images, words and sounds depicting activities they have declared "deviant."

So yes, I'm genuinely afraid that even as an American citizen, I will be monitored, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, interrogated, bankrupted, jailed, defamed and ruined by this government, for things I write or say. For saying "fuck Bush" and "fuck his government." When I say "the United States' activities in the Middle East both created and encouraged the people behind the September 11 attacks," I must remember that I'm speaking out against a government that has disappeared people for saying much the same, shipped them to countries whose idea of Q&A is to Q while smashing your hands with hammers then pouring boiling water on your legs until they get the "right" A.

And I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between a government that attacks those who truthfully document its atrocities and one that attacks those who trade pictures of people in handcuffs getting blowjobs. In either case it is a government that has ignored its own Constitution because it is inconvenient to the crusades---both figurative and literal---of the men and women currently in power.

Old, old advice...

[TractorBarry]

If thine eye offends thee... pluck it out.

If you don't like what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own homes it's simple... Don't get involved. Don't watch. Don't join in. You can pass all the laws you want but spiders will spin their webs "just the way they like 'em"...

Your own personal viewpoint and your morals are yours and yours alone. I'm happy for you that you think yours are the best. You're obviously young and know no better.

Sorry, the universe (and all that is in it) doesn't give a fuck what you (or I) thinks. That's just the way it is.

But the spirit of King Canute is strong with some retards^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people.

End of story.

Re:Congress is not empowered to regulate porn

[Unordained]

And why should States have any such right?

Laws against porn, drugs, sodomy, homosexual marriage, slavery, censorship, etc. are no more 'right' at the local level than at the national level. People go on and on about how the federal government has no right to declare laws across the whole nation that they, as residents of a particular state, disagree with. Yet those same people are just as happy to turn around and declare such laws across the whole state? Whole county? Whole city?

The size of the community shouldn't be the deciding factor as to which laws do and don't make sense. Either we're trying to get along, or we're not. Enacting these laws is creating an artificial dilema:
a) we can decide to conform, even though we weren't harming anyone, just because our neighbors are stupid;
b) we can rebel, which never goes well, always seems to cause casualties, and then we -will- have harmed someone.

Is asking for a fight really worth it?

The Ever Dreaded .....Dirty Gonazalez....?

[deglr6328]

On the bright side, the name Gonazalez lends itself beautifully for use as a euphemism for some thorougly revolting and depraved sex act, a la the Santorum!

Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general.

[jcr]

The sort who have to resort to forcing their twisted idea of religious beliefs on others because they have no better purpose in life.

In my experience, most proslytutes, (whether they're bible-thumpers, scientologits, victimhood fetishists, commies, radfems, or any other flavor of zealot), know that their position is fundamentally irrational, so they seek validation by shoving their beliefs down the throats of others.

-jcr

It's culture, not religion.

[LithiumX]

Make no mistake, while the people behind this will draw from their religious convictions, for the most part this sort of policy is due to our culture.

The bible does not forbid a great many things that could be considered deviant. I don't believe it says a word about women-on-women, never says that non-reproductive procreation is sinful (as long as your assistant is not married to anyone else), and doesn't seem to say a word about 3-ways, etc. I don't lay these down as challenges (indeed, feel free to correct me), but from what I know (yes, I've actually read the whole thing), none of these things are forbidden directly or even indirectly (though later passages imply that you shouldn't bad-touch anyone without being married to them).

Most of our "beliefs" come from cultural extrapolation of older mores. The things we home in on the most are only indirectly religious in nature. For instance, ever notice how our culture is far more obsessed with men screwing eachother (a sin, but not a major one) than it is with swearing (a violation of the ten commandments)? We make an overly-great deal about masturbation, yet the biblical quotes associated with it have nothing to do with it?

Our idea of "deviant" makes use of christian belief as an authority, but it's basis is on cultural values - those same values that make us look on non-homicidal cannibalism, polygamy, and other perfectly acceptable actions in other culture, with disgust or simple rejection.

