FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn 1003
ErikPeterson wrote to mention an Ars Technica article discussing the FBI's new emphasis on online pornography. From the article: "Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults."
What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since deviance is obviously in the eye off the beholder, I suggest the FBI should begin by carefully cataloguing each type of porn, and then publishing a free,
up-to-date directory of all these deviant sites, so that we can add it to our firewalls depending on personal preference.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
scarily close to the truth... (Score:5, Interesting)
-
So it's only illegal if you pull out?
-
Wrong kindof thinking here. It's no fun to make it "only illegal if"; that's not how the justice system works, and certainly not how this kind of initiative in specific generally works. It's more of a "also illegal if" deal!
Now, naturally, they aren't literally going to make pulling out illegal, but nearly everything up to that could be, or at least there is a certain contingent that would like it to be (I would be seriously scared and surprised if that actually came to pass). Note that only recently were the Sodomy Laws [wikipedia.org] in the United States entirely stricken down; true, they had been mostly dismantled (op-ed: rightly so!) beforehand, but the official, overall word on the matter was recent enough that there are many influential politicians and private parties who believe (for the sake of the souls of our children!) that these laws should find a return (or at least that similar measures of control should be implimented).
But bestiality is still legal in Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02384648_farm16m.html [nwsource.com]
They won't pass laws against this, but they will go after consentual sex between adults. Maybe they should put that Brown guy from FEMA in charge - then nothing will be done about it.Instead of wasting time with what goes on in bedrooms between consenting adults, they should be investigating graft, corruption, etc., in Foggy Bottom. They could start with Halliburton. BTW, they STILL haven't explained how Jeff Gannon (google Bush's man-date) got his press pass.
Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the new America courtesy of G.W.B.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex.
There's two cases close to it. The first is a man who "seduces a virgin". He has to pay a 50s fine (which is done for purely economic reasons -- if she can't later find a husband because she's been deflowered, at least she won't slowly starve to death). It is not catalogued either as something worthy of death, or even as a sin -- it's simply an economic matter. (Ex 22:16-17)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodu
The second is the fact that you can use and then throw away any attractive slave girls you can find. Their only recompense is that they have to be freed if they get discarded. While the Bible calls it marriage, it doesn't go through any of the normal rituals of marriage, and they don't even need to go through the normal process of divorce (which in OT times was just the writing of a divorcement notice to the wife). No real divorce, no real marriage. The man can sex her for as long as he want, and when they break up -- no harm, no foul.
This is fairly similar to the relationships we have today.
Also, it's important to note that Moses gave virgins as rewards to the conquering Israeli armies -- but he put all the captured women to death as punishment for having drunken orgies with the men of Israel, and getting them to worship Baal.
All in all, I think the Bible makes a lot of sense, I just think that a lot of churches these days are lying to their congregations in order to "do what's best for them." As a Christian, I find that to be anathema -- one should never misrepresent what the Bible says, even if you think its for a good cause.
At least a few churches are teaching the correct exegesis now. My friend's Methodist church, the, (ugh) UCC, my church remains quiet about it in order to avoid lying to teenagers that sex is a sin (the look away and whistle defense?). Even the main Jewish Church (the Conservatives) states that premarital sex is not against Talmudic Law.
In NT times, you had prohibitions against adultery and prostitution (same as the OT), and against general 'perversion'. The word for perversion was translated as 'fornication' which was then defined as 'premarital sex'. Some verses of the Bible are utterly absurd with this interpretation. Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication. (I.e., extra-marital sex, not pre-marital). The Bible has a word for Adultery, believe me. When you subsitute perversion instead, the verse actually makes sense.
Don't listen to me. Read the Bible, figure it out for yourself. Don't reply here until you've gone through the whole concordance on the topic of sex. The Bible prohibits a massive number of things (prostitution, adultery, incest, bestiality, drunken orgies, anal sex with little boys, even homosexuality) -- premarital sex just aint one of them.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
The index (10 commandments) was arranged in order of severity. Worshiping other gods was more severe than murder. Coveting your neghbors ass is less severe than murder. There were probably 50 sub-laws that dealt with what is or is not coveting and what is and is not murder. Punishments were also laid down by the old law.
The new law had two commandments. The first was to love God. The second was to love your neghbor. There were no sub-commandments. And that's the problem.
Without any clear definition, early Christians had to "wing it" when it came to what they could and could not do. Is sticking it in the butt loving your neghbor? I dunno. And Jesus didn't really say.
