Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp 321

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the excellent-use-of-resources dept.
kotj.mf writes "The New York Times reports that the Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group, has yet to result a single prosecution for obscenity, despite having generated more than 67,000 citizen complaints. The group, better known for its campaign to have Cosmopolitan removed from supermarket checkout stands, is pushing the Justice Department to more aggressively pursue cases against what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:21AM (#20194763)
    Great idea, it is about time they did something about those religions spreading filth.

    oh.. wait.
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:24AM (#20194781) Homepage Journal

      Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group
      Read that over a few times. If it doesn't make your skin crawl, then you really need to read up on your Constitution and maybe a few articles by some Founding Fathers.
      • by sizzzzlerz (714878) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:32AM (#20194835)
        Have you been asleep for the last 6-1/2 years?

        When the decider's attitude is that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper, why should something like this surprise anybody. Compared to his other desecrations of that document, this is nothing.

        • Pass the buck (Score:5, Insightful)

          by poptones (653660) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:42AM (#20194901) Journal
          Look: the SOB said, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED THE FIRST TIME, "what this country needs is a little less free speech."

          He said this. Openly, in response to attack ads against him. He told everyone where he stood before he even had the chance to govern.

          And then these IDIOTS elected him.

          Twice.

          So whose fault is it that the Constitution is a forgotten document? Our schools are failing us - have been for years. And that ain't shrub's fault. I cannot stand the guy - I personally think he is a traitor to the US Constitution. But it's not like no one knew where he stood. The fact he could even have been elected is a sign of deeper illness in our nation, and we serve no good by blaming everything upon the latest symptom of this disease.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by BunnehWyld (1091171)

            Look: the SOB said, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED THE FIRST TIME, "what this country needs is a little less free speech." He said this. Openly, in response to attack ads against him.

            Not to sidetrack the already-sidetracked discussion, but you wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? See, I voted for him the first time. If I'd ever seen that, I wouldn't have. I'd like to know where I wasn't paying enough attention to, so I can do better research for the NEXT election.

            • Re:Pass the buck (Score:5, Informative)

              by Marcika (1003625) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @11:22AM (#20195473)
              This wasn't exactly what he said, I think... One famous statement, however, was about the parody site www.gwbush.com, and was described by the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] as follows:

              When asked at a news conference in May what he thought about the site, Bush let loose, saying it was produced by a "garbage man" and suggesting that "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a line Bush's online critics have vowed to never let the world forget.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by nsayer (86181) *
                In the most pedantic sense, I agree with him - there ought to be limits to freedom. I ought to not have the freedom to rob a bank. But, of course, in that same sense of pedantry, there *are* limits like that to freedom. His use of 'ought to be' suggests that he meant there ought to be *more* limits, whereupon I and our commander in chief part company.

            • by penix1 (722987)
              The actual line was "there ought to be limits to freedom" dated Monday, November 29, 1999 and found on page A2 of the print version.

              From:
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11 /29/002r-112999-idx.html [washingtonpost.com]

              This was in response to a parody site Bush was trying to censer during his campaign.
            • by poptones (653660)
              I wish I could find video of it. I only remember seeing it on tv. It was outside and a reporter asked him about it. Apparently this was a line he used more than once, yet I have never found video of it. I didnt hear it second hand - I saw him make the comment - but I have no idea where to find it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Abjifyicious (696433)
            And then these IDIOTS elected him.

            Twice.

            Except the first time he wasn't actually elected, and the second time he was "elected" via electronic voting machines. I don't think there's adequate evidence to call the majority of Americans idiots. We've just had the wool pulled over our eyes.

            Twice.

            • Re:Pass the buck (Score:5, Insightful)

              by howlingmadhowie (943150) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:56AM (#20195323)
              oh, but there's enough evidence to call you spineless cowards for not doing anything about it.
              • What precisely should they do? If you're referring to an armed insurrection then you're living in a dream world.
            • by Thrip (994947)

              Except the first time he wasn't actually elected, and the second time he was "elected" via electronic voting machines. I don't think there's adequate evidence to call the majority of Americans idiots.

              When you add the 35-40% of those eligible to vote who simply failed to show up (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti ng.html [census.gov]), to the 30-35% who actually voted for Bush, I think we've established majority stupidity.

          • Present-day realities of the U.S. government:

            Bush does not run the U.S. government. He is only a figurehead provided by people who want corruption. There is no evidence he has ever been mentally engaged enough to understand the workings of government.