The bible does not say that two men can't screw one woman's anus. It's our culture that quite plainly tells you that you're a sick individual if your interest in that goes beyond gross-out wanted-to-see-it-once curiosity. If you're into watching people screw animals, you have psychological issues - either that, or you live in the wrong part of the world.\

It's not religion. It's culture.

Re:Sooo...

[orangesquid]

Not in California, actually.
Condoms are mandatory in all porn to cut down on STDs.

Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general.

[seabreezemm]

Please don't try to speak for Christians anymore. You certainly aren't one with the filth you spewed it your post. If by radical Christians you mean the ones that actually believe what the bible says and does the very best to live by it instead of being a Sunday morning quarterback and a Friday night hell raiser then I would certainly want to be the former and not the latter since the latter is the prime definition of a hypocrite.

Theocracy...

[venomkid]

Realize that our current government is headed by aspiring nationalistic theocrats, and the "War on Terror" and the "War on Porn" don't seem like such disparate goals.

Re:Republican here, Bush SUCKS

[bigtrike]

Yeah, I voted for him too and am finally removing my BUSH/CHENEY '04 bumper sticker. He's dramatically increased the size of government since he took office in '00 with the Dept of Homeland Security, War on Terror, etc. The US Dollar has also plummeted since he took office. Next time I'm going to "throw away my vote" and vote for the Libertarian candidate.

What exactly did you expect from Bush in his second term? His administration had already long proven to be big government, anti free speach, fiscally irresponsible, and very willing to take on foreign wars. The actions of his second term have been very consistent with his first, why get upset now? If you were just voting for not-Kerry, then why have a bumper sticker on your car?

How Ironic

[Drubber]

Wasn't it Gonzalez who attempted to justify the use of torture while he was a Bush advisor? Wasn't it our government who engaged in deviant torture pornography at Abu Gharib?

Just checking...

Re:How Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

These keystone cops are sitting in nice dry offices,inventing new pleasant comfy office work to keep their backsides polished, rather than hitting the beat and stopping looting etc, and assisting hurricane devistated areas.

With a looming election, waving the flag, pretend moral values (politicians are not so pure) wont cut the mustard, as the flock know real homeland priorities (ie saving lives) are neglected - congresscritters tapping the Bible will enrage those who have experienced this mess firsthand.

Are they not qualified to investigate deliberate undermining and subversion of the constitution, and obstruction of justice? Why else would you baddies holidays in Egypt, or supress pictures showing systemic matters that must be investigated.

All these able bodied FBI agents should be sent to Iraq, where they can do the most good, because it is claimed there is such a need over there, swapping places with those hurricane affected families.

And that's the problem...

[raehl]

The reason we need to protect ALL speech is because it's very hard, in advance, to know if your speech is legal or not. If we know that "deviant" porn is legal, well, how do we know if our particular flavor of porn is legal or not?

We don't, until we're in court. So by allowing the government ot prosecute any speech, even if it legitimately "deviant", we've also restricted LEGAL speech that is not deviant, because nobody can tell where the line is.

This is, of course, entirely separate from the issue that if you have limitted resources in the FBI, which we do, and you have the choice of fighting terrorism or fightinging pornography, and you choose to fight pornography, you're a moron.

Re:If You Watch ANY Porn, You ARE a Deviant

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Those that deny their curiosity about porn have bigger issues.

Re:USA - land of the free!

[vjzuylen]

There are some very legitimate reasons to consider pornography as socially destructive because of the exploitive treatment of women in pornographic media.

There are some very legitimate reasons to consider some forms of pornography as socially destructive.

It isn't just religions with puritanical views, but just about any religion that reviles pornography.

Good for them. Last I checked though, the US had a separation of religion and state.

It is also nearly universally condemmed by women's rights and feminist groups who go as far as to consider it as a violent attack on their psychology and a incitement to rape.

Wow, even the consensual home made amateur porn? Or gay porn? 'Cause that's what could be affected by this new FBI crackdown as well.

A very nice neanderthal knee jerk reaction from somebody who has never actually thought about the issue, indeed...

Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general.

[CyricZ]

It sounds like the problem may be that you're unaware of effective search techniques.

