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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Re:Sooo...

[orangesquid]

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

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...