So, now the old law is used as a reference. Christians can pick and choose what they want to apply. Is murder OK? Probably not. Is it OK to send your wife to sleep in the barn because she's having her period? Probably not. Should you covet? Probably not. Can you stone your son at the city gate because he didn't finish dinner? Probably not.
So, here's the deal. Christians can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aha! You're 90% of the way towards understanding Christian ethics. One of the fundamental ideas behind Christian ethics -- perhaps the fundamental idea -- is that there is no system of code that can completely and correctly capture the distinction between right and wrong. Laws are useful as guidelines, but they are never definitive.
So yes, Christians can pick and choose. But how can such a system make any sense? How does it result in anything other than just total chaos where everybody just does whatever they want? The answer is that you're supposed to be seeking a good outcome rather than relying on a set of rules. In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul makes it clear that this is the Christian perspective: "'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial."
And, even more fundamental than understanding the purpose of the laws is to lead you toward a good outcome (and that following the laws is in no way an end unto itself), you're supposed to be relying on God's direction to know what's beneficial and what isn't. That's a higher standard than following a set of rules. When you realize the rules aren't always right, what this means is that you should seek to do better than you do by following the rules alone. And this does not just mean "legalism is bad thing". What it means, in the Christian point of view, is that anything which attempts to substitute for following God's lead is inferior, whether it's rules or anything else.
Naturally, this kind of system is prone to abuse. But then so is a system of laws -- people simply break them, or they find ways to do wrong without technically breaking them, or they make the rules into such a big deal that the system of enforcement becomes wrong and hateful and counterproductive. So what's needed ultimately is an attitude of wanting to do what's most constructive and beneficial. Then, even though the rules are non-binding, you still want to consult them because there is a lot of wisdom in them, and they are right 90+% of the time anyway.
For more info on this, I recommend Dietrich Boenhoeffer's book Ethics, which I understand was written as a result of trying to work out the apparent conflict between Christian ethics and the feeling that it was his moral duty to support a group that attempted to assassinate Hitler. (Blowing up several people with a bomb doesn't really feel like a Christian thing to do, even if one of them is Hitler.)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Funny)
This is actually very good advice. Fuck your wife a lot and she'll be happy. Your wife should fuck you a lot and you'll be happy, and won't be inclined to go visit the Sex Megastore in downtown Corinth.
Adultery and Prostitution are bad. Sleeping with your wife is good. A man should get married so he doesn't
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Paul was also a Sanhedrin, one of the judicial ruling body of the Jews. Biblical historians agree that one of their tenants required their members to be married.
The adjective used in that passage, "agamos", has connotations of widow rather that never getting married. Someone who has never been married is referred to as "parthenos". (Though there are some passages where the words are used interchangeably, so it's not 100% certain.)
Paul referred to widows several times as being especially useful to the church.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
In other words, being celibate is "good" but you shouldn't do it. Question: Out of the 2 choices, 1) becoming monks or nuns and 2) getting married, which one does Paul want them to do more?
3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5a. Defraud ye not one the other
Married people should have sex often. Even if you don't want to, remember that your husband or wife might so keep that in mind. Fun fact: The Talmud specifies the minimum frequency that couples should have sex. It varies depending on how much time you spend at work.
5b. except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
If you both agree to not have sex that's OK but only for a short time. And even though you might feel that it helps your spirituality, remember that Satan can use it to tempt you. Also during those periods when you are not having sex, I think you shouldn't eat either, that would make you even more spiritual.
6. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
That last thing about periodically not having sex is something I would discourage. But since you seem insistent on not having sex then I'm going to allow it.
7. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
I wish that everyone was like me, but we're all different, that's why I think it's OK for you to not have sex even though I think you should get married and make lots of babies.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome! So you're going to assign me a wife? Now I won't have to work on my social skills and can go back to playing WoW 20 hours a day!
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Informative)
> Sure it does: [...] fornications [...] fornication [...] fornication
Try reading sometime. Here's the part of the grandparent post that you missed:
"Fornication" is an English word, never found in the original text. This may shock you, but language can be ambiguous. Thus, translations can be wrong. This is why Muslims consider only Arabic versions of the Qur'an to be correct. Sometimes I wish Christians did the same.
The Ever Dreaded .....Dirty Gonazalez....? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Ever Dreaded .....Dirty Gonazalez....? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, if you want to find the TeX Users Group website all you have to do at Google is a search for "tug typesetting". Low and behold, it's the first site listed! And Google's two-line preview helps indicate that it isn't a site containing gratuitous images of animal sex and buttrape. Likewise for LaTeX related searches.
