Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
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...
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
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.
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!
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
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.
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.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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."
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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?
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
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?
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.
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.
This is not my sandwich.
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?
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!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Not in California, actually.
Condoms are mandatory in all porn to cut down on STDs.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
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.
Karma: a simple way of silencing those with unpopular views regardless how correct or just that view might be.
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.
vk.
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...
Isn't their top priority supposed to be fighting crime?
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.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02384648_farm16m.html
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.
... and you can quote me on this:
... with real potential."
"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
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.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
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?