Indeed, if you want to find the TeX Users Group website all you have to do at Google is a search for "tug typesetting". Low and behold, it's the first site listed! And Google's two-line preview helps indicate that it isn't a site containing gratuitous images of animal sex and buttrape. Likewise for LaTeX related searches.

I would hardly call an online lingerie store a purveyor of hardcore pornography. Hell, many children (and perhaps even your own, if you're a father) have seen their mothers wearing such skimpy outfits while at home relaxing.

Fighting smut a top priority?

[dtfinch]

Isn't their top priority supposed to be fighting crime?

Reasonable porn definition

[Simonetta]

Allow me to submit a realistic working definition of pornography, since no one else seems to be able to:

    Pornography is a type of art that changes its level of aesthetic appeal according to the level of sexual arousal of the viewer.

    It's not correct to say that porn is any work of art that deals primarily in sexuality, has unclothed persons, displays aroused genitalia, or induces a sexual response in the viewer. These are the standard porn definitions, but they all have undesired effect of causing the ban on serious and important works of art.

    All porn has appeal to primarily males when they are sexually aroused. After sexual release, a work of porn (by my submitted definition) will seem trite, vulgar, and embarrassing. It will lose its aesthetic value as the viewer loses sexual arousal. A work that is considered as beautiful, valuable, and appealing after the ejaculation as it was during sexual arousal can not be considered porn. Almost all porn is consumed by males.

    I am not advocating banning porn, regardless of the definition. The United States Bill of Rights prevents banning pornography, because when it has been created by consenting adults, it lies in the category of protected free speech.
I am merely submitting a realistic and workable definition of pornography that will prevent laws against porn from being used to destroy serious art works that deal with sexuality.

Just politics, as usual: A wedge issue

[scotty777]

Politically, pornography is a wedge issue to split the middle-of-the-road voters from the Democrats, and activate them to vote for Republicans. It's really no different from "School Prayer", "Flag Burning", and a bunch of other issues that have been used to get the vote out for Republicans. My guess is that some political strategist like Carl Rove initiated this. Bush's terrible polling numbers bode poorly for Republicans in the mid-term elections. This smacks of a put-up issue to activate a segment of the Republican party base...

But bestiality is still legal in Washington

[tomhudson]

... so all those congresscritters can continue fucking sheep and cows and horses and pigs, when they're not busy fucking over the average citizen ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02384648_farm16m.html

ENUMCLAW -- Authorities are reviewing hundreds of hours of videotapes seized from a rural Enumclaw-area farm that police say is frequented by men who engage in sex acts with animals.

The videotapes police have viewed thus far depict men having sex with horses, including one that shows a Seattle man shortly before he died July 2, said Enumclaw police Cmdr. Eric Sortland. Police are reviewing the tapes to make sure no laws have been broken.

"Activities like these are often collateral sexual crimes beyond the animal aspect," said Sortland, adding that investigators want to make sure crimes such as child abuse or forcible rape were not occurring on the property.

Washington is one of 17 states that does not outlaw bestiality

They won't pass laws against this, but they will go after consentual sex between adults. Maybe they should put that Brown guy from FEMA in charge - then nothing will be done about it.

Instead of wasting time with what goes on in bedrooms between consenting adults, they should be investigating graft, corruption, etc., in Foggy Bottom. They could start with Halliburton. BTW, they STILL haven't explained how Jeff Gannon (google Bush's man-date) got his press pass.

Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington

[killjoe]

Don't laugh, There is an excellent chance gonzales will be on the supreme court. The same guy who justified torture and is now going after "deviant porn".

Welcome to the new America courtesy of G.W.B.

Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington

[tomhudson]

Oh, its definitely in the dangerous deviancy column, all right. Just way outside the FBI's mandate. Its not an interstate crime, terrorism against the country, etc.

This is something that the local cops can (and are better prepared to) handle, just like they did in this case. After all, they know the locals, etc., and are going to have to deal with any followup or connected activities.

This whole fbi porn thing looks like someone's empire-building.

F.B.I. - Federal Body Inspectors - we used to joke about that as kids, but I guess its true now.

Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington

[BlueHands]

It isn't who he worked for, but the view he has repeatedly taken on certain fundamental laws. He wasn't getting off a defendant, he was telling a client that he could commit murder in a legal way. Thats twisting the law in a nasty, nasty way. I wouldn't want to see him get to make laws.

Oh, and I am sure that this new task force on porn will in no way help sell him to the christian right.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Wilson_6500]

But how can they have an initiative like this unless all the FBI agents investigating this stuff are themselves "clean" of all this stuff? Will they fire anyone who they somehow discover has a fetish, even if they never act upon it? Will the FBI investigator's job application say on it "have you ever jacked it to horses, half-man half-horses, men who kinda look like horses, or any bodily fluid"?

I mean, no matter how draconian the administration becomes, the people who run it are still human. Do the investigators themselves agree with this bar none, or are they afraid to speak up for fear of losing their job? Hell, should I be afraid to post this here? Is /. going to become a kind of cyber Chestnut Tree cafe?

This occurs to me pretty often--do the folks who enforce this agree with it? I thought I heard somewhere that there was some water-cooler talk to the contrary. I wish I could remember where I read it--I think it was the Washington Post--but they reported that the agents were making comments to the effect of some of those we've seen here: "well, it's nice to know we've won the war on terror," and all that.

Too far.

[Raven42rac]

Okay come on, it was just funny when you went after gay marriage and such. Come the fuck on. Porn? What happened to terrism? Nuclear holocaust? Smallpox? Hurricanes? All cured then?

Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington...

[kaschei]

...state. Washington state. For you non-Americans, or victims of the public school system, that's not where the Congress meets. That's the District of Columbia, some 2,700 miles away. Hence the "Seattle Times" newspaper article.
But yeah, all that other irrelevant stuff is interesting, if also dated.

My Take...

[angst_ridden_hipster]

... and you can quote me on this:

"Other people's fetishes are weird."

If you're part of our current administration, you can replace the word "weird" with "disgusting," "deviant," or "illegal."

If you're a new-ager, you can replace the word "weird" with "misdirected," "unhealthy," or "disrespectful."

If you're a broad-minded individual, you can replce the word "weird" with "hilarious," "creative," or "interesting ... with real potential."

If you're a pornographer, you can replace the word "weird" with "profitable."

In no case can you apply the phrase to your own fetishes, which, by definition, are hot.

Logical error?

[eaolson]

So, does this mean that they're going to prosecute people for taking pictures of adults doing things that are perfectly legal to do?

So we can DO it, we just can't LOOK at it?

Re:Great

[know_op]

But of course, it's cool when prison guards trade pictures of terrorists in handcuffs giving each other blowjobs, right?

Re:Oh no, not miscigination

[DynamoJoe]

The only proper response to the WAPTOC argument is (re-word slightly if female and/or not so inclined):

"I didn't fuck your wife, I'm not raising your kids."

I really wish I knew who said that first. I owe that person many beers.

Re:USA - land of the free!

[the eric conspiracy]

Wait, they don't do that. Most of the women are posing of their own free will.

Perhaps that is always true, but I doubt it given the relatively young ages of many of the female actors. In any case that is not what my statement says - the pornographic industry shows exploitive treament of women its media. That is different from stating that the pornographic industry exploits the female actors.

Pink Floyd

[William-Ely]

Hey preacher! Leave my porn alone!

To be serious for a moment... If I had children I know there are things on the internet I wouldn't want them to stumble upon so I can see why some people want to have that kind of content eliminated. On the other hand I don't believe that the government should have the power to decide what qualifies as ofensive. I would rather take it upon myself as a parent to limit my child's access to the internet. (/serious) When the day comes that my nerd son has skillz so 1337 that he can best my home network security then I will proudly grant him access to the full fowlness of the internet. I will unleash upon the internet a nerd the likes of which the world has never seen before!

Well put...

[Infonaut]

More like the 19th century

I'm not sure they were necessarily so openly perverted *at the time*, but your point is well taken.

It is a shame that we Americans seem hell-bent (sorry, couldn't resist) on turning back the clock to one of the most socially and psychologically repressive eras in human existence.