Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   US to war against pornography? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/51582-us-war-against-pornography.html)

KnifeMissile 04-06-2004 03:49 PM
US to war against pornography?
 
I would say more about this article but I am just too offended... by all this pornography!

My question is, does the Justice Department stand a chance? I mean, obviously they can't get rid of all of it but can they really make much a difference? Isn't this better than attacking corporate monopolies?
Quote:
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 guestrooms 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.

The Justice Department recently hired Bruce Taylor, who was instrumental in a handful of convictions obtained over the past year and unsuccessfully represented the state in a 1981 case, Larry Flynt vs. Ohio.

Flynt, who recently opened a Hustler nightclub in Baltimore, says everyone in the business is wary, making sure their taxes are paid and the "talent" is over 18. He says he's ready for a rematch, especially with Taylor.

"Everyone's concerned," Flynt said in an interview. "We deal in plain old vanilla sex. Nothing really outrageous. But who knows, they may want a big target like myself."

A recent episode of Showtime's Family Business, a reality show about Adam Glasser, an adult film director and entrepreneur in California, had him worrying about shipping his material to states more apt to prosecute. It also featured him organizing a pornographic Internet telethon to raise money for targets of prosecution.

Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the division in charge of obscenity prosecutions at the Justice Department, says officials are trying to send a message and halt an industry they see as growing increasingly "lawless."

"We want to do everything we can to deter this conduct" by producers and consumers, Oosterbaan said. "Nothing is off the table as far as content."

Money and friends

It is unclear, though, just how the American public and major corporations that make money from pornography will accept the perspective of the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Any move against mainstream pornography could affect large telephone companies offering broadband Internet service or the dozens of national credit card companies providing payment services to pornographic Web sites.

Cable television, meanwhile, which has found late-night lineups with "adult programming" highly profitable, is unlikely to budge, and such companies have powerful friends.

Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, which offers "hard-core" porn on the Hot Network channel (at $11.99 per film in Baltimore), was co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the host committee that brought the Republican National Convention to Philadelphia. In February, the Bush campaign honored Comcast President Stephen Burke with "Ranger" status, for agreeing to raise at least $200,000 for the president's re-election effort. Comcast's executive vice president, David Cohen, has close ties to Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Tim Fitzpatrick, the spokesman for Comcast at its corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, declined to comment on the cable network's adult programming. But officials at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which Roberts used to chair, said adult programming is legal, relies on subscription services for access and has been upheld by the courts for years.

"Good luck turning back that clock," said Paul Rodriguez, a spokesman for the association.

Ashcroft vs. consent

In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."

Given the millions of dollars Americans are spending each month on adult cable television, Internet sites and magazines and videos, many may see themselves not as victims but as consumers, with an expectation of rights, choices and privacy.

Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives.

The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority.

But administration critics and First Amendment rights attorneys warn that the initiative could smack of Big Brother, and that targeting such a broad range of readily available materials could backfire.

"They are miscalculating the pulse of the community," said attorney Paul Cambria, who has gone head to head with Taylor in cases dating to the 1970s.

"I think a lot of adults would say this is not what they had in mind, spending millions of dollars and the time of the courts and FBI agents and postal inspectors and prosecutors investigating what consenting adults are doing and watching."

The law itself rests on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. California, which held that something is "obscene" only if an average person applying contemporary community standards finds it patently offensive. But until now, it hasn't been prosecuted at the federal level for more than 10 years.

Since the last time he faced Taylor, Flynt's empire has grown into a multimillion-dollar corporation with a large, almost conservative-looking headquarters in California, where he and executives in dark suits oversee the company's dozens of men's clubs, sex stores and more than 30 magazines.

"He's basically crusaded against everything I've fought for for the past 30 years," Flynt said. "This is for consenting adults. They have the right to view what they want to in the privacy of their own home. And even if they don't enjoy these materials, they still don't want to be looking over their neighbors' shoulders."

Cases and results

Taylor, who has been involved in the prosecution of more than 700 pornography cases since the 1970s, including at the Justice Department in the late 1980s and early '90s, declined to be interviewed. But he did talk to reporters for the PBS program Frontline in 2001, when he was president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, an anti-porn group.

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity," he said.

