Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. declares War on Porn
Baltimore Sun ^ | April 5, 2004 | Laura Sullivan

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algoresfault; antichristianbigot; ashcroftbashing; babyboomers; blamealgore; clintonlegacy; clintonlibertarians; crime; culturewar; doasthouwill; fbi; hedonism; hedonists; homosexualagenda; ifitfeelsgooddoit; internetporn; itsjustsex; libertarianflamewar; libertinarians; libertines; obscenity; obscenitylaws; permissivesociety; porn; pornisfun; pornisgood; pornography; promiscuity; religiousintolerance; sex; slipperyslope; supremecourt; waronporn; wasteoftime; wildgoosechase
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-658 next last
To: robertpaulsen
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.

Dealing with sin is not the primary reason behind regulation of strip clubs. Keep in mind, strip clubs are heavily regulated in the God-fearing, bible-reading town of Los Angeles but quite prolific (and incredibly risque) in the bible-belt city of Atlanta.

Rather, strip clubs are targeted because of so-called "secondary effects" that they cause, such as drunk driving, prostitution, drunk and disorderly behavior etc.

The "secondary effects" argument may or may not be a good one when it comes to strip clubs. However, when it comes to people engaging in sinful behavior in the privacy of their own homes (whether watching pornography, engaging in homosexual sex, swinging etc.), the fear of secondary effects does not seem to be applicable.

361 posted on 04/07/2004 7:52:05 AM PDT by Modernman (Work is the curse of the drinking classes. -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
At least the prohibition of alcohol lead (indirectly) to NASCAR. A lot of the early racers honed their skills runnin' shine.
362 posted on 04/07/2004 8:16:11 AM PDT by Cooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Modernman
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.

Try selling it on the basis that it's "sin", and you'll lose almost every time.

These restrictions are sold on the basis of the banned activities being "criminal", or "reducing property values", or "seedy", or "dangerous to children". The farthest they typically ever go is "immoral", and not very often. This is a view that can be held without regard to "sin".

Having government deal with "sin" IS a recipe for tyranny, because the presumption is the government has the backing of God. It doesn't. Does God write and approve zoning ordinances, or fallible men and women ?

363 posted on 04/07/2004 8:18:45 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

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

So technically, we can say that we, American taxpayers, are contributing to the decay of society then. After all, our tax dollars are paying people to sit around and look at porn all day.

I could almost justify this whole thing if Ashcroft was going after the porn pop-ups or misleading websites where you get the porn thrust at you involuntarily. I could totally see that, because we don't have porn projected at us from billboards or storefronts or broadcast television (yes, there are things pushing that, but then again, some consider the women's underwear section of the Sears catalogue to be porn). Going after adult porn in general is a ridiculous waste of government resources.

Speaking of the decay of society, I would be willing to bet that poor parenting is doing more harm than all of the porn out there.

364 posted on 04/07/2004 8:23:25 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Ummm All porn should be illegal.

And since you're probably basing that on your religious laws, so should adultery, Sabbath breaking, wearing nice clothes and being the wrong denomination. Those were also religious puritan laws aimed at controlling the morality of the masses.

365 posted on 04/07/2004 8:37:02 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
PJ O'Rourke had a line that went,

Gotta love PJ!

366 posted on 04/07/2004 8:39:13 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
When the porn issue is debated on FR, the majority of the posts would make one think he was on a democrat forum instead of a conservative one. Either that are there are a lot more libertarians on FR than I thought.
367 posted on 04/07/2004 8:43:17 AM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"Having government deal with "sin" IS a recipe for tyranny"

You brought this up for a reason. You used those words deliberately. Based on that, can you cite for me one example where the government passed a law solely because the activity was "sinful".

And if they never have (and likely never will), why did you even bring this up? Seems a little "Chicken Little-ish", yes?

368 posted on 04/07/2004 8:44:49 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
A certain number of people disagreeing with the truth does not in fact invalidate that truth.

