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.

[Modernman]

Porn is not speech and no argument can be made except for the kind that contains "what is your definition of alone".

If porn isn't speech, then neither are other movies. You might object to the ideas being put forth in porn (women are sexual objects, promiscuous sex is a good thing, lesbianism is cool etc.) but that doesn't change the fact that there is an idea being put forth.

What would you define as speech?

[antiRepublicrat]

There is no way that there were 1.5 million illegal coathanger abortions per year when it was illegal.

Possible, but back then how many of those resulted in serious physical damage or death to the mother? But the issues don't equate since in abortion there is one very clear direct victim -- the child.

I know that making it stop is impossible but condoning it only expands it by orders of magnitude.

Prohibition didn't slow alcohol abuse. For one, it increased underage drinking, which went down below pre-prohibition levels after repeal. Alcoholism was high during the war (a normal thing), and dropped afterwards, rising again during prohibition and dropping after repeal. Expenditure on distilled spirits rose sharply during prohibition, and dropped down to their previous levels after repeal. History does not support your assumption.

[bvw]

Sure they are proper matters. But respect, discrestion and locality must first again become paramount considerations in making law. The Federal Government has no business imposing its take on such matters over that of the states, for the states are more local, and the states would be wise to leave such laws up to the local counties or cities.

And the Federal Government has the right to and sometimes the duty to pass such laws within the bounds of Federal Districts -- or better, that it delegate to the local governing bodies in such districts the authority to pass such laws.

I'd advise against regulating blasphemy -- but it is allowed and sometimes needed to do to restore proper social function. Does it regard religion? No. It regards harrasment of those have high religious standards.

Freedom of speech is crucial to Liberty and growth, yet stops short of harassment, and may and property should be restrained -- discretely and with the minimum force of police action imposed -- to break fads of social harassment, or stalking types of behaviour.

For example, to give one, say if some homosexual super-activists decided to stand outside of St. Pat's in NYC protest Church Policy. Freedom of speech certainly allows them to do that. Yet should they loduly blaspheme the key religious tenents, in my opinion, that blaspheming rises to "fighting words", just by being blasphemy that can be heard DURING the core religious proceedings.

Conversely, to use an example I barely find palatable, yet use to make a point -- if some good Christians wished to harass a Witch Coven's Halloween meetings, and did so by provocative mockery of that religious proceeding while the witches were assembled as witches -- that also would rise to "fighting words", like that of the blasphemy.

If however the Chistians lined the way to the proceeding, yet kept some distance from the actual assembly -- I'd say that would be okay. My opinion.

[Modernman]

Another point to remember is that, if the US banned porn, such a ban would be imposible to enforce without massive government intrusiveness. With the internet, porn could be easily transmitted from anywhere in the world. Unlike liquor, there is no physical way to interdict porn. Government would be faced with either a totally meaningless ban, or be required to monitor everyone's internet usage.

Of course, I also think you would have a very hard time finding juries willing to convict people for violating such a law. I know I would certainly refuse to convict someone for looking at dirty movies.

[af_vet_rr]

We have a lot of them who just don't get it.
They want government to enforce the rules that God himself has apparently left up to human free will.

substituting Government, for God... for others.
and it's clearly NOT conservatism.

When people substitute government for God, you really have to wonder how far out there they are. I know plenty of people like this, and not just in this thread. They don't even realize it.

[Sweet Land]

Not all blasphemy is harassment or "fighting words," yet even the blasphemy that is not those things is very very evil. Should it all be against the law?

[antiRepublicrat]

The point is that you don't want them doing it because it is intrinsically very very evil.

I don't want them doing it because I think it has a greater possiblility of personal emotional harm than most professions and because it's not a profession that will last them for very long. I don't believe it's conducive to them establishing lasting healthy relationships, which I consider important. There's no evil involved.

We make laws against things that are intrinsically very very evil. Things that lead to self destruction.

Outside of your Bible, the Quran and other religious documents, or liberal anti-gun, -capitalist or -smoking activists, the only things that are intrinsically evil are those that directly harm others.

We even make laws against not wearing seatbelts.

And I am against such nanny-state laws too, even though I personally always wear my seatbelt and demand that any passengers do so as well. When I was an ardent non-smoker, I also believed that anti-smoking laws were wrong and perpetuated the nanny-state.

[biblewonk]

Prohibition can not be shown to have increased drinking. However, it was an anti-biblical thing to do and was doomed to failure. Jesus turned water into wine. Drinking wine, or similar drinks, is not a sin. Being a drunk and putting people in danger is though. Banning all drink would be like banning all sex because there are so many aberations on the basic and good theme.

[biblewonk]

I don't want them doing it because I think it has a greater possiblility of personal emotional harm than most professions and because it's not a profession that will last them for very long. I don't believe it's conducive to them establishing lasting healthy relationships, which I consider important. There's no evil involved.

Now I believe you are lying.

[antiRepublicrat]

Porn is not speech and no argument can be made

Then money is not speech and Campaign Finance Reform was perfectly constitutional. "Speech" and "press" does not apply to only speaking and what's in the newspapers.

[bvw]

There's a time for everything, and I gave my best understannding of what is appropriate for these times now.

[biblewonk]

Porn is not speech. Money is not speech.

[antiRepublicrat]

Another point to remember is that, if the US banned porn, such a ban would be imposible to enforce without massive government intrusiveness.

That's what we were trying to get across earlier, that it would require tyranny. BTW, you'd never get on that jury due to voir dire, and you'd probably get thrown off if you tried to keep to your principles.

[Modernman]

Porn is not speech. Money is not speech.

What is speech, then?

[JesseHousman]

Well. In the midst of all this squalor and filth a ray of hope.

[JesseHousman]

I like porn....

Unfortunately, out there in the hinterland there are legions of you.

A psychiatrist's dream. People who like to sit and watch others fornicate have serious deep-rooted mental problems.

[ZULU]

Prostitution and pornography are bad. So is telling lies, blasphemy and not attending religious services. But should they be against the law?

Child pornographers should be sent to prison for life - no time off for parole or good behavior - a prison in the Aleutians would be nice. They can cool their gonads in the balmy Behring Sea.

But what adults choose to read and watch is between them and their God, and the government has no right to censor what any of us read or watch.

Do you seriously want the same people who call a painting of a crucifix in urine or a picture of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung "art" making moral decisions for us?


Its OUR job to determine what we watch and see, not THEIRS. Once the government starts down the road towards censorship there is no stopping it and this website could be next under a Kerry regime.


Slowly, very slowly, all our Constitutional rights are being eroded away in the name of the public good.

[Modernman]

A psychiatrist's dream. People who like to sit and watch others fornicate have serious deep-rooted mental problems.

I would say (and most shrinks would probably agree) that people who do not find the sight of others engaged in intercourse a little bit arousing probably have some psychological issues of their own.

[LowOiL]

The two types of posters on this thread are vividly described in this picture.

[biblewonk]

Slowly, very slowly our society is eroding away to humanistic headonism. Soon marriage will be any group of living things that like to have sex with each other. You mentioned age as a limiting factor for porn but that is a silly manmade constraint. The average ho starts her career at 14 years old. Keep porn and prostitution legit and soon we, as in other countries, will have arguments for reducing the age of concent(sp).

Any thought about decency and the roles of the government is laughed even off of so called conservative web sites.