"Some of the cable versions of porno movies are prosecutable. Once it becomes obvious that this really is a federal felony instead of just a form of entertainment or investment, then legitimate companies, to stay legitimate, are going to have to distance themselves from it."

The Justice Department pursued obscenity cases vigorously in the 1970s and '80s, prosecuting not necessarily the worst offenders in terms of extreme material, but those it viewed as most responsible for pornography's proliferation.

Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible."

"I can't possibly put it all away," he said. "Results are what we want."

The strategy in the 1980s resulted in a lot of extreme pornography - dealing in urination, violence or bestiality - going underground. Today, with the Internet, international producers and a substantial market, industry officials say there is no underground.

Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes. The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.

That tolerance could prove to be the obscenity division's biggest obstacle. Americans are used to seeing sex, experts say, in the movies, in their e-mail inboxes and on popular cable shows such as HBO's Sex and the City. There is no real gauge of just how obscene a jury will find pornographic material.

The majority of defendants indicted in federal courts over the past year have taken plea agreements when faced with the weight and resources of the Justice Department. More than 50 other federal investigations are under way.

In 2001, though, one interesting case emerged from St. Charles County, Mo., the heart of Ashcroft's conservative Missouri base. First Amendment lawyer Cambria defended a video store there against state charges that it was renting two obscene videotapes that depicted group sex, anal sex and sex with objects.

Cambria won, convincing a jury of 12 women, all between the ages of 40 and 60, that the tapes had educational value and helped reduce inhibitions. They reached the verdict in less than three hours.

The department's most closely watched case involves "extreme" porn producer Rob Zicari and his North Hollywood company Extreme Associates. The prolific Zicari is charged with selling five allegedly obscene videotapes, which he now markets as the "Federal Five," that depict simulated rapes and murder.

Almost reveling in the charges, Zicari's Web site says, "The most controversial company in porn today! Guess what? Controversy ... sells!"

The case hangs on a strategic move by the Justice Department that could make or break hundreds of future cases. Instead of bringing charges in Hollywood, where Zicari easily defeated a local obscenity ordinance recently in a jury trial, department officials ordered his tapes from Pittsburgh, Pa., and charged him there, hoping for a jury pool less porn-friendly.

Industry lawyers and top executives contend that the courts should rule that because the tapes were ordered on the Internet, the "community standard" demanded by the law should be the standard of the whole community of the World Wide Web.

The Internet is filled with ample evidence of even more hard-core or offensive material from abroad, they say, and someone in Pittsburgh should not be able to determine what someone in Hollywood can order.

Either way, Nguyen, father of a 2-year-old girl, and his co-workers spend their days scouring the Internet for the most obscene material, following leads sent in by citizens and tracking pornographers operating under different names. The job wears on them all, day after day, so much so that the obscenity division has recently set up in-house counseling for them to talk about what they're seeing and how it is affecting them.

"This stuff isn't the easiest to deal with," Nguyen said recently while at his computer. "But I think we're going after the bad guys and we're making a difference, and that's what makes it worthwhile."

Superbelt 04-06-2004 03:55 PM
My question is, how do I get a job reviewing all that porn?

I'm sure glad we erradicated all the terrorists, cured cancer and have every american sleeping in a warm bed with a full stomach so that we can now focus on the really important stuff.

Paradise Lost 04-06-2004 04:10 PM
I saw a thing on CourtTV on this, I guess because they had nothing better to do a show on... Been trying to do it at least since the early 70s with the FBI involved, and of course people/police have been trying to crack down on it since the late 40s. But of course, it almost never works, someone else pops up, etc. I agree with Superbelt, just leave it alone. It harms almost 0 people, those involved don't seem to care (no one's forcing them to make pr0n), and the people buying the stuff really don't seem to mind either.

In fact, even your super-conservative areas seem to have the highest viewings of the stuff, so I guess they don't mind either!

crewsor 04-06-2004 04:23 PM
I would think we may finally have a topic most everyone will agree on. Its silly for the govornment to be wasting millions of taxpayers dollars to eradicate something most people believe people have a right to choose to see, have, view, etc.

From what I have seen they are going after not only hard core porn but even soft core, Sex in the City, HBO type material. Just what I want my tax dollars spent on. Someone to spend their days watching porn to decide what I should be able to see.

