U.S. declares War on Porn

Baltimore Sun ^ | April 5, 2004 | Laura Sullivan

[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.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography.

Finally, a government job that Bill Clinton is actually qualified to do!!

[jimt]

When the government turns it's back on sin, like abortion, the resultant degredation of society is worse than any imagined government intrusion.

This attitude, which apparently Mr. Ashcroft shares, is the basis of a theocracy.

Shall we stone adulterers? What punishment is fit for those who don't keep the Sabbath day holy? How about amputating the feet of those caught dancing? Maybe make those who consume alcohol drink boiling water? Make smokers inhale chlorine?

Government has NO business with sin. Government exists to protect individual rights.

You're putting the government in God's place.

[af_vet_rr]

Until very recently half of the states had anti-sodomy laws. They all fell overnight and you don't see a trend in the wrong direction?

Oh I see a trend in the wrong direction all right, I see a trend in judicial activism. I don't care whether it's liberal or conservative judges, judicial activism is still activism, and it's still wrong.

[biblewonk]

Thou shall not steal.

[The Westerner]

Seeing the full frontal shot of a human body insults your intelligence? Your sense of right and wrong? Is it the things the bodies are doing? Or just the nakedness?

Have you been to Europe? Are you offended by the naked statues all over the cities there?

Tip: Turn off the tv...

A war on porn is going to backfire for this conservative administration. I don't think porn is a republican vs. democrat issue. Also, it makes the administration look like religious maniacs.

[LowOiL]

The libertarians certainly perked up on this thread

Porn and Drugs make their day...

[jimt]

Some truth is self evident, and requires no proving.

Like the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The right to tell your neighbor what to watch on TV is not one of those "self evident" truths.

[republicofdavis]

"Until very recently half of the states had anti-sodomy laws. They all fell overnight and you don't see a trend in the wrong direction?"

I partially agree with you here. That decision was horribly wrong. But for me it was because the USSC had no basis to reach the issue of state regulation of sodomy. They exercised raw judicial power. I think it should have been up to the states.

There's a different question on the issue we're discussing here because porn (for the most part) is the depiction of a legal act. And it brings into play 1st Amendment issues that sodomy does not.

[biblewonk]

I totally disagree, I see them as identical issues. There used to be anti-prostitution laws in the books that meant something. Their used to be anti adultary laws. All have gone the same way but all are on the same topic. Other than the bible, not one of those laws had a leg to stand on and since we are doing away with Christianity in our government, all are gone.

[weegee]

The incident I refer to was a segment in which 2 "lesbians" are seen in a bathtub together tonguing each other. They are groping each other's breasts. They stand up in the tub to show that they still have penises. They are sexual freaks of several orders.

Just as there is nothing obscene about a "nipple", the way that Janet Jackson deliberately exposed her mutilated nipple (she bought that pierce in Houston) was an affront to decency standards.

And for the record, I happened across HBO's "real sex" while changing the channel. I was surprised at how explict HBO had gotten (especially when Warner Brothers' Cinemax historically has had the "late night softcore" reputation).

HBO has also showed controlled shots of women masturbating with glass dildos, men performing geek tricks with their genitals, and scenes from a British game show where the object is to see which of 3 man can excrete first (the results were shown in the toilet via an overhead camera). The pooping game show was included among other "sexual" programming on an HBO documentary.

Keep your EU scat out of America.

[olorin]

The libertarians certainly perked up on this thread

Porn and Drugs make their day...

Porn and drugs don't make my day, but railing against a wasteful, intrusive nanny government helps make my day.

[The Westerner]

My Eu Scat? What the heck?

I stand by my earlier statement. Don't subscribe or just hit the off button. I'm not a lover of all things porn, but whatever silliness people pay for on cable is not a criminal issue. The thought of John Ashcroft's boys looking at "soft core" porn all day is ludicrous. It makes Ashcroft out to be exactly what the left has been screaming--a right-wing religious wacko.

