Posted on 09/23/2005 6:58:52 PM PDT by Lorianne
Washington -- The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.
Last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a memo from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director," Robert Mueller.
The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.
"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."
Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."
A few of the printable samples:
"Things I Don't Want On My Resume, Volume Four."
"I already gave at home."
"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Indeed. But we are talking about people who are arguably insane. I don't want the issue being decided solely on that basis any more than I want the issue of religious freedom decided on the basis of the existence of people like Jim Jones.
I think what we were dealing with is the art that was prevalent from the middle ages, ending in the twentieth century.
Beauty and form have been debased by modern culture. The examples of the desecration of the Cross and the Blessed Virgin, are manifestations of anger and maleovolence, NOT art.
SCOTUS is a joke. They've rewritten the Constitution to the point that it's unrecognizable. Don't even expect them to uphold any moral beliefs. Besides telling us that homeowners merely rent from the government, they banned the Ten Commandments from schools and public buildings, banned Nativity scenes from public view, and are diligently working to wipe any mention of God from the face of this nation.
The goal seems to be to desensitize the population. This works because if people are too busy snorting meth and having sex, they aren't paying attention to their good friends in government.
I really don't see an art revival in this century. No, the Masters from the Middle Ages defined beauty and purity, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for putting up with this crap!
I'm talking about normal people that get caught up in it, as well as serial killers. They are insane, but "normal people" can become damaged by viewing disturbing images.
There has always been hard core pornography, but it was kept hidden from the general population. I don't know about court deciding what is bad and good, because frankly I don't think they could find their rear ends with both hands.
I don't drink alcohol in any form.
I also don't think that it should be outlawed, just because I don't like it.
No, public standards should be decided by the public. It's not my fault if the majority of the public disagrees with your standards. If you want to picket, protest, or lead a boycott of companies that produce sexually suggestive ads or porn or anything at all that you don't like, I fully support your right to do so.
What I don't support is using the power of government to restrict such things. Because if your side can do it, then so can the other side, and that leads to things like the homosexual agenda being forced on gradeschool children. Is that what you want? Their methods are exactly the same as yours: deciding that they know what is best for everyone else, and then using the power of government to enforce their views.
If you can't see that, then we must agree to disagree.
Are you sure? I don't see any discussion or examples of normal people being inspired to criminal acts by pornography. It all seems to be about the serial killers.
As my ex brother in law would say, "Well there ya go"! Lol, you've made a wise decision, but I'm still itching to make fun of you ;-)
I'm very sure. It's not just "criminal acts", it is the gradual desensitivation of the individual watching the movies, and reading the novels. It puts ideas in your head, that maybe would never occur to you. Swinging isn't a crime, but the parents of Danielle Van Dam were swingers. They didn't watch their child carefully enough, because they were too busy gratifying their sexual urges. How about threesomes? How do you keep a marriage and family together when you indulge in these kinds of sexual practices?
I'm not a prude, but a line has to be drawn as to what you will do regarding sexual activity.
You have other things to do, but when you're here, you're "as bold as a lion." It is a simple yet incredibly profound thing: there exists a real devil actively scheming to hurt and destroy people. One of his most effective gambits is porn. It hurts everyone it touches.
True enough. But the disagreement isn't over wheather there needs to be a line, but rather where it should be and who should enforce it.
Art, glorious, beautiful, inspiring, whimsical, and even thought provoking art isn't just what was produced in the Middle Ages. There's a very long line of masterpieces through the 20th century; however, there have always also been shoddy, peculiar, even bizarre junk produces throughout history, as well.
Up until rather recently, pornography/degrading, hopelessly salacious garbage has been kept out of the hand/eyes of most people. The more this stuff is seen, the more desensitized adults and children become to it and yes, even numbed to it. And no, it just is NOT "art" at all!
The pendulum always swings. Will we live to see the change? I don't know, but I hope so.
Personally, I think "we the people" should enforce the line. There are the usual idiots who take advantage of our precious rights under the First Amendment. They know no restraint. I have no idea how to constitutionally impose a legal "line in the sand", with out violating the First Amendment.
Sexual themes run throughout Dali's works. That was just one of the more obvious ones, and since you were trying to debate the sexual themes in what I considered a plainly sexual piece of work, I wanted to make sure there was no debate--and clearly, there is no debate with the work I chose.
But you still didn't say whether or not it was art. You hemmed and hawed, and said if it wasn't "Daliesque," it would be pornography, but what makes it that way?
What it comes down to is the Supreme Court's say on the matter, which isn't particularly satisfactory: you know pornography when you see it. A couple problems with that: (1) it's totally subjective (again, see my comments on Helmut Newton. I think he's great, but I could certainly see how some people, since his works often feature naked women, would call it pornography); and (2) it's totally pompous and self-centered: you think it's pornography and should be banned, and thus everyone else who thinks differently is wrong.
I rather think that the point of the First Amendment is to allow such differences to be injected into public debate. So if anyone can come up with an intermediate and yet tenable position that would adequately define art while excluding pornography, I might be inclined to adopt it, but the difficulty is finding that position.
I don't know about the 20th Century art. Of course there have been great works of art done, but I'm sticking to the depiction of the human body. When you compare the work done in the Middle Ages, and up to the 19th century, it was done with restraint and elegance.
I love Art Deco, but that's not an issue here. The issue is the coarsening of society. Do you know how impossible it is to censor this stuff, without looking like a total nutcase? I'm talking about TV commercials, and even magazines, besides art.
We'll see what happens down the line. People are all ready getting fed up with thong panties for little girls,and t-shirts for girls bearing snotty messages against boys.
It's a pompous question.
Local governments - state, county and municipal - used to be able to make decisions about pornography locally, according to locally desired standards. The only "public" who is allowed to make any decisions about porn now are the porn producers and distributors. Local governments can do zilch about it. No voice at all. Your argument is hollow.
You claim that "the people" wanted E-Z access porn. Well, if by "people" you mean the porn producers such as Larry Flynt, the jolly likeable fellows who wish us all well at the ACLU, and the same SCOTUS who forced abortion on everyone, I suppose they're people too. Just not "We, the People".
Now if anyone (aka as "people") want to limit or restrict porn in any way, shape or form, the "people" in the form of the ACLU and porn producers, backed up by previous SCOTUS decisions, won't let the actual People do anything about it.
So it's one group of "people" (regular people) versus "people" - porn producers and the ACLU.
No, by "people" I mean the millions of people in this country who spend billions of dollars every year buying what you call "E-Z access porn". I notice you don't account for them in your little civics lesson... why is that? Is it that their opinions don't count for some reason... perhaps because they disagree with you?
Or is it just that you know what's best, hmm?
Really a lot of people, over the years, have purchased, usually repeatedly, substances such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.
Oh, but you probably want that legal, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.