Spectres of Jesse Helms and Ed Meese resurrected . . . DOJ going after "obscenity" again

[BaliBabyDoc]

Am I the only person that believes $500B deficits are "obscene" while Janet's floppy boob and 40yo women in schoolgirl skirts are just . . . disconcerting?!

WASHINGTON ? The Justice Department (news - web sites) has quietly installed an outspoken anti-pornography advocate in a senior position in its criminal division, as part of an effort to jump-start obscenity prosecutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1980s, Taylor was the lawyer for an anti-porn group known as Citizens for Decency Through Law, which was founded by Charles Keating, who later became embroiled in the savings-and-loan scandals and went to jail.

FCC Chairman Powell is a posterboy for greed, gluttony, and sloth while Minister Arsecroft is the epitome of pride and anger. IMHO, envy drives America . . . while lust never hurt anyone . . . well except for Clinton.

 

[Romans828]

All I can say is its about time they have my full support. I am SICK of smut dealers HIDING under "free speech"

while lust never hurt anyone

That was a joke right?

 

[alzan]

No, you're not the only one. And even though it does concern me, I see it as an election year ploy. The Repubs have ticked-off a good portion of their ultra-conservative base with their percieved wishy-washiness on the gay marriage debate, and are hoping to win back some of the base with the "Let's get tough on porn" gambit.

Arsecroft (and others) need to take off their cross-shaped glasses and take an objective view of the world around them.

alzan

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm normally I would ignore the noob but I will give you at least three licks of the lash today.

1) What the hell is smut and what is obscene? Like I said, billion dollar boondoggles by the bushel in a country with 40m+ without adequate healthcare coverage is obscene. Vehicles that get less than 15mpg are obscene. The Starr Report was smut. IMHO, it should be ILLEGAL to send unsolicited email for Upskirt Granny, Republicans on the Farm, Hairy Democrats, or make Mr. Winky bigger pills . . . but for every person that wants to see that kind of crap . . . why not give them their own domain and quit this "regulate the Internet BS?"

2) Plain old lust never hurt anyone . . . it's acting on that lust that gets you into trouble. Hell it got me married.

3) Welcome to AT.

 

[Gaard]

This may be a little OT, but did anyone else see the guy on the news the other day saying that the FCC has decided that it's ok for the network stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc) to air the 'F' word as long as it's used as an adjective. If it's used as a synonym for sex, it can't be aired.

 

[DealMonkey]

Shouldn't the DoJ be busy finding and prosecuting terrorists? Isn't that Job #1 like "quality" at Ford? Ah ha ha ha ha haha. Ahem.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Romans828
All I can say is its about time they have my full support. I am SICK of smut dealers HIDING under "free speech"

while lust never hurt anyone

That was a joke right?

When you refer to smut dealers are you talking about porn stores, internet sites, pedophile networks, what exactly? And how do you draw the line between art and pornography? Are we doing this to protect children, women?

I just want to get a clarification from a backer of this motion.

 

[chess9]

Smut is what Ashcroft says it is. If you don't like his definition, then elect a new President.

But, anyone who sets out to destroy porn has set out to destroy himself because he will die trying. Porn is the single biggest business on the internet by a large margin. And every one of those guys votes. For every right wing vote Bush gets in that battle he will lose 10, IMHO.

-Robert

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Romans828
All I can say is its about time they have my full support. I am SICK of smut dealers HIDING under "free speech"

while lust never hurt anyone

That was a joke right?

When you refer to smut dealers are you talking about porn stores, internet sites, pedophile networks, what exactly? And how do you draw the line between art and pornography? Are we doing this to protect children, women?

I just want to get a clarification from a backer of this motion.

Yes stuff like pedophile networks deffinately. Things that do hurt children and women should be fought against.

All ponography hurts women. The day YOUR mom or sister falls victim to a sexual preditor might change your views.

Art is a tough call for sure, I sure dont support my tax dollars paying for "a cross floating in urine"

Smut is smut we all KNOW what it is, we simply choose to hide behind symantics

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm normally I would ignore the noob but I will give you at least three licks of the lash today.

1) What the hell is smut and what is obscene? Like I said, billion dollar boondoggles by the bushel in a country with 40m+ without adequate healthcare coverage is obscene. Vehicles that get less than 15mpg are obscene. The Starr Report was smut. IMHO, it should be ILLEGAL to send unsolicited email for Upskirt Granny, Republicans on the Farm, Hairy Democrats, or make Mr. Winky bigger pills . . . but for every person that wants to see that kind of crap . . . why not give them their own domain and quit this "regulate the Internet BS?"

