War on porn, redux
According to the excellent Frontline documentary entitled "American Porn," the Bush administration under John Ashcroft was totally ready to declare a War on Pornography immediately after it came into office. The Reagan administration spent the 1980s combatting porn, but during the Clinton administration, porn experienced a resurgence because the Justice Department decided that porn wasn't as important as, oh, I don't know, combatting terrorism.
With the advent of September 11, Ashcroft had to put the War on Porn on hold in favor of the War on Terror. But apparently, the War on Terror has been won, because the Justice Department is now diverting resources to a new War on Pornography:
The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.
What? Apparently we haven't yet won the War on Terror? But kids might see boobies! Well, if money talks, then companies might lobby their congressmen to stop this War on Porn. Porn is a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry, and most of the country's major cable companies are also the country's major porn companies, since they distribute porn via pay-per-view or premium (HBO, Showtime, Skinemax) services.
Comments
A good argument can be made that a 24 minute fisting film is far more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by: Ned Weinberger | August 31, 2005 2:56 PM
today is my birthday biatch
Posted by: Bud-dy | August 31, 2005 10:33 PM
Don't forget the hotel industry. The hotel I work for is forlorn that they haven't received their digital TV hookups yet, because of the amount of revenues raked in by customers buying pornos (another big seller we do have is condoms, toothbrushes and essentials are free, there is a charge for condoms, but people buy them like candy.) And while I agree with Ned, somewhat, that there are things that do stretch into the dangerous (such as the sort of "realistic torture and rapes" where the girls are supposedly totally unaware, I think that the focal point of many of these attacks is going to be bringing sodomy laws back into play, as even the lamest Showtime porn has one BJ or muffdive in it. And that's a crime. After all, and don't forget this kids, the government can't keep you from doing it (yet) so we'll keep you from watching it. Look, personally, I'm not into this kind of shit. My roomie in college was a big fan of insertions. But watching a woman sit on a wine bottle didn't make me think, "Gee, that looks like fun" it made me hate the French even more. The question of violent porn is already being broached in Europe, especially England. But the difference between truly dangerous violent porn, and what they actually go after will be interesting to note. Also Mark, side note, I've been unable to track down the group of fetishists trying to be classified as disabled. I saw this in passing once, people with scat, watersport, bestiality and other fetishes which require some form of outside stimulation for sexaul gratification were apparently trying to gain access to the protection afforded via a mental disability. The claim it seems is that fetishes such as crossdressing, baby (where they wear diapers and the like for sexual gratification) are so deviant from the norm as to be a life altering disability, entirely mental in nature, as they have no choice over what gets their rocks off. Which would actually be kind of a blow to gay rights, implying that homosexuality is a mental defect, which in STRICT BIOLOGICAL TERMS ONLY, meaning if you look at people as a species it is. Homosexuality amongst bears for example could lead to extinction. Yes current people have more options such as adoption and artificial insemination which is why I prefaced that with my caps. Because in strict genetic terms, looking at us as an animal that needs to propagate in order to survive, homosexuality could be deemed as much. I'm not a gay basher, don't call me a monster, I'm talking as a detached observer of the species, not as a member of some cult. Wow, this was long. And now Cathy's out chasing sorority girls, go get 'em Tiger. I hear Mark is crying in shame now that Cathy has landed more college girls than he ever did. Sad really.
Posted by: Wolf | September 1, 2005 8:42 PM