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)
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!
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.
"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.
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