2) Plain old lust never hurt anyone . . . it's acting on that lust that gets you into trouble. Hell it got me married.

3) Welcome to AT.

Thanks for the welcome

tell your liberal friends to ease up on the personal attacks and hate speech, its so beneath them

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Romans828
All I can say is its about time they have my full support. I am SICK of smut dealers HIDING under "free speech"

while lust never hurt anyone

That was a joke right?

When you refer to smut dealers are you talking about porn stores, internet sites, pedophile networks, what exactly? And how do you draw the line between art and pornography? Are we doing this to protect children, women?

I just want to get a clarification from a backer of this motion.

Yes stuff like pedophile networks deffinately. Things that do hurt children and women should be fought against.

All ponography hurts women. The day YOUR mom or sister falls victim to a sexual preditor might change your views.

Art is a tough call for sure, I sure dont support my tax dollars paying for "a cross floating in urine"

Smut is smut we all KNOW what it is, we simply choose to hide behind symantics

Okay, good we're getting somewhere. If this is is how you feel about smut, wouldn't you rather prefer more strict laws against child abuse, domestic violence, indecent exposure and assault? These women and children are victims, so we should stop keep them from getting victimized altogether instead of brooming evidence of it under a carpet, am I right?

 

[Romans828]

Okay, good we're getting somewhere. If this is is how you feel about smut, wouldn't you rather prefer more strict laws against child abuse, domestic violence, indecent exposure and assault? These women and children are victims, so we should stop keep them from getting victimized altogether instead of brooming evidence of it under a carpet, am I right?

Cant I have both?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Okay, good we're getting somewhere. If this is is how you feel about smut, wouldn't you rather prefer more strict laws against child abuse, domestic violence, indecent exposure and assault? These women and children are victims, so we should stop keep them from getting victimized altogether instead of brooming evidence of it under a carpet, am I right?

Cant I have both?

lol, I figured you'd say that :beer: . The more government, the better eh?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

tell your liberal friends to ease up on the personal attacks and hate speech, its so beneath them

Actually that admonishment is usually necessary for my conservative friends . . . unfortunately, it's often not beneath them though.

I guarantee you that a global war on child pornography/pedophilia would get instant support from 99.99% of the male US population . . . probably 0.01% of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan . . . but hey they're allies.

As for what drives versus sates the appetites of sexual predators . . . the jury is out. Our culture objectifies women . . . I'm not sure the SI Swimsuit issue is innocuous while Hustler is not. I was a junior in college before I saw a Hustler and I was downright appalled. In truth Hustler and Penthouse are Playboys with a different camera angle and lighting. To a deviant mind scarcely clothed women (SI) are hardly distinguishable from women having sex (Playboy) or women having sex hanging from a swing (Penthouse) or women having sex with three guys while holding an albino boa (Hustler).

Now the Internet is a slightly different animal b/c I doubt anyone would physically publish the truly deprave things you can find on the Web. On the otherhand, you ususally have to go looking for such things. If your kid gets it in their Inbox that's an American problem. If your kid gets it by using a Search . . . that's YOUR problem.

If I had children they would not watch network television, MTV, BET, or even Disney (since those bastards are always trying to sell something). But the Web is just an extension . . . and a reflection our society at large. Those that preach virtue (while rarely practicing it) will have no more success with "Web Cleansing" than drug interdiction/criminalization or Prohibition. Conservatives and prudes alike are quite adept at closing their minds to different POVs . . . but adopting the techniques of the Taliban, China, or Castro's Cuba just ain't going to work.

 

[Bleep]

I was downright appalled. In truth Hustler and Penthouse are Playboys with a different camera angle and lighting. To a deviant mind scarcely clothed women (SI) are hardly distinguishable from women having sex (Playboy) or women having sex hanging from a swing (Penthouse) or women having sex with three guys while holding an albino boa (Hustler)

Looks like you have done a lot of investigation into this matter.
Bleep

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bleep

I was downright appalled. In truth Hustler and Penthouse are Playboys with a different camera angle and lighting. To a deviant mind scarcely clothed women (SI) are hardly distinguishable from women having sex (Playboy) or women having sex hanging from a swing (Penthouse) or women having sex with three guys while holding an albino boa (Hustler)

Looks like you have done a lot of investigation into this matter.
Bleep

Apparently not since Playboy doesn't show sex photos at all. Playboy just has nudity: no sex, explicit or implied, not even simulated masturbation. Playboy mostly doesn't even show genitals.