            The word "conservative" is only a word used by people like Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain" [bushsbrain.com]) to get political support. Those who call themselves conservative aren't conservative [futurepower.org] except towards someone else's corruption.

            Bush is an alcoholic [futurepower.org] (possibly a dry alc
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Skillet5151 (972916)
        Having read that over a few times, I see now that this is actually a campaign for pornography, which opposes the internet. Right?
    • by Cordath (581672) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:36AM (#20194865)
      To all the religious nutjobs out there I have one thing to say:

      You were shoved headfirst through someone's vagina. Why are you acting so dignified? (source: xkcd)

      But seriously, think of it this way.

      On TV, children will see many thousands of simulated murders long before they're old enough to buy porn. If they copy what they see on TV, it means death for someone and jail for the kids.

      It is illegal for children to see even just one simulated sex act before they're of age. If they do manage to get their hands on some and copy what they see, the worst thing that can happen is that they pick up a couple STD's and have a kid.

      Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?
      • @Cordath: "Now, which of these things" (TV violence or porn) "have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"

        Well, both, actually. Violence on over-the-air TV has been a major target of religious organizations since the medium graduated from geekdom to mainstream.

        People (religious or not) who are offended by violence, public displays of sexuality, and non-normative language have always attempted to drive such behavior out of the public eye and into "red light districts" and alternate media.

        Just l

      • Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.
        They can use it to gain power, but that does not involve a personal buy-in.
        The nature of deistic religion means that one is either a Fundamentalist or a hypocrite, and any squalling to the contrary may be regarded as a delusion or a lie.

        "Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"

        Controlling sex gives social control of the tribe. Encouraging violence towards opponents expands
        • by background image (1001510) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @01:10PM (#20196231)

          Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.

          You should cite your sources. This is something Alan Watts [wikipedia.org] said many times in many ways. You also might want to provide one of the full quotations, since they're directly relevant to this discussion. For example, in 1968 he said that

          Citizens of the United States believe, or are supposed to believe, that a republic is the best form of government. Yet vast confusion arises from trying to be republican in politics and monarchist in religion. How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy? Thus, despite the theory of government by consent, based upon mutual trust, the peoples of the United States retain, from the authoritarian backgrounds of their religions or national origins, an utterly naive faith in law as some sort of supernatural and paternalistic power. "There ought to be a law against it!" Our law-enforcement officers are therefore confused, hindered, and bewildered--not to mention corrupted--by being asked to enforce sumptuary laws, often of ecclesiastical origin, that vast numbers of people have no intention of obeying and that, in any case, are immensely difficult or simply impossible to enforce--for example, the barring of anything so undetectable as LSD-25 from international and interstate commerce. [Emphasis added]

          Source [deoxy.org]

      • by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @12:00PM (#20195757)
        While I'm not a supporter of the anti-obscenity crowd, the difference is fairly clear. There is no natural, overwhelmingly powerful drive to murder every hot girl that will let you.
      • Which is why this group is against web pornography. Any kid with an internet connection can click OK and absolve the website of any blame for showing porn to minors. Not that kids never got their hands on Playboy in the past, but it is easier for people to find what they want now, whatever it is that they want.

        Also, you're looking at this the wrong way. From the bible thumper perspective, a vast amount of porn depicts acts that could in no way bring new life into this world. They want people having lots
      • You were shoved headfirst through someone's vagina. Why are you acting so dignified?

        I was born by Caesarean section, you insensitive clod!
  • Federally Funded?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eggoeater (704775) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:23AM (#20194779) Journal
    Can someone explain how the federal government can fund a program whose sole purpose is clearly in violation of the first amendment?
    The right-wing religious nuts can do whatever they want with their own money, but this seems like a phenomenal waste of my tax money.


    • by Dolphinzilla (199489) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:26AM (#20194797) Journal
      I just can't believe that there is a good paying job out surfing porn sites - and to think I have been doing it for free for years
    • by Dr. Cody (554864)
      I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the Good Lord above for the Federal government's inadequacy in advancing its own agenda.
    • by spikedvodka (188722) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:38AM (#20194875)
      Hrm... can anybody find more information about this program, I'm thinking it's write my congress-critter time again, because this is crazy. a funding number, anything? /me goes to find an old American history textbook, photocopies the constitution, laminates it, and places it in a UV-Protected, inert atmosphere environment. Might just be the last copy we see.
    • by tji (74570) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:39AM (#20194885)
      Have you not been paying attention? Funding "faith based organizations" was the first thing Bush did after he got elected in 2000.

