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."
Well that’s a relief. Everything else I had read on this matter over the past week indicated that they would be stepping up investigation and prosecution of mainstream pornography.
I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?
This oughta be interesting.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Back in the 70's "Black man on white woman" porno was considered obscine.
I have no idea why people want to get all up in other people's grill about pornography. But I don't understand the War on Drugs either, so perhaps I'm just crazy. What with my "utilitarian ethics" and everything.
Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From TFA: "The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. 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."
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Porn isnt evil, music, movies and games are not evil, the real evil is done by the prudish thought police, How long till the feds go to the beaches of Fla or SoCal and hand out baggy t-shirts to the bathing suit clad women there?
BTW could we find Bil Ladin faster if his nude pics were on the web somewhere?
To the government, does this mean that 'masochist behaviour' is somehow illegal? I'm a masochist - middle-of-the-road extreme, yes, but still a masochist. I like that stuff. It gets me off. and (cluestick!) it doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. I can see the point of cracking down on rape porn, child porn and other things where non-consenting people get hurt, but please, cracking down on BDSM? This takes things too far.
Precisely what are the government looking to achieve? Are they really trying to dictate to me that the only thing that I should enjoy sexually is straight-up missionary-position boringness, with the lights off and my eyes squeezed shut? This messing with what I can and can't enjoy in the privacy of my own home with other consenting adults is getting too much to bear - I'm fine with them fining people or shutting people down for not warning people what they're getting into with some sort of entrance page, or for not informing people that all acts carried out within the content on a given page are performed by consenting adults, but criminal charges? That's rediculous - what would be wrong with a simple disclaimer at the top of every page featuring 'deviant' content saying something like...
That ought to be the limit of the content distributor's liability - that way if little Johnny hangs himself trying sexual axphyxiation, he was at least *told* not to - if that sort of warning can keep shows like Jackass on the air while teaching kids how to set themselves on fire or jump into raw sewage - stuff which kids are likely to see as cool and try - then it ought to be enough to keep content on the net (or on the shelves of dedicated shops, etc) of stuff which, as well as being less likely to be seen as 'cool' like something like Jackass by little Johnny, is also probably no more dangerous.
As for the others - bestiality, yes, this is wrong and should be banned - animals can't consent, obviously. I've no qualms with them banning this, as I'm not a fan of animal cruelty in any form... as for urination and defacation, we're back to the 'consenting adults' thing - who am I (or anyone else) to tell people that want to piss on each other for sexual pleasure that they can't do it, or go looking for it? I'm sorry to keep picking on Jackass, but again, if they can get away with jumping into sewage, sitting in moving portaloos filled with excrement and tipping piss all over themselves, all with just a 5-second disclaimer, why can't 'deviant pornography' that does pretty much the same things get away with it too? Where is the line? This entire exercise is an utterly rediculous attempt at thought-policing.
(Posted as Anonymous Coward to protect the guilty)
It's Attorney General Gonzalez and Director Robert Mueller .
I thought this was just the submitter's mistake, but it is actually that way in the article. I shouldn't be surprised; Ars Technica should stick to their stupid overclocking articles.
Ok, i'll admit it that it has distrubed me that golden showers is now like a mainstream thing. I mean here I am checking out a hustler hardcore, and bam, I see chicks getting pissed all over. but Like I just said, this is (relatively) mainstream thing, so are they going to start prosecutting hustler now? Shit with the intelligent design debate this is starting to sound the fucking 1950's. If some dude likes watching chicks getting pissed on, it's his business, not mine.
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.
-
So it's only illegal if you pull out?
-
Wrong kindof thinking here. It's no fun to make it "only illegal if"; that's not how the justice system works, and certainly not how this kind of initiative in specific generally works. It's more of a "also illegal if" deal!
Now, naturally, they aren't literally going to make pulling out illegal, but nearly everything up to that could be, or at least there is a certain contingent that would like it to be (I would be seriously scared and surprised if that actually came to pass). Note that only recently were the Sodomy Laws in the United States entirely stricken down; true, they had been mostly dismantled (op-ed: rightly so!) beforehand, but the official, overall word on the matter was recent enough that there are many influential politicians and private parties who believe (for the sake of the souls of our children!) that these laws should find a return (or at least that similar measures of control should be implimented).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
If the Democrats were in power and not afraid of the right, we would simply have a different type of oppressive government. Democrats would enact 'hate speech' legislation. You can have all the scat porno you can buy but if you dare to attack the behaviors of certian groups of people in society, you'll be shackled and thrown in jail. So while I sympathize with your disgust at the consevative's forms of censorship, it is naive to think that you can simply root for the other popular political group to be "free".
