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. (link)
Thank God for that poor, persecuted Christian Right which is running our country. They always have their priorities in order.
* Edit: To be fair, it's only "one of the top priorities."
8 comments:
Come on JA.
As if porn is something that needs people to stick up for it's integrity or something.
Porn, especially bad porn, is never GOOD. If it was...people would display it in their homes with the rest of the family's DVDs.
I don't think the government should have control over what gets people off (unless it's illegal) but nobody should be saying that porn is the underdog here.
I don't think the government should have control over what gets people off
That's all we're talking about here. Bush's administration is diverting significant FBI resources towards controlling what gets people off.
Yup, and while we are having all kinds of problems with Katrina and Ophelia the legislative branch is worried about more conservation issues as well. Oh my goodness how could they! Nope, better yet, how dare they.
Give it a break!
The FBI never said anything about the war on terror being won. That was a comment made by a disgruntled FBI agent who didn't have a better comment to make.
On top of that the "task force" includes 8 agents, 1 supervisor and some support staff. Oh my goodness, because we have so few FBI agents across the country that we could never afford to have 8 agents doing something else. Nope, you're right this is a problem of epic proportions!
The policies that they would be working to enforce would be community stadards. These are those defined and accepted by the community. Funny but i could have sworn that there was a debate recently about how the society should be the ones to define the morals that laws are created from.
Some of the big problems that will be dealt with and that have been "successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions" (by the judicial system and not the executive system mind you) deal with "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior", not your "normal, everyday" pornography.
Oh, and as for how high of priority it is, the article states "Field offices should not, however, divert resources from higher priority matters, such as public corruption"
As quoted by the article "The adult obscenity squad . . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress" and has been instructed by Congress "In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity." You can try to blame what you don't like about this on Bush and his administration, but it looks to be an effort put together by all three branches of government. Yup, that must be Bush's fault too! How dare he make the three branches of government work together on anything!
It's funny because while the author of the article has a pretty obvious bias, even he can't hide the absurdity of that bias very well.
This is absolutely the most ridiculous waste of time and resources. Unbelievable.
My problem with this is what happened to "less government"? Isn't that the mantra of conservatives? Less government intrusion in our daily, personal affairs? I guess that's only when it transgresses our puritanical views on sexuality. I mean, there's no blue-ribbon FBI task force assembled to combat VIOLENCE in the media... but sex... RUN - HIDE! that's dangerous...
How dare he make the three branches of government work together on anything!
Nice, JC. A good point. My bet is nobody here will refute that one.
but sex... RUN - HIDE! that's dangerous...
Can someone define what kind of pornography they are cracking down on? Because if it means that less child porn and less animal porn (that's right animal lovers...it's out there) and less under age porn or snuff porn--then who the heck cares if the government is interviening?
Who stands up for the rights of perverts?
Not me.
The porn that should stay untouched is the legal porn that is sold in shops that is regulated and monitored. That's safe and should be available to people if they like that sort of thing.
But who can define the porn that's getting a hard look at?
How dare he make the three branches of government work together on anything!
First, it's two branches, the legislative and executive, not judiciary. Second, it's his Attorney General which is pushing for this action. Third, the legislative brance is also Republican and doesn't go against Bush on anything. But if you want to include the Republicans in the House and Senate and even Democrats like Lieberman in the blame, I won't argue.
Can someone define what kind of pornography they are cracking down on? Because if it means that less child porn...
Did you read my post OR the article? It says clearly "not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults." I even bolded it.
The porn that should stay untouched is the legal porn that is sold in shops that is regulated and monitored.
But that's exactly the kind they're cracking down on.
First, it's two branches, the legislative and executive, not judiciary.
And i quote:
Some of the big problems that will be dealt with and that have been "successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions" (by the judicial system and not the executive system mind you)...
Second, it's his Attorney General which is pushing for this action.
Again, to quote the author of the article who is quoting another source:
In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity.
Last i heard, congress was bipartisan. Yes, the republicans hold a slight majority but i have also seen Democrats cross party lines on similar issues. To say that this is all Republican doing, minimizes what power the Democrats do have. So it sounds like you are saying that no Democrats are involved at all, and if so that the Democrats that are in Congress are spineless and have no authority. If so, than i'd say you need to reconsider who you support for office.
Can someone define what kind of pornography they are cracking down on?
As the article says this will deal with:
"bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior", thus not your "normal, everyday" pornography... not that "normal, everyday" pornography is ok.
Post a Comment