Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp

kotj.mf writes "The New York Times reports that the Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group, has yet to result a single prosecution for obscenity, despite having generated more than 67,000 citizen complaints. The group, better known for its campaign to have Cosmopolitan removed from supermarket checkout stands, is pushing the Justice Department to more aggressively pursue cases against what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.'"

Comments

Re:Federally Funded??

[tji]

Have you not been paying attention? Funding "faith based organizations" was the first thing Bush did after he got elected in 2000.

Congress initially denied funding, citing the separation of church and state, and Bush bypassed them via an "Executive Order".

Welcome to the theocracy.

I guess they see how well all those middle-eastern governments are working, and want to bring the same thing to the U.S.

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag

[ricegf]

@Cordath: "Now, which of these things" (TV violence or porn) "have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"

Well, both, actually. Violence on over-the-air TV has been a major target of religious organizations since the medium graduated from geekdom to mainstream.

People (religious or not) who are offended by violence, public displays of sexuality, and non-normative language have always attempted to drive such behavior out of the public eye and into "red light districts" and alternate media.

Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism. :-)

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag

[PunkOfLinux]

mim@moralityinmedia.org there, guys. Have fun :)

Re:So much idiocy, so little time...

[TubeSteak]

Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT??? Have you seen what the Parents Television Council (PTC) has done with the FCC? They single handedly make up >90% of the complaints to the FCC... and the FCC responded with fines.

What the guys and gals at the Morality in Media group don't seem to get is that the Justice Dept is not the FCC. The DOJ doesn't file criminal charges based on the number of complaints.

But if you look at the PTC & FCC, you can easily understand where they got the idea from and why they thought would work.

Re:Pass the buck

[Marcika]

This wasn't exactly what he said, I think... One famous statement, however, was about the parody site www.gwbush.com, and was described by the Washington Post as follows:

When asked at a news conference in May what he thought about the site, Bush let loose, saying it was produced by a "garbage man" and suggesting that "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a line Bush's online critics have vowed to never let the world forget.

Re:USA & Australia

[mgabrys_sf]

Yes, but New Zealand was for particuarly hardened criminals. And that's a particularly nice place. Much more liberal too.

Douglas Adams pointed that out in the notes that were compiled in his last book (a postscript of material gathered after his death).

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag

[background image]

Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.

You should cite your sources. This is something Alan Watts said many times in many ways. You also might want to provide one of the full quotations, since they're directly relevant to this discussion. For example, in 1968 he said that

Citizens of the United States believe, or are supposed to believe, that a republic is the best form of government. Yet vast confusion arises from trying to be republican in politics and monarchist in religion. How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy? Thus, despite the theory of government by consent, based upon mutual trust, the peoples of the United States retain, from the authoritarian backgrounds of their religions or national origins, an utterly naive faith in law as some sort of supernatural and paternalistic power. "There ought to be a law against it!" Our law-enforcement officers are therefore confused, hindered, and bewildered--not to mention corrupted--by being asked to enforce sumptuary laws, often of ecclesiastical origin, that vast numbers of people have no intention of obeying and that, in any case, are immensely difficult or simply impossible to enforce--for example, the barring of anything so undetectable as LSD-25 from international and interstate commerce. [Emphasis added]

Source

Re:Federally Funded??

[FleaPlus]

Can someone explain how the federal government can fund a program whose sole purpose is clearly in violation of the first amendment?

The funding was done via a congressional earmark to a non-profit organization. I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any particular limitations on what an organization can then do with that money, since the organization itself is operating within the bounds of law. If anything though, this is further evidence that earmarks gloriously suck.

His work is financed by a Justice Department grant initially provided through a Congressional earmark inserted into a spending bill by Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia.

The grant, about $150,000 a year, has helped pay for Mr. Rogers and another retired law enforcement officer in Reno, Nev., to harvest and review complaints about obscene matter on the Internet that citizens register on the Justice Department Web site.

Re:USA & Australia

[lachlan76]

Actually, my understanding was that the majority of us are descended from the non-convict settlers who came as a result of the promise of free travel/land. But I live in a non-convict state, so I could be wrong about the general population.