      Congress initially denied funding, citing the separation of church and state, and Bush bypassed them via an "Executive Order".

      Welcome to the theocracy.

      I guess they see how well all those middle-eastern governments are working, and want to bring the same thing to the U.S.
      • by c6gunner (950153)
        Just to play devils advocate for a sec:

        Every time I criticize middle-eastern theocracies, some idiot (ok, MANY idiots) jump in screaming about how "that's their culture", and "we have no right to criticize". I'm surprised that there's nobody here defending Christian fundamentalism as "US culture" and telling all these damn foreigners that they have no right to criticize Bush :)
    • A small solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:40AM (#20195227) Homepage
      Well, it is a couple of months until we hit the ballot boxes, but in the mean time, this is how I voiced my discontent:
      1. Go to the complaint submission [obscenitycrimes.org] site and submit a complaint.
      2. Put the url obscenitycrimes.org in the Report URL box.
      3. Under the "type of obscenity" check box, check "other" and place this text in the description box: "Obscene waste of my tax dollars and obscene violation of the first amendment
      I know that it won't do anything, but it makes me feel a little better anyway.
      • by bmo (77928)
        Done. Now if everyone would.

        The results would be amusing. They're supposed to send you confirmation that it was submitted.

        --
        BMO
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by FleaPlus (6935)
      Can someone explain how the federal government can fund a program whose sole purpose is clearly in violation of the first amendment?

      The funding was done via a congressional earmark to a non-profit organization. I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any particular limitations on what an organization can then do with that money, since the organization itself is operating within the bounds of law. If anything though, this is further evidence that earmarks gloriously suck.

      His work is financed by a Justice Department grant initially provided through a Congressional earmark inserted into a spending bill by Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia.

      The grant, about $150,000 a year, has helped pay for Mr. Rogers and another retired law enforcement officer in Reno, Nev., to harvest and review complaints about obscene matter on the Internet that citizens register on the Justice Department Web site.

  • by ATestR (1060586) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:25AM (#20194795) Homepage
    At first glance, my brain interpreted this headline as "Federal Anti-Obesity Program..." Whew! For a second there I thought that the government was going to come after us for eating too many twinkies during those late night coding sessions.
  • by PontifexPrimus (576159) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:29AM (#20194821)
    The article is so full of I-want-to-bash-my-head-against-the-wall idiotic ideas that I really don't know where to start.
    So I'll just pick one tiny quote:

    Would-be complainants are also advised not to trawl for obscene Web sites, noting that "men are particularly vulnerable to pornographic addiction." Identifying Internet smut, the site advises, is best left to professional law enforcement personnel.
    Who have to be blind, deaf eunuchs. Because that's the only way to be sure. Dammit, I have to add one thing:

    Mr. Peters said he was confident that officials would eventually assume their responsibility and go after what he described as a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.
    Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults??? How can you get any more puritan than that? Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT???
    Ahemm... sorry, but the degree of mental retardation needed to keep such views in today's society keeps astounding me.
    • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:35AM (#20194851)

      Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults???
      Nothing. The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else. Fundamentalists (and generally religious people to a lesser degree) are contradicting themselves on so many levels that they were an AI, they'd have ended up with their circuitry in flames.
      • ...and that's what I get for not previewing. s/expose/impose/. s/that they/that if they/
      • taking the bible at face value... if a raging horde of people comes to my front door trying to kill me I'm allowed to push my "Virgin daughters" at them for them do what they want with, if they'll leave me alone?

        Somehow, i don't think that would be acceptable these days.

        or for starters, and one of my favorite come-backs against people who believe in "The Genesis Creation story" as holy writ This-is-what-really-happened-and-you're-going-to-h ell-for-doubting-it... "Which Genesis creation story.... Genesis 1
        • by howlingmadhowie (943150) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:19AM (#20195117)
          not quite. i think it has to be a mob of angry men come to gang-bang your male guests. which sort of reminds me of a falcon film i saw while researching material for morality in media.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by shivamib (1034310)
          Whoa. Did you say virgin daughters???
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dragonslicer (991472)

          or for starters, and one of my favorite come-backs against people who believe in "The Genesis Creation story" as holy writ This-is-what-really-happened-and-you're-going-to-h ell-for-doubting-it... "Which Genesis creation story.... Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?" go read them, it's rather amusing... they contradict each other.

          The two versions of the story of creation in Genesis aren't as contradictory as you seem to be implying. If you really want to nail the people that read the story literally, ask them how the world was created in six literal, 24-hour solar days when the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day.

      • Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults???

        Nothing. The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else.

        I don't think the religious texts actually have anything to do with it. Controlling other people's sexual behavior just seems to be something a lot of people feel like they need to do, and religion provides them with a convenient "ultimate authority" for doing it.

        Notice that it's not limited to a single religion.

        Notice also that I said "other people's". If news stories are any indication, hypocricy is rampant among these types.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Please don't insult the "special" people like that.

      Mr. Peters is far beyond that.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:33AM (#20195189) Journal

      Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT???
      Have you seen what the Parents Television Council (PTC) [wikipedia.org] has done with the FCC? They single handedly make up >90% of the complaints to the FCC... and the FCC responded with fines.

      What the guys and gals at the Morality in Media group don't seem to get is that the Justice Dept is not the FCC. The DOJ doesn't file criminal charges based on the number of complaints.

      But if you look at the PTC & FCC, you can easily understand where they got the idea from and why they thought would work.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:48AM (#20195267) Homepage
      Perhaps they should form their own state, I suggest in that in their declaration of independence they put the following:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the repression of other people's pursuit of Happiness."

      Obviously there's some limitations like your right to punch ends at my nose, where you're infringing on others' rights. And I can think of a few edge cases where I'd put other concerns like polluting the environment, cruelty to animals and such things ahead of your right to pursue happiness, probably a few things that are highly self-destructive like heavy drugs too. But if there's no really compelling reason to prohibit it, everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness. I really wish that they'd put that somewhere in the constitution, even if nothing as a preamble. Certainly the 9th amendment is way too weak if that was the intended meaning.
  • How the hell... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darundal (891860) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:31AM (#20194829) Journal
    ...did these people end up getting funding from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? They are a religious organization, and they are running a religious campaign under a general header of "anti-obscenity." How?
    • by ruiner13 (527499)
      B...B...But 9/11!!! Terrorists! If you watch porn you are a terrorist, and you might as well have flown the planes into the WTC yourself!

      </sarcasm>

      If I didn't say it, someone in the Bush administration would have eventually to support anything that people don't agree with.
    • Bush's promotion of "faith based organizations" goes back to before his first term. Do none of you pay attention to your own government?
  • "I do have a cause however: obscenity. I'm for it."

    This sort of thing just makes religious conservatives seem like they want to make everyone else moral using force, when most evangelical Christians want to spread the Good News to the unfaithful and have them willingly become moral (by the conservative Christian definition).
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @12:26PM (#20195913) Journal
      My favourite line from Tom Lehrer on this subject was his objection to things containing profanity (among other things) being described as 'Adult,' when in fact they are quite childish.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Valdrax (32670)
        I've always been amused by the fact that the majority of what Japanese people consider rude or crass speech is the kind of speech that young children (especially boys) use before they learn how to properly talk around strangers.

        The language does have a few obscene words that aren't meant to be used around kids (mostly sex terms), but much of what could get you punched in the face if you used it in a bar is literally childish speech.
  • Quite frankly I find the whole idea these people are out there wasting tax dollars obscene. Shall we all get together and file a complaint against THEM?
  • Obsenity is defined as something that "lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards"
    67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand? I believe this website succeeds only in reporting material that is offensive to a small subset of the population, that try to force its beliefs on the rest of the country.
    • by Alchemar (720449) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:55AM (#20194987)
      If it only offends a small subset of the community, who could it violate community standards? If that many people are looking at this stuff, then by definition it is no longer obsene.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spikedvodka (188722)

      Obsenity is defined as something that "lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards"

      67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand?

      I believe this website succeeds only in reporting material that is offensive to a small subset of the population, that try to force its beliefs on the rest of the country.

      /me re-reads the parent.

      You make a very good point. The internet, and specifically porn sites, are very capitalistic. Someone has to pay for the content. If we're using "Community standard" the community who's standards that we use should be the community where the "Product" is found.

      This is where is gets fun. So far the courts have used the physical location of where the material was accessed as the community. I think that that view is fundamentally flawed. The community they should be considering is the

  • by Frankie70 (803801) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @09:52AM (#20194965)
    Long back, people from England emigrated to Australia &
    the USA. All the convicts were sent to Australia. All the
    religious kooks were sent to the USA.

    Most Australians are thankful for this luck of fate.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by lysse (516445)
      Well, it does explain John Howard.
    • My understanding is that Australians are largely descended from the guards, not the convict population as such. But that's just what I read somewhere on the Web.