As an exercise: Religion is damaging to society, this is a basic truth. It has been known to cause divisiveness and persecution. People disagreeing with the truth does not in fact invalidate that truth.

By your reasoning I am automatically right.

369 posted on 04/07/2004 8:45:51 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
a desire to have government deal with "sin" is NOT the recipe for tyranny, as opined by jimt.

And me. The point is that in order to combat "sin" a government would need tyrannical powers. We believe that exercise of those powers is more damaging than any sin could be in itself.

370 posted on 04/07/2004 8:47:49 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
misleading websites where you get the porn thrust at you involuntarily.

BTW, that is illegal. If you ever find porn at domain with an innocent sounding name, especially one that could be found by kids in looking for kid stuff (especially like a misspelled "harrypottr.com"), write it down and call your prosecutor. It is a federal crime. But I'm sure Ashcroft is too busy chasing down adults producing porn for adults.

371 posted on 04/07/2004 8:51:31 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"The point is that in order to combat "sin" a government would need tyrannical powers."

I agree. But they never have and never will. See my post #368.

372 posted on 04/07/2004 8:52:48 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Right. Nice try. Ad absurdum is a tool of a week argument.
373 posted on 04/07/2004 8:56:12 AM PDT by BSunday (Become a monthly donor. Every little bit helps. Even as little as 3 bucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
God, some of you people are so addicted to porn that you can't see straight. You're actually BUYING what is obviously nothing but a smear campaign on Ashcroft based on wholesale lies, based on the relentless "the Christian Right is Evil Incarnate" propaganda that you've been indoctrinated with all your lives (and I'm agnostic, btw, but I know BS when I smell it)

First off, the only actual case discussed in the article that I saw was a STATE bringing charges against a video store. Not the federal courts. A State. And it lost. With a jury of all women between 40 and 60. In 3 hours. Oh, but it's from Ashcroft's "home state", so obviously it was all his doing! What a crock!

The only -other- actual example I saw was in a different article about the same thing, and THAT case was about porn depicting murders and -rapes- as sexually appetizing. Let me guess, that's okay too? The Justice Dept. shouldn't consider snuff films and rape pornography to be beyond the standards of society?

The Left is taking the exact same tactic with this that they tried with Guantanamo and the Patriot Act (okay, so we don't actually have any real evidence of any abuses, but he COULD and WILL do something really bad, just watch!) It's ridiculous, and the bulk of you are buying it hook, line and sinker. Welcome to useful-idiotville.

Qwinn
374 posted on 04/07/2004 8:57:31 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
And not only that, I think you missed part of the post that you replied to:

"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."

Good day.

375 posted on 04/07/2004 9:00:39 AM PDT by BSunday (Become a monthly donor. Every little bit helps. Even as little as 3 bucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Cooter
lead = led
376 posted on 04/07/2004 9:16:12 AM PDT by Cooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
When the porn issue is debated on FR, the majority of the posts would make one think he was on a democrat forum instead of a conservative one. Either that are there are a lot more libertarians on FR than I thought.

So, it's your position that conservatives should be in favor of more intrusive government?

377 posted on 04/07/2004 9:24:09 AM PDT by Modernman (Work is the curse of the drinking classes. -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Based on that, can you cite for me one example where the government passed a law solely because the activity was "sinful".

Blue laws.

Pay up.

378 posted on 04/07/2004 9:30:16 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Can't a community decide these issues?

Yep. For instance, if I set up a lemonade stand that charges $20 a glass, the community will put me out of business soon enough.

379 posted on 04/07/2004 9:34:27 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
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.

Even without the more fundamental reasons why this is a bad idea, this is sufficient reason to abandon this nonsense. It would be bad enough if it merely diverted efforts from the defense of human civilization against Wahabiwacko barbarians; it is absolutely intolerable when it destroys the respect the defenders need to do their jobs.

380 posted on 04/07/2004 9:37:35 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-658 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson