|
Below, you'll find extensive information on leading
costa rica gay articles and products to help you on your way
to success.
Porn Policies, Perversion Possession, And Party Politics
By Don One, Fri Dec 9th
Shockingly, top U.S. attorney Anthony Acosta said the other day that thehighest priority of the Attorney General’s office and theDepartment of Justice would be going after the (legitimate)adult industry. (Athttp://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389) It’s not that I can’t believe that that of all things is theirtop priority. I just can’t believe he said it out loud. For sometime now I’ve suspected that Alberto Gonzales and the DoJ hadwaged an all out war on pornography; and not just in its illicitforms such as child pornography. But why would a representativeof his office come right out and say it? As it is, he’s not onlyput the industry on high alert that the entire U.S. judicialwar-machine is after it,
he’s alienated certain members of lawenforcement and members of his own prosecution team. To play devil’s advocate here, maybe he was indirectly speakingout to certain backers of the current administration that Bushet al. were on their side. It’s no secret (like the articlesays) that this administration has the support ofultra-conservative Christian groups like the American FamilyAssociation. Maybe the declaration was just to appease theseBush backers. (And just as an aside but isn’t it ironic that,for a president that’s so tough on the sex industry, every othersentence that contains his name has a sexual innuendo to it?).Even as the department sees the impracticability of destroyingporn in every manner, shape, or form. But if you were the AFA ora member of such a group, that would sound great to your ears. (Article continued below)
And I’m not even knocking the AFA. Every group has its ownagenda and the AFA is no different. The eradication of porn -which I’m not on board with - is one of it’s chief goals, andunderstandably so. It’s not like grander social, government,safety, and international issues are on their docket. My gripe is with government who has greater responsibilities tothe public than to listen to the select, yet highly vocal,religious right. Even the Democrats are taking a page out of the Republicanhandbook: they’re even jumping on the “end all pornography now”bandwagon. In Operation Win-Over-the-Red-States (because theSouthern US “red states,” if you will, comprise an overwhelmingmajority of the religious right), democrats and republicansalike are tripping over themselves to see who can crack the whipthe hardest, the loudest, and with the most authority on theadult industry. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D- Ark) recently proposed thepopular/infamous (depending on your stance on pornography) sintax bill, wherein all online adult sales would be charged anadditional 25%. Senator Hillary Clinton (D - NY) proposed a farless onerous statute that would fine electronic retailers whotry to sell video games of an inappropriate rating (Mature orAdult) to underage kids. In an article I wrote previously, I lambasted the pendingLincoln proposal (at the time, it was just a strong probabilitythat the bill would be suggested). But it wasn’t along practicalguidelines. My argument was more along moral lines; namely, thefact that the tax would be like punishing the porn consumerwho’s only exercising his Free Speech rights to legitimate adultmaterial. On the other hand, this Judicial Department crusade (whichwould also involve the FBI and other law-enforcement entities)makes no practical sense. As it’s been stated, it’s just a wasteof valuable resources. In order to pursue this anti-pornventure, prosecutors would have to be taken off childpornography cases. Not that you need me to tell you howimportant it is to stem the proliferation of underage sexcontent; but the next time you get a moment, type the word“porn” into Google and search the News link. It seems everyother story involves child smut. So if the government wants to tackle porn, the sexualexploitation of minors for profit would be a good place to cleanup first. Next, it would do well to take a serious look at whatits counterpart is currently doing across the pond. British legislators are trying tocreate laws that would make it a crime to possess “extreme”forms of pornography on your computer.(http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2141684/uk-gov-cracks-violent-porn) The laws would just be an extension of an obscenitystatute that has existed for almost half a century , but thestatute would now apply to the internet as well. In reference to “extreme pornography”, the paper written on thewould-be law includes such acts as bestiality and necrophilia,in addition to the sexual violence and the violence in a sexualcontext mentioned in the article. In my opinion, here’s thekicker as far as the paper goes: it actually invites publicfeedback! As far as I know, UK citizens are actually encouragedto write in with their opinions. So not only is Britishgovernment going to kick you-know-what and take names. It’sgoing to heed some input, then kick you-know-what and takenames. And all this for possessing depictions of sexual actsthat most people would regard as perverted to begin with. (Aside 2: Research conducted recently came to theconclusion that viewing pornography and/or violence has ashort-term blinding effect.(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050822/blindness.html)Could it be just a coincidence that these laws were proposedright about the time the results of this study got out?) Governing with the consent of the governed: What a noveldemocratic concept! And not just listening to the collectivevoice of a conservative few to rule the entire masses. So to Gonzales and co., I would say you have to crawl before youcan run. Continue to enforce codes (such as Title 18 U.S.C.§2257) which ensure that children are not sexually exploited,and codes that arose from the 1973 Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court ruling concerning obscenity. Maybe even get astatute like the one that they are entertaining in Britannia forcases of “extreme smut.” It’s not even a crime yet in thiscountry to possess any pornography which could be construed asobscene. Baby steps, people. Another thing that struck me about the British endeavor was therealization on the part of a high-ranking law-enforcementofficial that while they didn’t expect to totally rid theinternet of such offensive material, the new law would be a stepin the right direction. In the same vein, US anti-porn legislators need to temper theirenthusiasm a little and not be so hell-bent for leather in theirdesire to rid the country of all pornography. But even if theydon’t do that, at least they shouldn’t go around with so muchbraggadocio. Sheesh! Those guys at the FreeSpeech Coalition (http://freespeechcoalition.com/) areactually looking for a fight... About the author:The author is affiliated with http://www.sex-toys-videos.com, and writes regular porn and sex toy articles for his blog page Sex, Toys, and Videotape. | 