      But yeah, a lot of the original colonists came here to escape religious persecution. Not that they were necessarily any more kooky than the people in the countries from which they were fleeing: they were just different brands of kooks. As history clearly tells us, religious kooks are not tolerant of those with different dogmatic views of the worl
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by mgabrys_sf (951552)
        Yes, but New Zealand was for particuarly hardened criminals. And that's a particularly nice place. Much more liberal too.

        Douglas Adams pointed that out in the notes that were compiled in his last book (a postscript of material gathered after his death).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by lachlan76 (770870)
        Actually, my understanding was that the majority of us are descended from the non-convict settlers who came as a result of the promise of free travel/land. But I live in a non-convict state, so I could be wrong about the general population.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      "so what is milton saying here? that its more fun to be bad than good?"

      -stolen
  • "Addiction is an ugly word, but it is a reality. And what are the results of TV addiction? Deterioration. Deterioration of family togetherness, closeness. Deterioration of mind and spirit. We've lost the art of family conversation. We don't read. Our children are not stimulated to read. They are missing the great treasures, the literature of the ages. But the worst result of the addiction is a lack of interest in God and the Scriptures. Divine love as well as human love is leaving the home of the family add
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:06AM (#20195047) Journal
    What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?

    It's the non-consentual sex they should be worried about.
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      It's the non-consentual sex they should be worried about.

            Come on. Everyone knows that if you yell "surprise!" just before, then it's ok.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?

      Not enough of it?
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @11:31AM (#20195537) Journal

      I think we deserve a goverment grant to fight this non-consentual abstinence among the community! At the minimum community service sentences to those who continue this harmfull practice against innocent slashdotters!

      Although I am willing to settle for that list of porn sites. Could they rank them so I don't waste too much time to get too the good stuff?

    • UnFoRtUnAtElY, for these people, everything is wrong. They equate sexual pleasure with immorality, with obvious Christian roots. In the article about Cosmopolitan, they refer to it (and possibly other magazines) as "gauntlet of smut". To everyone who doesn't know what that means: p-o-r-n (notice that that word also means "A smudge made by soot, smoke, or dirt" (dictionary.com).

      Cosmopolitan by the way is not porn. It does give sexual positions [1] and sometimes uses words like "bitch", but that's common slan
    • What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?

      That's an impeachable offense, particularly if a cigar is involved.

  • Root Causes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by headkase (533448) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @10:11AM (#20195081)
    Puritanism (v.): The overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.
    Really, just because they feel guilty over any pleasure (because we were bad and got kicked out of the garden of eden so we don't deserve them in the eyes of god or something like that) doesn't mean that every pleasure should be struck from acceptable social behavior especially when they really are a vocal minority.
  • Get a load of that - they are complaining about sexual material involving CONSENTING adults. So, 2 or more people have chosen to do something with their own FREE WILL, and done it, and they are allowing others to watch it by their FREE WILL.

    Therefore the what this group is for is an assault against free will.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Belial6 (794905)
      Well, as far as I know, almost all parts of the US have laws against consenting adults having sex in private. I believe that only some parts of Nevada legally allow consenting adults to have sex if money openly exchanged.
  • Dumb-ass, morally righteous Christian assholes.
  • ... what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.

    What? Really, I mean ... what? That particular horse left the barn decades ago, and it's not coming back.

    These people need to laid, and stop trying to force their pattern for living on everyone else.
  • The whole "federally funded" part is what's scary.

    Why should these organizations be federally funded? I thought our constitution is clear on this.

    Just like Bush wants to *deny* federal funding to stem cell research, obviously on religious grounds. But at least this is a grey area; federally funding religious organizations trying to ban "obscene" content is so wrong.

    Oh, I just figured it out. It's so wrong that it overflowed the wrongness int and became right. Sigh.
  • Damn, misread the title. Although, maybe if I got enough people to petition, I could get one of those. But then all /. users would become expatriots of the United States, and I don't think Canada wants them either....
  • [I]n the Classifieds section, ... The latter ad points readers to a website where they can receive, without proof of age, access to "Adult Sex Ed" materials."

    When a retired law enforcement agent, now a consultant for MIM, went to this website and clicked the word "Cunnilingus," he observed. . . a photo that "depicted a naked female lying on her back with her right leg lifted near her right breast as a male engaged in oral/vaginal sex upon her genitals"... Some may call that
  • by mapkinase (958129)
    I hope respectable people behind this campaign will find ways to push forward their noble agenda.
  • by zugurudumba (1009301) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @11:33AM (#20195543)
    ... they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
  • Dogma Idiot Priority (DIP) "Morality in Media, a conservative religious group" seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to the pedophiles on the internet and in public. Hell, it looks like they should start by trying to close down places of dancing and mixed sex social environments/events.

    DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to semi-illiteracy, oppressed dogma believing, poor/diseased health street urchins, and exploitable cheap labor for US & EU citizens of recognizable value. If you don't have what it takes to instill irrational fear into poorly educated people and/or at least an ability to legally extort from the poor and middle class citizens to make a living; well then, you need to be more subservient to the people that are of value to the new world order.

    DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat abortionist, freewill, free-speech, human-rights ... while assenting by silence (obscene lip-service [AKA: virtual BJ]) genocide, famine, child pornography, spouse abuse, slavery, criminal wars, pollution, corruption in government ... for their personal (not godly) interest on earth.

    Oh; NOW I SEE, all pseudo-religious/mythology groups are like BinLaden's terrorist groups with cruelty, suffering, injustice, evil ... as their most trusted and important tools for their common good and the oppression of humanity.

    I have always said; "I would respect mythology/religion groups/members more than null/zero... if they would (legally binding) sign/line up to adopt and raise as their own, all abandoned children on the street and in all orphanages globally (young and old, healthy and sick, Moslem or Jew, ...) providing the care of a family and good educations for all." Opposing abortion is 180degrees out from taking responsibility for the children alive today.

    For ("the prime threats" to US, EU, ... societies) Christian popes/bishops, Baptist ministers, Hebrew Rabies, Islam Imams, and/or any other pseudo-religious/political person to pontificate/fatwa about the wrongs of abortions and the evils of other nations/religions, and then not actively support and enforce laws in their/other nations around the world to end starvation, slavery, pollution, genocide ... is the greatest EVIL INCARNATE against children (born and aborted) and humanity, for all THEIR EVILS, DAMN THEM TO HELL!

    MF/FF/Gay/Incest/Donkey, though morally questionable/objectionable for many adults, ain't the problem. All of today's religious & political intercourse for exploiting and oppressing public security and welfare is the real obscenity and pornography promoted by religion and governments globally.

    Almost all religious leaders, politicians, and their families are more ugly and repugnant than Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar ... to me, because they preach then breach the public's, Citizens', Humanity's trust. Then by inaction/proxy cause the same amount of suffering, cruelty, death, and mass-murder as any Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon ... mass-murders and traitors.

    I do not write this way to flame/troll/offend, but to intensely express what I see (objectively or subjectively, you choose) as the facts, which strongly indicate the origins of great crimes against humanity. Everything I write like this is "Open Content".

    FINAL WORD: GO TO HELL ALL YOU EVIL LYING OFFSPRING OF DEMONIC BITCHES!
  • "and violates contemporary community standards."

    That is the current problem of the society. There is no community and there are no standards.

    Indeed, "The time is out of joint".

  • by kilodelta (843627) on Saturday August 11, 2007 @12:29PM (#20195929) Homepage
    What is really interesting about the religious fundamentalists is that they want to wind the clock back to sometime around 2 BCE.

    Of course there was illicit sex going on back then, but because the printing press hadn't yet been invented it was a real bitch to to flip book style porn on stone tablets.
  • In tfa, there's a picture of Mr. Peters standing in front of his desk--notice how Mr. Peters' hands are strategically placed to hide his 'obscenity detector,' which somehow brings to mind the old Woody Allen line, 'Sex is dirty only if it's done right.' Seriously, I think there is something miswired in these guys brains, whereby they are attracted to pornography, but cannot cop to it, thus forcing them to mask their desire in a socially acceptable way!

    Also, I wonder if this guy is any relation to the nutj

  • Prior to filing a lawsuit, members of Morality in Media were required to pass a Cosmopolitan quiz, "Am I an Adequate Lover?" None were successful.
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Saturday August 11, 2007 @04:53PM (#20197869) Homepage Journal
    jesus christ was about love and tolerance

    the spirit in which you act is not the same as jesus christ's message

    if anything, it in is in the same spirit of the jews and romans who condemned jesus christ to death

    if jesus christ rises again, it is conservative christians who will be the first to condemn him

    because conservative christians have a message which is the exact opposite of the message of jesus christ

    there are in this world good christians

    and they are all moderates and liberals

    and they are more in the good stead of the message of jesus christ than you are

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Working...