I think Ashcroft needs a bitchslap to thr head to wake his ass up.

onodrim 04-06-2004 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt

I'm sure glad we erradicated all the terrorists, cured cancer and have every american sleeping in a warm bed with a full stomach so that we can now focus on the really important stuff.
My thoughts exactly. I can understand if they were going after child pornagraphy, etc, but they are attacking things as harmless as even soft core pornography. Adults should be allowed to view what they like in their own home.

fuzyfuzer 04-06-2004 07:35 PM
so would they be attacking nudity in movies

/confused

djtestudo 04-06-2004 07:42 PM
It's one thing if you're showing this stuff in a public place, or on a TV channel that kids can watch easily. It's another thing if you are showing it in a place where you cannot go if you are under eighteen, all the people involved are over eighteen, and the TV channels are special pay channels like Showtime or pay-per-view.

I may support Bush, but Ashcroft is an Ashhole.

tecoyah 04-06-2004 07:48 PM
We are unfortunately, watching the christianization of America. So much for seperation, I am really beginning to dislike what the vocal christians stand for. And in the proccess, losing respect for a wonderful religion.

I dont need a man like Bush, teaching me about morals.

Superbelt 04-06-2004 08:09 PM
Ya know, if Asscroft gets on a roll with this, and we know Bush will let him, places like this site specifically will be targeted because of it's accessibility to pornography.

Who knows where we will be if Asscroft gets to be Attorney General for another 4 years.
Can we afford that?

bparker805 04-06-2004 08:17 PM
hmmmm... can someone say "election year"?

OFKU0 04-06-2004 08:32 PM
Now that article is funny. Just think,.. the cleansing of America.

What next? Felony jail time for people who engage in non-solicited oral sex in southern U.S states where oral sex is illegal?

Here's an idea. Let's blame Mel Gibson.

Paq 04-06-2004 09:25 PM
This type of stuff is making me ashamed of having christian friends who are vocal and correct in their stances...

guthmund 04-07-2004 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I'm sure glad we erradicated all the terrorists, cured cancer and have every american sleeping in a warm bed with a full stomach so that we can now focus on the really important stuff.
Well, it's a well known fact that terrorism, cancer and homelessness not to mention unemployment are all caused by pornography. So we have to nip it in the bud!!!!!

/sarcasm

Actually now that I think about it, in the past my job searching ability might have been seriously hampered by pornography......:hmm:

Arc101 04-07-2004 11:15 AM
War on terrorism, war on drugs & now war on porn. Hmm I don't think Bush is going to win any of these.

ps You will take my porn collection over my cold dead hands

filtherton 04-07-2004 11:23 AM
Don't forget "no child left behind" AKA the first offensive in bush's "War on Stupid Children".

Paq 04-07-2004 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arc101
War on terrorism, war on drugs & now war on porn. Hmm I don't think Bush is going to win any of these.

ps You will take my porn collection over my cold dead hands

This is ashcroft we're talking abuot...dont' give him any ideas

Sun Tzu 04-07-2004 01:57 PM
There is something to be said about what one person's standards are to anothers. It seems like alot of individuals; even those that sometimes make it to power have a "my way is the right way" attitude. Child porn should be dealt with swiftly and severely which I believe it is. I there is a law which makes it illegal to show rape with full penetration, or any filming of full porn where one person is telling the other "no" and "stop" repeatedly on the grounds it inspires real rape in the community.
In those two areas I understand; but this is dangerous area. While it may seem noble; I think everyone can think of where is could go in a negative direction.
Finding ways to stop ads from popping up on the internet is a solid fight; but telling me what I should and shouldnt be watching helps me to understand why militias are formed.

Adultery is going to give you 5 years with 2 years probation.

Coveting is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Using God's name in vain. . . forget about it.

kutulu 04-08-2004 11:07 AM
This just shows that even if you like Bush himself, you have to admit that the people he put in power are terrible people who are trying to limit our freedoms. Part of believing in free speech is standing up for that which you don't agree with. I hate racist and anti gay groups but I will support their right to spread their message as long as they are not physically harming people.

seretogis 04-08-2004 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Don't forget "no child left behind" AKA the first offensive in bush's "War on Stupid Children".
Wasn't that Ted Kennedy's education bill?

theusername 04-08-2004 12:23 PM
I like the Republican ideology because it believes in small government, staying out of people's living rooms, and being fiscally conservative...

