Bush's war on Porn...guess we've won the war on terror already.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 3rdpath, Sep 20, 2005.

  1. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #1
    Recruits Sought for Porn Squad
    By Barton Gellman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A21


    The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

    Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

    Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

    The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

    "I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

    Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

    A few of the printable samples:

    "Things I Don't Want On My Resume, Volume Four."

    "I already gave at home."

    "Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

    Federal obscenity prosecutions, which have been out of style since Attorney General Edwin Meese III in the Reagan administration made pornography a signature issue in the 1980s, do "encounter many legal issues, including First Amendment claims," the FBI headquarters memo noted.

    Applicants for the porn squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards -- along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit -- define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.

    "Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.

    Popular acceptance of hard-core pornography has come a long way, with some of its stars becoming mainstream celebrities and their products -- once confined to seedy shops and theaters -- being "purveyed" by upscale hotels and most home cable and satellite television systems. Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.

    But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

    Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. The bureau decided to create a dedicated squad only in the Washington Field Office. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said. "Field offices should not, however, divert resources from higher priority matters, such as public corruption."

    Public corruption, officially, is fourth on the FBI's priority list, after protecting the United States from terrorist attack, foreign espionage and cyber-based attacks. Just below those priorities are civil rights, organized crime, white-collar crime and "significant violent crime." The guidance from headquarters does not mention where pornography fits in.

    "The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's top priority remains fighting the war on terrorism," said Justice Department press secretary Brian Roehrkasse. "However, it is not our sole priority. In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity."

    At the FBI's field office, spokeswoman Debra Weierman expressed disappointment that some of her colleagues find grist for humor in the new campaign. "The adult obscenity squad . . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress," she said. "The personnel assigned to this initiative take the responsibility of this assignment very seriously and are dedicated to the success of this program."


    another reason God and your tax dollars shouldn't cohabitate.
     
  2. latergator116 macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    #2
    Great! Let's hope it works as well as the War on Drugs....err.. I mean the War on Terror.... wait, nevermind.
     
  3. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #3
    dammit...first they go after piracy, now porn! what's the internet good for anymore...:(
     
  4. Verto macrumors 6502a

    Verto

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    #4
    You are either with us, or with the perverts.
     
  5. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    Why does everything have to be a war?

    Apart from it being ridiculous to declare war on porn, when you could just choose not to view it, it infringes on the rights of others to who like porn.

    Republicans have become so theatrical lately, where is the substance?
     
  6. katie ta achoo macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    #6
    WAIT!
    ARE THEY GOING AFTER MAC PORN TOO?

    I want to watch iMacs and PowerBooks being unpacked!

    NooooOOooooo!!


    And if you get rid of internets porn, the economy will slow down. The industry is HUGE!

    and why get rid of something that makes so many people happy? The guys living in their mom's basement need some fun, too.
    :p


    ...sorry, couldn't resist the "pale geek in basement" thing. I love y'all. You hack iPods for me and junk.
     
  7. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #7
    I don't live in my mom's basement! I happen to have a room on the second floor, thank-you-very-much!

    Hmph! Some people... :rolleyes:
     
  8. katie ta achoo macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    #8
    I love you.


    Crap, would this post be banned if Bush had his way? hehehe
     
  9. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9
    I'm probably stating the obvious, but it motivates those who know what is best for all or us, without considering what others have decided is good or bad for them.

    Let's bring back the prohibition while we're at it.

    When is the war on alcohol going to turn up again?

    While we're at it, let's declare war on common sense and take all decisions away from people who would decide for themselves.

    After all, somewhere a perfectly indisputable list of what is right and what is wrong exists, isn't there?
     
  10. neildmitchell macrumors 6502a

    neildmitchell

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
  11. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #11
    How is this any different than seat belt laws.
    Taxing tobacco until a smoker can't afford it
    etc.

    It's not just the Elephants, The Donkeys do the same crap.
     
  12. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #12
    where have you beeen?
    that started approximately 5 ys ago

    leviticus?
     
  13. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13
    Good points, though there is some wiggle room there. Adults are better equipped to objectively decide whether or not they should smoke or buckle up.

    Youngsters are impressionable and often think that they are invincible. Not all of course. Please realize that I realize that there are always caveats.

    Some are so young they don't know what a seatbelt is, which leads to me to support laws that require safety restraints for those too young to know better.

    Because of how impressionable some young people are, I also think that tobacco is an option they should not be presented with until they are "mature" enough to rationally decide. Not easy, since maturity does not meet a uniform standard when it comes to age.

    Therefore, I am ok with a compromise. Regulate harmful products until people meet a certain age.

    When it comes to taxing vices, I recognize that vices often cause health problems. As long as the taxes are related to relieving the burden placed upon the system by those who choose to use alcohol or tobacco, I am ok with it. To an extent. People should be able to make bad decisions as well. If it is going to be a burden for all, than it is not unreasonable to require them to contribute to their future needs.

