Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp

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.'"

Federally Funded??

[eggoeater]

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.

How the hell...

[Darundal]

...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?

Contemporary community standards

[Arevazi]

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.

MIM founded by a man who said...

[rainlord]

"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 addicted to television."
-- Father Morton A. Hill, S.J., founder of Morality in Media
(Twin Circle, 1981)

So unless you're interested in God and the Scriptures they will probably be against whatever TV has to offer - regardless of the type of the show.

Quote can be found here: http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?mediaIssu es/supmktmags.htm/ [moralityinmedia.org] - on a page that describes what to do on "Turn off TV day" (which they have set to be Valentines day), and one of the suggestions next to "take a stroll in the park" and "help out at a soupkitchen", is "And, most appropriately, take time to write to the broadcasters and advertisers to let them know how you feel about offensive programming."

Frightening on many levels, one being that the government gave them money for it.

Re:Contemporary community standards

[spikedvodka]

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 "internet at large". The fact that there have been 67,000 complaints would tend to indicate that there is a fair amount of material, and hence a fair amount of demand.

That fair amount of demand, to my eyes, would indicate that the internet community's standards would include the "objectionable material"

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if that would hold up in court, but hey... it's worth a try.

I'm also reminded of a Salman Rishdie quote: "It is very, very easy not to be offended by a book. You just have to shut it." The same would hold true of websites, If you don't like it... don't go there. Many porn sites will put "Teaser, erotic" material on the front page to get to you pay, and then have the "Hard Core" stuff be restricted to paying members only.

Pornographic spam is another matter. The big difference is that it is being sent to you, not you going out to get it.

Re:Pass the buck

[Abjifyicious]

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.

It is an uphill battle

[mapkinase]

I hope respectable people behind this campaign will find ways to push forward their noble agenda.

Re:To quote the great Tom Lehrer

[TheRaven64]

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:Pass the buck

[nsayer]

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.

Re:Pass the buck

[WedgeTalon]

I've never understood that whole "vote thrown away" mentality, becuase - by extension of its own logic - even voting for the "major party" that LOST is a vote thrown away or wasted.

Re:To quote the great Tom Lehrer

[Valdrax]

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.

Re:Pass the buck

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope people like you realize that without the threat of "armed insurrections", governments can do whatever they want. It's nasty, yes. It's not something I want to see happen in my lifetime. On the other hand, it is going to happen in the US sometime, hopefully sooner rather than later. It always does.