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.

[Dimensio]

And we'll have to reduce the sentences of hard-core violent offenders to make room for the influx of "porn offenders".

[BSunday]

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

Yet once again I stand accused of saying something I never said !!

FYI, the truth I claimed as self evident was that porn is bad and causes societal decay, as some here have claimed otherwise.

[ThinkDifferent]

Why can't a state like Utah ban whatever they want?

Well, there's that Constitution thingy.

[ThinkDifferent]

I see no reason why prostitution is illegal in light of last year's sodomy ruling. I've been arguing that very point.

I agree, although probably not in the way you'd like...

[Modernman]

A city can ban a strip club but not a state? Is that where the line is drawn?

I believe some states do ban strip club, and the exercise of such power is perfectly constitutional.

However, that's a different issue than whether or not the DOJ should be using its resources to prosecute obscenity cases.

[Quick1]

Which law precisely? And why does it suddenly need enforcement now? We're not talking about child porn here.

[antiRepublicrat]

I haven't watched HBO since the mid-80s.

[eleni121]

Any and all anti porn laws need enforcement fast and now especially after the 8 years of inaction under the zombies Reno/Clinton.

It is absolutely the government's (my elected representatives) charge to regualte dangerous and demoralizing filth that endangers young people and causes irreparable emotional and physical harm.

[Quick1]

anti porn laws

Such as? I'm not sure exactly what those are, other than ones that regulate child porn, and probably some that regulate who can get access to porn. Other than that, I don't think XXX videos are illegal.

[The Westerner]

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. I never heard of some of this stuff, but that's why I love FR, I learn, learn, learn.

[biblewonk]

Where were we? Ummm All porn should be illegal.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[jimt]

FYI, the truth I claimed as self evident was that porn is bad and causes societal decay, as some here have claimed otherwise.

Sorry, that's one you'll have to prove. Acceptance of this premise would obviate the discussion, so clearly quite a few of us claim otherwise.

[robertpaulsen]

"Well, there's that Constitution thingy."

I forgot about that -- what did that amendment say? "The right of the people and their children to be exposed to smut, pornography, and vulgarity shall not be infringed."

Actually, the origigal Constitution and BOR as written and ratified allowed each state the power to restrict this crap. You can thank (and maybe you will) the 14th amendment for giving the federal government the power to decide for all states what is protected by the 1st amendment (including the "freedem of expression", defined as being able to spin one's sagging breasts in different directions).

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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

I'm not sure where you were trying to go with this post . . .

[robertpaulsen]

"I believe some states do ban strip club, and the exercise of such power is perfectly constitutional."

The reason I even brought it up was to demonstrate that a desire to have government deal with "sin" is NOT the recipe for tyranny, as opined by jimt.

[BSunday]

Whatever dude. A certain number of people disagreeing with the truth does not in fact invalidate that truth. I brought up two quick examples off the top of my head, which you either didn't see or didn't agree with. I don't have the time to try to convince you that porn is bad, if you think otherwise. I don't like spitting into the wind, as it were.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Also, it makes the administration look like religious maniacs.

. . . the one thing that'll resonate with voters this election season the most, and it bears repeating. Despite what some people on FR may think, the country is not AOK with the Christian Right.

[robertpaulsen]

They give us spell check for a reason. Original, freedom.

[weegee]

If you feel that way, be sure to speak up in any and all threads on (homosexual) same sex sodomite rights. After all, the Supreme Court is institutionalizing another hypocritical double standard.

Senator Rick Santorum also said that this was the case and we were told that he was speaking hyperbolically and trying to scare the public. Flyover country knew exactly what the decision meant even if the Supreme Court tried to deny it.