Oh, it is also worth noting that in many states, sex toys and masturbation are considered devient. I know sex toys are banned Alabama; and, yes, this law is enforced. And in Texas, women have been arrested for it dispite there being no law specifically banning them. I don't know about other states.
So, there is a good chance in some states that that pic or video with that hot chick and her vibrator can be considered "deviant." I wonder how many of these people realize that taking pleasure in denying sexual satisfaction is a fetish in itself, related to sadism.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
"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."
I couldn't agree more! This country really needs to get over its insecurities about nudity and sexuality. Do we really think that a young child will be corrupted by an image of a female breast? It shouldn't be something that they have never seen before. On the other hand, glorified violence saturates mainstream television, and most certainly does alter most children's perspective such that many of them are prone to violence that they wouldn't otherwise have considered.
While certain extremes of sexual explression are very harmful to others, for example, child pronography, the societal repression of sexuality is very unhealthy.
The community standard as related to porn distribution most notably challenged by Larry Flynt essentially said the community standard only held sway inso much as it related to public distribution of the content. IE to carry smut on store shelves it had to pass community standards.
The whole case against Flynt was not predicated on the idea that hardcore porn was illegal but that to offer it for distribution was illegal in public places. The idea was to make it legal to create and own but impossible to distribute
Where does this enter into private internet access?
The community standard is essentially distilled down to the household level. IE what content is chosen to be displayed (put on the shelf) at the household level as that is the only exposure.
Unless you want to argue that access to such content from withen larger defined communities (like a town or state) should be regulated.... this is somewhat akin to saying since I live in X location I can not go into a store in Y location because it is denied where I am from.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Remember, it was the Catholic church who was involved in the business of molesting children, and then trying to cover up their crimes. The Catholic church is about as Christian as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is. That is, the Catholic church is not very Christian at all. They often partake in the most anti-Christian activities. The Catholic church has proven time and time again that they do not subscribe to the teachings of Christ.
The people I'm talking about are true Christians. The kind of people who disregard the political dealings of groups like the Catholic church and the neoconservative groups in the US. These people are often the most outspoken against what the Catholic church did. It's these true Christians who helped expose the deeds of the Catholic offenders, and helped prosecute them for the harm they did to so many children.
Oh, and I'm not a Christian, for your information.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
SM is sadism/masochism, the latter of which is recieving pleasure from pain. Regardless of whatever underlying psychological issues there are, some people do find it pleasurable. Masochism doesn't equate with insanity, so yes, the individuals' consent would still be valid. The difference between SM and abuse is the relationship dynamic. In a dominant/submissive relationship, the dominant person (the sadist, in this case) has power and control, but also respect and love for the submissive. In these cases, there is nearly always a safe word used, where if something goes too far or becomes unpleasant for either party, they say the safe word ane everything stops. In an abusive relationship, the victim gets no pleasure from the abuse, and there are usually in fact psychological issues for both parties. For the victim, they are usually involving dependence or fear, and the abuser has power and control issues, probably resulting from some inadequacy complex. In an abusive relationship, the victim often feels trapped. They have no control over their situation (in their eyes), though they may not like it that way. In a S/M relationship, the submissive gets a rush from losing all control-- except for the fact that they have the safe word to rely on. A sadist/dominant person isn't a criminal because even though they inflict pain, they are always willing to stop, and they always have that respect and love for the other person. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
Isn't this the sort of thing the Taliban did - only to a more restrictive degree?
Umm, NO.
The Taliban murdered people who didn't toe the puritanical line. That's an entirely different ballgame.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I have to wonder one thing. Isn't it possible that SM really is abuse? I mean just because a person agrees to it does that stop it from being abusive? If so then a lot of battered spouses are not abused? The do not press charges and stay with the person battering them. Could it be that someone that likes being whipped has mental issues and their consent it not valid?
While I'm sure it sometimes qualifies as abuse, most of the people in that scene really do enjoy it. I am most definitely NOT a part of it, but I know people who are. This is the real world. You can't make it 100% safe for everybody, even if you take away the rights of the people who genuinely wanted to involved in it.
