Posted on 04/05/2004 9:23:56 PM PDT by Quick1
WASHINGTON -- Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in rooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Very much the wrong fundamentalist. But why should the fundamental humanist, fundamental evolutionist, get to make all of the rules as of late. It's all just one religion vs the next.
Young girls have taken up this practice and go on the internet. They set up "wishlists" and whore themselves out (some call themselves camwhores). There are adults who engage in this behavior but there are also minors.
It matters not that they produce porn themselves, they are unable to consent legally to the exploitation that they are engaging in. The law cannot distinguish between an adult child porn producer and a minor child porn producer.
As I have stated several times on this thread, while it is not always a crime to engage in sex with someone under 18, it is always a crime to film it.
I don't want to tell you what erotic materials you can and can't look at (barring exploitation of children). That's the 'fundamental' difference.
Are we reading the same Constitution?
Man is not an animal and should not be treated as such by the government.
Exactly. We nanny and control animals, make them do our bidding, where a man should be allowed to decide what is best for himself.
When the government starts treating people as if they were animals, very "bad" things happen.
Yes, the current government state of telling people what to do as if they were animals is not resulting in a very free society.
Just like supply-side WOD doesn't work, supply-side WOPorn won't work, either.
Increasingly huge fines for possession is the only way to nip it, nip it, nip it!
How many dead junkie sports stars needed to be trotted out before you to see just how it kills the life in the performers? I saw a list of dead porn stars once, and I don't remember OD being up there as a cause of death.
Hmm... Consuming it doesn't make it disappear?
That's not really a conservative view on government's role. Government exists to guarantee our rights. More simply put, IMO, is that government exists to protect us from each other. Your view opens the door for government to ban smoking, drinking, unhealthy foods, sky-diving, motorcycling, running wth scissors etc.
Prostitution, adultary and porn are all "wrong" also. Man is not an animal and should not be treated as such by the government. When the government starts treating people as if they were animals, very "bad" things happen.
We do not give animals a say in what they do with their bodies. By saying that we should ban porn, you are making the argument that consenting adults should be treated like animals in that regard.
Actually man can decide to "rise above" the animals and control his base instincts. Animals rape, murder, and eat their young (as well as engaging in same sex rape and interspecies sex).
Civilized man says that these are unacceptable actions.
Domesticated animals (pets and livestock) are controlled to some extent to do our bidding but man hardly controls the life of every animal.
Are you sure it wasn't the catalog itself? (All the hubbub in the media says it's the same thing ;-)
Jailtime for taking pictures of yourself is just too wierd for me. I'm sure they could go after her patrons who found themselves in possession of child pornography.
Knowing what I know about Aschroft (my best friend worked for him for two years and I've met him on several occasions), I think he would fully ban porn if he could.
And organized crime has been and continues to operate in the LEGAL porn trade. Just because some of their revenue sources are legal does not eliminate them from the picture.
Sure, but big porn companies, such as Playboy and Vivid are publicly-traded corporations. They're subject to various forms of scrutiny. It's much easier to keep organized crime out of a legal business than it is to keep them out of underground affairs.
An analogy can be made to moonshiners- the reason people don't buy their booze from moonshiners these days (even though their product is cheaper than legal booze) is because consumers, given a choice, are more comfortable dealing with a legal, regulated company.
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.