|
|
|
|
Porn Policies, Perversion Possession, and Party Politics
|
|
Author: Don One
Topic: Law
Viewed: 50 time(s)
[ Not Rated Yet ]
|
Shockingly, top U.S. attorney
target=?_blank?>Anthony Acosta said the other day that the
highest priority of the Attorney General?s office and the
Department of Justice would be going after the (legitimate)
adult industry. (At
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389) It?s not
that I can?t believe that that of all things is their top
priority. I just can?t believe he said it out loud. For some
time now I?ve suspected that Alberto Gonzales and the DoJ had
waged an all out war on pornography; and not just in its illicit
forms such as child pornography. But why would a representative
of his office come right out and say it? As it is, he?s not only
put the industry on high alert that the entire U.S. judicial
war-machine is after it, he?s alienated certain members of law
enforcement and members of his own prosecution team. To play
devil?s advocate here, maybe he was indirectly speaking out to
certain backers of the current administration that Bush et al.
were on their side. It?s no secret (like the article says) that
this administration has the support of ultra-conservative
Christian groups like the American Family Association. Maybe the
declaration was just to appease these Bush backers. (And just as
an aside but isn?t it ironic that, for a president that?s so
tough on the sex industry, every other sentence that contains
his name has a sexual innuendo to it?). Even as the department
sees the impracticability of destroying porn in every manner,
shape, or form. But if you were the AFA or a member of such a
group, that would sound great to your ears. And I?m not even
knocking the AFA. Every group has its own agenda and the AFA is
no different. The eradication of porn - which I?m not on board
with - is one of it?s chief goals, and understandably 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 to the public than to listen to the
select, yet highly vocal, religious right. Even the Democrats
are taking a page out of the Republican handbook: they?re even
jumping on the ?end all pornography now? bandwagon. In Operation
Win-Over-the-Red-States (because the Southern US ?red states,?
if you will, comprise an overwhelming majority of the religious
right), democrats and republicans alike are tripping over
themselves to see who can crack the whip the hardest, the
loudest, and with the most authority on the adult industry.
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D- Ark) recently proposed the
popular/infamous (depending on your stance on pornography) sin
tax bill, wherein all online adult sales would be charged an
additional 25%. Senator Hillary Clinton (D - NY) proposed a far
less onerous statute that would fine electronic retailers who
try to sell video games of an inappropriate rating (Mature or
Adult) to underage kids. In an article I wrote previously, I
lambasted the pending Lincoln proposal (at the time, it was just
a strong probability that the bill would be suggested). But it
wasn?t along practical guidelines. My argument was more along
moral lines; namely, the fact that the tax would be like
punishing the porn consumer who?s only exercising his Free
Speech rights to legitimate adult material. On the other hand,
this Judicial Department crusade (which would also involve the
FBI and other law-enforcement entities) makes no practical
sense. As it?s been stated, it?s just a waste of valuable
resources. In order to pursue this anti-porn venture,
prosecutors would have to be taken off child pornography cases.
Not that you need me to tell you how important it is to stem the
proliferation of underage sex content; but the next time you get
a moment, type the word ?porn? into Google and search the News
link. It seems every other story involves child smut. So if the
government wants to tackle porn, the sexual exploitation of
minors for profit would be a good place to clean up first. Next,
it would do well to take a serious look at what its counterpart
is currently doing across the pond. British legislators are trying to
create 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 obscenity
statute that has existed for almost half a century , but the
statute would now apply to the internet as well. In reference to
?extreme pornography?, the paper written on the would-be law
includes such acts as bestiality and necrophilia, in addition to
the sexual violence and the violence in a sexual context
mentioned in the article. In my opinion, here?s the kicker as
far as the paper goes: it actually invites public feedback! As
far as I know, UK citizens are actually encouraged to write in
with their opinions. So not only is British government going to
kick you-know-what and take names. It?s going to heed some
input, then kick you-know-what and take names. And all this for
possessing depictions of sexual acts that most people would
regard as perverted to begin with. (Aside 2: Research conducted recently came to the
conclusion that viewing pornography and/or violence has a
short-term blinding effect.
(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050822/blindness.html)
Could it be just a coincidence that these laws were proposed
right about the time the results of this study got out?)
Governing with the consent of the governed: What a novel
democratic concept! And not just listening to the collective
voice of a conservative few to rule the entire masses. So to
Gonzales and co., I would say you have to crawl before you can
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. California Supreme
Court ruling concerning obscenity. Maybe even get a statute like
the one that they are entertaining in Britannia for cases of
?extreme smut.? It?s not even a crime yet in this country to
possess any pornography which could be construed as obscene.
Baby steps, people. Another thing that struck me about the
British endeavor was the realization on the part of a
high-ranking law-enforcement official that while they didn?t
expect to totally rid the internet of such offensive material,
the new law would be a step in the right direction. In the same
vein, US anti-porn legislators need to temper their enthusiasm a
little and not be so hell-bent for leather in their desire to
rid the country of all pornography. But even if they don?t do
that, at least they shouldn?t go around with so much
braggadocio. Sheesh! Those guys at the Free
Speech Coalition (http://freespeechcoalition.com/) are
actually 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.
|
|
|