In America today, we don't force the majority view of what's "normal" on anyone unless they are actively in danger of killing themselves or someone else. I think maybe we've gone a little too far with that, because there are legitimate, serious psychological disorders out there where the symptoms include not wanting treatment until the person has actually been on it for awhile. But I also think it's better to err on the side of caution and not stifle people who *are* just "a little different."
Personally, I find BDSM, piss/shit fetishes, and so on incredibly vile. But it's not my business what consenting adults do to each other*, or if someone wants to jack off to pictures of them doing it.
* There are some things that I would consider de facto evidence of a psychological disorder, like people who ask others to actually kill them, or amputate body parts, or whatever. I'm looking at you, Eunuch. I am ambivalent about this, because a law that says "adults can do whatever they want to each other barring permanent disfigurement or death" could include things like piercings and tattoos depending on who was interpreting it.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
"Those who contend that pornography increases the incidence of rape are going to have real problems explaining this chart. The years after 1991, when the rape incidence went into free fall, correspond to a period of massive increase in pornography consumption. Images that once could only be acquired by an expedition to a sleazy adult bookstore became available for free, in private, with a few mouse clicks. While porn was becoming mainstream, the incidence of rape dropped by over 75%, from 2.2 per thousand (1991) to 0.5 per thousand (2003"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.gif
Which is interesting, since there are indications that Paul (Who wrote 1 Corinthians) was married at one time. It's not certain, but 1 Corinthians 9:5 seems to imply that all the apostles were married.
Paul was also a Sanhedrin, one of the judicial ruling body of the Jews. Biblical historians agree that one of their tenants required their members to be married.
The adjective used in that passage, "agamos", has connotations of widow rather that never getting married. Someone who has never been married is referred to as "parthenos". (Though there are some passages where the words are used interchangeably, so it's not 100% certain.)
Paul referred to widows several times as being especially useful to the church.
Stories of government wrongness, such as this, appear here quite frequently. It occurs to me that we, as the scientists of the world, probably know best what is right, but, aside from telling each other here on the forum, what do we do? I just want to know if we're all supposed to write our congress people, or could we be heard more if we were as one, like a /. lobbyist group? We can melt down servers around the globe, but can we do more than that? Would anyone in congress really care what we said? The bottom line is that we are smarter, on average, than much of the general population, and I think that implies that we have more of a responsibility to protect the world we live in as well.
...
homicide is totally out of control in this country thanks to a 230 year old amendment that has no bearing on todays society
I don't know where you get your information, but it is really wacky. The homicide rate in the US is not 'totally out of control'. While it is high, there are other countries where it is MUCH higher. For example neighboring Mexico has a homicide rate 3 times higher than the US. If you take the complete violent death statistics the US is has a lower violent death rate than a lot of other countries.
Violent Deaths per 100,000
Estonia 70.76
Hungary 39.01
Slovenia 33.37
Finland 30.72
Brazil 25.34
Denmark 23.46
Austria 23.36
Switzerland 22.80
France 22.67
Mexico 21.74
Belgium 20.77
Portugal 18.95
United States 18.57
Japan 17.34
Sweden 17.12
Germany 17.00
So in reality there is no substantial evidence that the US is a substantially more violent society because of the presence of guns. While we have substantially more violent deaths by firearms than other countries do, there is no evidence that the actual number of violent deaths is affected by the presence of firearms. Firearms are used because they are available. If they weren't, some other method would be used, as it is in many other countries.
There have been a number of academic attempts to correlate gun ownership with violent death rates and homicides which have shown no real correlation.
Produced. It was mandated after some HIV scares within the last year.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644303.stm
(Some idiot mod probably thinks I'm making some sort of dumb joke about the promiscuity of west-coasters, judging from my "troll" moderation. Oh well. It's just slashdot. *g*)
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
In this context, I can't say I'm shocked any more about the moral double-standards your current Administration exhibits.
The new law has one commandment to Christians - to love one another as Christ has loved you. The _old_ law hung off the two commandments you mention. And I fail to see the problem: love God and do as you please (in that order) is the whole of the new law.
A good explanation of the relationship between the Torah and the Law to Christians can be found here.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
The reporter/journalist should have been fired.
Don't hold your breath.
I'm still waiting for O'Reilly to be fired. Hasn't happened yet.
Well, if I understand the grandparent's post correctly, then biblical marriage seems to be little more than a social agreement between two people for the purpose of sexual relations. It would seem that adultry then would either be being involved sexually with someone else at the time outside of the agreement or possibly without any kind of agreement at all (rape). I wonder what the implications for poligomy then are.