[republicofdavis]

"There used to be anti-prostitution laws in the books that meant something. Their used to be anti adultary laws."

None of which were effective, but I'll give you that they may have social value.

Do you think that Nevada should be able to have legalized prostitution or should it be banned nationally. If the latter, what would be the constitutional basis to do so, or would you not care whether there was one?

[antiRepublicrat]

because as "we all know", our freedoms hinge on whether or not pornography is readily available.

And yet our freedom to satire was affirmed because of a vulgar cartoon Larry Flynt made about Jerry Falwell. That precedent protects us all. It's only real freedom if you also allow those things you disagree with.

[antiRepublicrat]

I for one don't want to see porn spam email and porn popups when I am websurfing ... When a tape is shipped from one state to another, it crosses state lines making it subject to Federal prosecution.

You are mixing wildly different cases. I agree that unsolicited porn spam and popups when not already on a porn site should be stopped. That is in many cases quite literally forcing porn on unsuspecting people. However your latter case was one of an adult requesting that porn be sent to him -- BIG difference.

[weegee]

There's a different question on the issue we're discussing here because porn (for the most part) is the depiction of a legal act. And it brings into play 1st Amendment issues that sodomy does not.

Except that a person (adult or minor) can legally have sex with a minor (one that is over the "age of consent" but under 18) and it is a crime to film that act or photograph the minor. Even if both participants are under 18 (but over the age of consent).

Bestiality is legal in some areas; does the Texas prohibition on "public acts" of bestiality include taped episodes of such an act? Pretty much this has been taken to be illegal porn even though the act itself is legal.

If "first amendment" grounds are used to defend pornography that documents legal sex acts, pornography is going to have to be permitted to show minors over the age of consent and bestiality.

The solution to this loophole is to raise the age of consent to 18 in every state. I think that some communities still put the age at 21 to be able to buy or view pornography (so there would exist another instance of "can be in it but can't have it").

Bestiality should be outlawed everywhere and not just because the animal "can't consent". Does your pet dog ask for permission to hump your leg? Does the dog accept your refusal to be a sex partner when you brush him off your leg or does he go right back into the act?

If we are going to regulate how, when, and under what circumstances animals have sex, then the entire breeding industry (whether it is for pets or livestock) would be put under such regulation. After all, if "consent" is the litmus test, do any cows every "consent" to being fertilized by a farmer's arm?

"Romeo & Juliet" (now "Romero & Romeo" as well) exceptions to the "age of consent" would have to be eliminated as well. Certainly is a double standard to say that kids are too young to consent to have sex and then say it is alright for kids to consent to have sex (even with adults who's ages are in 4 years' proximity). Statutory rape is another of those areas of law that fell out of fashion along with adultery.

[biblewonk]

Do you think that Nevada should be able to have legalized prostitution or should it be banned nationally. If the latter, what would be the constitutional basis to do so, or would you not care whether there was one?

Splain to me the constitutional basis for anti-sodomy laws that used to exist but have all fallen? How has the constitution changed? Perhaps anti-sodomy laws were wrong all along. There are many who think so today.

But no I do not think Nevada should have been able to legalize prostitution. Prostitution is bad and legalizing it is just the state government whoring for money, which is also bad.

[jimt]

Thou shall not steal.

I assume that terse reply is to exemplify one of the Ten Commandments that appears in law everywhere.

There are quite a few others that do not.

The one cited doesn't run counter to my argument, either. When someone steals, they are clearly violating the other person's right to property.

When an abortionist murders a baby, they're clearly violating the baby's right to life.

Your desire to have government deal with "sin", however, is the recipe for tyranny. For the second time, aren't you putting government in God's place?

[weegee]

You ridiculed me for having a closed "American" mind and suggested that I would freak out if I saw a naked statue in Europe.

The European Union tolerates all sorts of sex that is of the ilk targeted by this imposition of "community standards". When HBO shows clips of European scat fetish, has a line been crossed?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Government small enough to fit in your bedroom.