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 ...
FBI's budget appears to be too large.
DeLay can cut here for starters.
Which side of this "us vs them" equation do you put Catharine MacKennon on?
Guns kill a lot of people too. Do you want to outlaw them? If not, why not?
Give them all a fair trial and a fast hanging.
Who? The porn producers or the fbi?
The porn producers and their terrorists. I don't care what happens to their lawyers. Give the FBI and the military healthy salary increases.
Well, that's a good poing...
Should we also execute those that sell or use adult beverages?
I thought the FBI, DOJ, CIA were broken down organizations when the Clintons were in charge. Now, 6 years into the Bush administration, the FBI, DOJ, CIA and now the DHS are totally dysfunctions insofar as one can tell. Just what the hell are we doing with all the reorganizations and billions we're spending? Give me a break.
Does that mean you can't answer?
Look, if you're going to make the argument, at the very least, I expect you to be able to define your terms.
I'm rather old fashioned that way, I know.
I don't have a lot of time to sit my computer lately, so I check in now and then.
Why don't you define art first?
I already stated that currently, the word "art" has no meaning. It used to have a meaning, but apparently not any more.
Benjamin Franklin devised a code of morality for himself which he endeavored to follow, with good success, his whole life. About alcohol and overeating, this was his guide:
Temperance - Eat not to dullness, drink not to elevation.
IOW, there is the potential for a moderate use of alcohol. Personally, I don't drink any alcohol. But people can drink moderately without harming themselves, and in fact, there is evidence that a little wine can be actually healthful.
You bring guns into the argument (not sure why) but since the right to keep and bear arms is a basic right since the inception of this country and very clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights, I solidly affirm that this right is extremely important for our freedoms and our personal defense. Naturally fire arms (or swords, pickaxes, pen knives, hammers, hatchets, baseball bats, guitar strings, cement blocks, large chunks of stone, rat poison, nunchucks, and so on) can be used legitimately for useful purposes, or for ill.
Pornography, OTOH, has no benign purpose, and was not considered to be protected "speech" until the ACLU and pornography producers convinced a left leaning SCOTUS it was. Similarly the SCOTUS discovered a right to kill unborn children. There is no benign or beneficial use of pornography, and there is no reason for it to be considered protected under the First Amendment. And there certainly is every reason for local communities to have the freedom to decide if they want to set limits on its production or distribution.
Currently, local communities have no say in the matter, since the fedgov has forced it down everyones' throats, so to speak.
In case anyone's interested, here is his entire list of virtues:
Benjamin Franklin's List of Virtues
1. Temperance - Eat not to dullness, drink not to elevation.
2. Silence - Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order - Let all things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. Resolution - Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality - Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, that is, waste nothing.
6. Industry - Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity - Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice - Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation - Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness - Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquility - Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents, common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity - Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, or weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13. Humility - Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
Nearly every local city around me has passed laws/regs regulating sexual oriented business. It appears that local communities can do what you say they can not.
My small town tried to prevent a porn shop from opening on the main street. The mayor even got a lawyer to see how he could prevent it, many letters were written, it created a big ruckus.
The lawyer's decision? Nothing could be done. School kids walk past it every school day.
Have your mayor contact some of the small/medium towns in East Texas as they appear to have had no trouble passing such restrictions.
I have no trouble banning store fronts, it is when people wish to ban pay cable/internet services that people opt into that it worries me.
Nah, but maybe those who ask stupid questions
The First Amendment was written to specifically deal with the press. In reality, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "right" to publish or read porn, nor private citizens speech; no matter how Larry Flynt and his lawyers twisted it, for their court cases.
Trying to smear me with that awfully large brush full of tar, re I can't tell what porn ( or obscenity or even art ) is, but I know it when I see it, line, is preposterous. You asked me, twice, to define porn, but I declined to do so; twice.I did this, because no matter what I would have written, it wouldn't have satisfied you. You were/are only looking for an argument and nothing I would or could have said would have ended that discussion. No, it would have only given you more fodder, with which to argue.
Some people see pornography in everything and anything; others see it nowhere, even when it is staring them in the face. From your posts, you appear to fall into the first category.
Ooooooooooo...so you wanna play games, do you? Okay, take Titian's THE RAPE OF LUCRECE BY TARQUIN. Oh dear, oh dear, there's *gasp* "rape" in the title and Lucrece's sort of naked, but you really cant see any of the "dirty bits", now can you? But Tarquin, who is not only fully clothed, but wearing armor, is threatening her with a knife/dagger. That's just got to be a "dirty" painting, doesn't it? Just look at the fright masking Lucrece's face!
But, if you didn't know what the title was, you might also suppose that the man was going to kill her, or was threatening her for any number of reasons.
How about a lot of Bosch's paintings? Pick one, any one of the most famous will do. Aren't they prime examples of Sadomasochistic "erotic" art? Noooooooooooo? But look at all of those naked, writhing bodies being tortured! Oh, they're representations of what will befall sinners and not meant to be pornographic, salaciously detailed erotica for the S&M crowd? Says you! No.......says me. No......and on and on. LOL
But surely Girodet's MADEMOISELLE LANGE AS DANAE is filthy porn. Maybe even child porn? Only if you have a filthy mind and see salacious pornography at every turn! Even knowing the myth this painting is based on, doesn't turn it into anything remotely akin to porn, erotica, or even highly sexual.
So then, what's left but flowers and landscapes, to be seen as "pure", unsullied by any sexual overtones at all? Oh drat! There's Georgia O'Keefe and all of that chatter about how those flowers are just gynecological studies of vulvas.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
What it comes down to, is the fact that YOU have put words into my mouth, which were never uttered nor typed, you think that filth is just fine, and that you find sexuality and slaciousness, and pornography in everything.
Loser.......errrrrrrrrr Libertarian are you ? We had a Libertarian on FR, a while ago, who thought that explicit child pornography was "ART" and neither harmful to those exploited, nor those who enjoyed viewing it. He was banned. Most of us DO know the difference between art and pornography and aren't the blue noses you claim we are.
IOW the vices you like are OK it's just the ones you don't like that you wish to kill people for doing.
Who else is on your To Bill Killed list?
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.