I also wonder if by using this form of marriage for preventing perversion, the verses mean to quell perverse actions originating from both sexual frustration and/or sexual promiscuity.
Oh, the grandparent also hits on an important point with today's interpretation of the bible. It has been translated, retranslated, and selectively rewritten over the millenia (as well as politically "spun" interpretations). So, it is no suprise that the current intrepretation of the bible is not the original meaning of it.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Those who contend that pornography increases the incidence of rape are going to have real problems explaining this chart.
No problem at all. In 1993 the Bureau of Justice Statistics changed the methods it used to to measure crime rates, and ALL violent crime stastics have sincce show large decreases. In the meantime rape incarceration rates have tripled - growing faster than any other major crime classification.
You know, I'm all for exposing stupid, wrong, and evil motivations behind proselytizing. For instance, the church I've been going to sent out an e-mail a few weeks ago encouraging people to help out victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the e-mail said helping them would be a good way to "show them that love [read: 'God'] always triumphs" or something like that. My feeling was, how about if we instead help them purely because we care about our fellow man?
But I digress. The point is, I agree that people have stupid motivations for proselytizing. But, I was raised in the Christian church and have been involved in it for 1/3 century now in some form, and I have never seen anyone proselytize for the reason that you describe. I've seen people proselytize because they think they're supposed to and they'd feel guilty if they didn't. I've seen people proselytize because they think they're supposed to, and deep down they're good people who want to do what's right. I've seen people proselytize because they're afraid God is going to be mad at them if they don't. I've seen people proselytize because they are sure they're right and they are sure people who believe differently are wrong and they feel sorry for those people and want to help them. I've seen a whole lot of people proselytizing because it makes them feel like they're achieving something if they make the church grow bigger (even if it's at the expense of other churches growing smaller). I've seen people proselytizing because they have a bad self-image in general and they feel like if they do what God wants them to, then this makes them a good person.
But, I've never seen anyone proselytize because convincing someone else of something validates their own belief in it. Fact is, there are plenty of people who really don't believe in God, but there are plenty of people who honestly, really, truly do believe in God and aren't just saying that because they want to use the concept of God to manipulate others somehow. Now, whether they're right or wrong about their belief in God is a different story, but it would be a mistake to think they don't really believe in it.
Technically, he could "make things right", as you put it, because the Old Testament describes a polygamous, or, to be technical, polygynous, society - one in which men could have multiple wives.
Remember also that in 2 Samuel, the prophet Samuel relays a message from God basically saying "Didn't I give you all these hot wives? If you wanted more, you could've asked me and I'd have given you more, but nooooooo, you had to have somebody else's wife." (2 Samuel 12, if you're interested.)
If you ask me, it's a hallmark of an efficient society. You know how it's usually the guy who ends up having an affair and breaking up a marriage, because his wife's sex drive has declined? Well, if he could take a second wife, that wouldn't be a problem. Further, he wouldn't be put in either the situation of depriving his first wife of livelihood or of losing his own. It would seriously cut down on nasty divorces, and we could all celebrate the decrease in the number of lawyers about.
Islamic law, IIRC, allows men up to four wives, which seems a very practical number - enough to gain most of the benefits, but too few to allow one guy to drain the pool of availability. (also keeps the guy from getting spread too thin - even the most virile guy can only dispense so much manjuice before he has to recharge.)
You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
I'm talking about the pennance instituted by the catholic church. You know, the real law of the dark ages. Notice I said SIN and not CRIME. If you disagree, you can go have a discussion with my Human Sexuality Professor, and the makers of the textbook Crooks & Baur: Our Sexuality, 9th Edition. I'm sure they'd love to know that they're wrong. Besides, just because you can't find it doesn't mean it's wrong. Apparently you simply don't know how to research.
Oh, and no need to be a dick about it either. Dick.
Ever read Ezekiel chapter 1?. Ezekiel sees something very strange, involving not rings, but wheels.
...
"In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved."
"15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about [d] as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around."
"19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21 When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels."
-mkb
I just read the first several chapters of Ezekiel, and it certainly reminds me of the Ga'ould visiting primitive humans and telling them to do stuff.
"4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the northan immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal,"
This sounds just like some sort of spaceship descending.
The wheels sound like some sort of anti-gravity transport device.
Hmm... maybe there's more to the Bible than I thought. It's too bad the Stargate TV show can't bring up stuff like this from the Bible, since it'd piss off so many Christians.