I mean if your going to have an ideology atleast stick with it.

I do like Bush, but slowly my vote is dissapearing next to his name. Maybe i'll vote Nader who knows.

Over 18, legal Pornography should not be within the top 50 issues that this country has to deal with right now or else somebody's priorities are in the wrong places. (Obviously on the other hand Child pornography is a different story.)

Paq 04-08-2004 01:19 PM
i don't think many would argue against laws against child porn...it's a hard issue to argue against...it just leaves too much open for exploit...

with that said, i still don't see how porn is even an issue on a major party's agenda...just doesnt' make sense.


and yeah, whatever happened to republicans being for smaller government and staying out of peoples' lives...if someone over 18 wants to indulge in porn, i don't see an issue...you can watch porn and drive afterwards, it's not like alcohol or tobacco..i don't think people die over porn overdose...they may have to give their genitals a break, but that's about it. it's not exactly something that should be of concern to anyone in government...

HarmlessRabbit 04-08-2004 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by theusername
I like the Republican ideology because it believes in small government, staying out of people's living rooms, and being fiscally conservative...
HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

CAN'T. BREATHE. LAUGHING. TOO. HARD.

Thanks for brightening my day, that was funny. :)

But seriously, I think you're thinking of a different republican party than the party of the present. We now have the biggest federal government ever, the republicans are *very* interested in your living room, and fiscal conservativism went out of style under Reagan.

Do you seriously believe that the Republican party today believes in any of those points?

orange monkeyee 04-08-2004 06:59 PM
face it. our government is like a vaccuum. It sucks just as much as it blows.

theusername 04-08-2004 08:45 PM
Take notice of the word "ideology" and i fully realize the irony it holds with the current administration.

HarmlessRabbit 04-08-2004 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by theusername
Take notice of the word "ideology" and i fully realize the irony it holds with the current administration.
Oh, I noticed. But I don't think you're describing Republican ideology either. You should read the party platform.

http://www.rnc.org/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx

and see if you can find your points.

The libertarians are the group you want to be a part of if you want that.

Personally, I like the libertarians, but, like the republicans, I find them far too trusting of big business. I think strong antitrust policy, strong regulation, and a policy of trade protectionism are the only things that will stop corporations from exploiting working here and abroad. Other than that, I mostly agree with the libertarians.

Tophat665 04-09-2004 03:35 AM
If Americans can't pay money to see hardcore sex on cable, then the terrorists have already won.

analog 04-09-2004 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I'm sure glad we erradicated all the terrorists, cured cancer and have every american sleeping in a warm bed with a full stomach so that we can now focus on the really important stuff.
Well said. This is stupid, election-year bullshit.

james t kirk 04-09-2004 03:52 PM
Damn, that' s funny.

Move to Quebec.

Friday and Saturday nights the TQS station network shows "Blue Nuit" on good old regular TV.

Blue Nuit featues nothing but porn, full penetration and money shots even.

Now that's a progressive society.

User Name 04-09-2004 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by james t kirk
Damn, that' s funny.

Move to Quebec.

Friday and Saturday nights the TQS station network shows "Blue Nuit" on good old regular TV.

Blue Nuit featues nothing but porn, full penetration and money shots even.

Now that's a progressive society.
But we wouldn't be able to understand the dialogue, because it's in French. We do care about the dialogue in porn, don't we? DON'T WE?

Paq 04-09-2004 08:19 PM
WWWAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTtt

There is dialogue in porn!??!??!

are you freaking kidding me?!?!

seretogis 04-10-2004 07:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I think strong antitrust policy, strong regulation, and a policy of trade protectionism are the only things that will stop corporations from exploiting working here and abroad. Other than that, I mostly agree with the libertarians.
If you don't trust big businesses, why would you trust an even bigger business (the government) to keep them in line? As is, Microsoft has dodged serious anti-trust lawsuits and has yet to be split into multiple entitites. When the government is corrupt, how can you expect it to act in a manner that is beneficial to the people? It is up to the people themselves to put big businesses in line -- by means of boycotts, picketing, etc.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360