    When it comes to smoking laws involving where people smoke, I am for them. Second hand smoke impinges upon my ability to breath clean air. My desire to breath free air does not impinge upon someones desire to smoke.
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    Smart move - the ratings for this war will be HUGE...and talk about your embedded journalists...

    I also expect excellent names for our specific missions, such as saving Ryan's Privates etc.

    Unless we are talking children here, this is hardly the providence of Government.

    First the weed. Now the porn. You will grab my whisky out of my cold, dead hand...

    Look! something shiny! Any excellent diversionary tactic.

    meh.
     
  15. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15
    Fooked if I know. I think that finding reasonable compromises satisfies the golden rule. Pragmatism rules ;)

    I know what you mean :D I'm with ya.
     
  16. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #16
    Personally I think seat belt laws and helmet laws are just plain BS.

    If a woman has a right of privacy to an abortion why doesn't everyone have a right to privacy for heroin if they want?

    How about really enforcing drunk driving laws by having police test people as they leave the bars every night. Since the majority of people leaving them are legally drunk. Just think of the tax revenue.

    As far as taxing vices are concerned, they are the worst taxes ever infringed upon society. Some aholes get together and say we don't think you should do such and such so we are going to make you pay 10 times what the product is worth in tax.
    A little tobacco story for you. When I was in the NAVY a carton of cigarettes cost $15, but when you were 50 miles outside the US the same carton only cost $3.50. Wow nice $ 11.50 pull the government grabbed right there.
    Guess what the tax has almost doubled since then.
    Tobacco users have already paid for their health care in the taxes on the products.

    It's all BS

    The only REAL difference is whether you happen to agree with said group who passes said BS law.
     
  17. katie ta achoo macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    #17
    Yar, I don't know why the government is scared of a few JPEGs.

    I think just as long as you are in the privacy of your own home, and not looking at *shudder* Kiddie stuff, it's all good.
     
  18. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18

    Dead people in NO and the ability to deal with future disasters < Jpegs.

    Tough decision.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    one of the idea behind seat belt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws, while we're at it, is to limit the insurance companies' and public's exposure to hospital bills.

    e.g. if an uninsured and unseatbelted me flies through a windshield, those medical costs are shared by all.

    porn, on the other hand, doesn't really have that direct public liability link. so the comparisons fail at that level.

    like the gay marriage issue, this is something the adminstration revived in order to:
    1. distract from its recent failings
    2. re-energize its christian base*
    3. help its poll numbers
    4. have a divisive issue ready for the midterm elections

    * i'm ready to see the study that shows higher rates of porn consumption in the red states.
     
  20. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #20
    Oh it's there. ONLY it's being used by the pockets of Blue. :rolleyes:
     
  21. joepunk macrumors 68030

    joepunk

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    a profane existence
    #21
    Saw this coming a long time ago :rolleyes:

    Clubs of almost any kind in Seattle have been forced to close doors because of city regulations, some of which are pretty dumb IMO.

    Reminds me of what happened last year

    On Veterans day in America, the movie "Saving Private Ryan" was dumped by over 60 ABC affiliates. Why? well apparently it's against family values. A whole bunch of family values groups decided because if they did not want to watch the movie than no one else should be aloud to watch this movie. So they lobbied the FCC and threatened to boycott any channel that would dare air this film. It worked. The movie was censored in over 1/3 of the country. And why? Because these people know that it is a moral to celebrate Veterans day by watching a war movie if, get this, it contains swearing, violence, killing, or taking the lords name in vain. Which of course we know none of that ever happened because people in WWII were to busy getting killed trying to protect America from the types of people that would definitely tell you what you can and cannot watch. According to these people, everyone would be much better off celebrating Veterans day by sitting at home watching another episode of "Touched by an Angel"

    Thanks to family values when it comes to freedom and personal choice
    the wheels are off the bus in America. And lets face it, it was a pretty short bus to begin with.
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    Bush's camp and fanatics will be spinning and going after anything to gain a few points after their piss poor showing for Katrina and a false drummed up war that has almost 2,000 of our guys dead for Islamic theory. I think folks in this country are catching on after 5 years of spin, smoke and mirrors. Lets talk about anything and everything except the War,Hurricane, and a Mountain of debt.
     
  23. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  24. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #24
    They could always dust off some old classics:

    Operation Hardtack

    Operation Upshot-Knothole (which included the Climax test)

    Operation Plumbbob

    And who could forget Operation Tumbler-Snapper?
     
  25. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #25
    I think Don't Hurt Me hit it right on the head. This is just more pandering to the pseudo-Christian base, in an effort to distract from the neo-cons' horrid performance everywhere else. They are simple enough to fall for it.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all to see one or more candidates for the 2006 Congressional elections -- Democrats, of course -- smeared as soft on porn, or (!horrors!) users of porn. If the neo-cons are mean enough, perhaps they'll even suggest bestiality or kiddie porn are involved.

    Jesus, there are so many real issues to be dealt with. I swear, the voters who go for this stuff, you could probably distract their attention by waving a shiny object in their faces.
     

Share This Page