I would hardly call an online lingerie store a purveyor of hardcore pornography. Hell, many children (an
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I'm all for exposing stupid, wrong, and evil motivations behind proselytizing. For instance, the church I've been going to sent out an e-mail a few weeks ago encouraging people to help out victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the e-mail said helping them would be a good way to "show them that love [read: 'God'] always triumphs" or something like that. My feeling was, how about if we instead help them purely because we care about our fellow man?
But I digress. The point is, I agree that people have stupid motivations for proselytizing. But, I was raised in the Christian church and have been involved in it for 1/3 century now in some form, and I have never seen anyone proselytize for the reason that you describe. I've seen people proselytize because they think they're supposed to and they'd feel guilty if they didn't. I've seen people proselytize because they think they're supposed to, and deep down they're good people who want to do what's right. I've seen people proselytize because they're afraid God is going to be mad at them if they don't. I've seen people proselytize because they are sure they're right and they are sure people who believe differently are wrong and they feel sorry for those people and want to help them. I've seen a whole lot of people proselytizing because it makes them feel like they're achieving something if they make the church grow bigger (even if it's at the expense of other churches growing smaller). I've seen people proselytizing because they have a bad self-image in general and they feel like if they do what God wants them to, then this makes them a good person.
But, I've never seen anyone proselytize because convincing someone else of something validates their own belief in it. Fact is, there are plenty of people who really don't believe in God, but there are plenty of people who honestly, really, truly do believe in God and aren't just saying that because they want to use the concept of God to manipulate others somehow. Now, whether they're right or wrong about their belief in God is a different story, but it would be a mistake to think they don't really believe in it.
Re:Please don't blame "Christians" in general. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Condoms are mandatory in all porn to cut down on STDs.
Re:Sooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644303.stm [bbc.co.uk]
(Some idiot mod probably thinks I'm making some sort of dumb joke about the promiscuity of west-coasters, judging from my "troll" moderation. Oh well. It's just slashdot. *g*)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
Alright--first, I'll want to tongue your bung while you juggle my balls in one hand and play with my asshole with the other. But don't stick you finger in. Then. I'll wanna pinky you and put it in your friend's brown, while Silent Bob spanks into a Dixie cup. After that, I'll wanna smell your titties, for a while, and you can pull my nutsack up over my dick, so it looks like a Bullfrog. Then I want you to flick at my nuts while your friend spanks me into the same Dixie cup Silent Bob jizzed in. Then we throw the Dixie cup out. " - maybe that is...
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:4, Funny)
"Variety's the spice of life. I like a wide selection. Sometimes I'm in the mood for nasty close-ups, sometimes I like them arty and air-brushed. Sometimes it's a spread brown-eye kind of night, sometimes it's girl-on-girl time. Sometimes a steamy letter will do it, sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- I like the idea of a chick with a horse."
(and yes I had to google connoisseur for proper spelling)
Ob-Bloodninja (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Contradictory. (Score:5, Insightful)
According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
In Kansas maybe this two staements would jive, but take a walk through Folsom Street fair in SF and tell me "sadistic and masochistic behavior" between consenting adults isn't within community standards.
I thought foolishly that this shit would stop when Ashcroft left office. I guess not.
Re:Contradictory. (Score:4, Insightful)
The current political ideal seems to be modeled on that old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden."
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which community?
Orlando?
San Fransisco?
Fargo?
Salt Lake City?
Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?
Of course, we can just go back to importing Scanadinavian porn, just like our fathers did back in the 60's.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole case against Flynt was not predicated on the idea that hardcore porn was illegal but that to offer it for distribution was illegal in public places. The idea was to make it legal to create and own but impossible to distri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Funny)
Not much of a clue, but still.
I suppose I can understand an anti-bestiality crackdown. But where's the harm in watching a grown man eat poop?
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, bestiality porn and bestiality acts aren't illegal everywhere in the country.
This task force is almost certain to exist for the sole purpose of slandering people who the government doesn't like. They may never score a conviction, but they'll be more than happy to publicize how John Doe likes diaper porn or Susie Q does it with dogs. So much for constitutional protections of due process.
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
But thats not at all the point is it? Yeah, its disgusting and probably bad for you but so is cheap Vodka. Are we outlawing that?
Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'all tried, once.
It didn't work out very well. Made a lot of not-so-nice people fairly wealthy, though.
Reasonable porn definition (Score:4, Insightful)
Pornography is a type of art that changes its level of aesthetic appeal according to the level of sexual arousal of the viewer.
It's not correct to say that porn is any work of art that deals primarily in sexuality, has unclothed persons, displays aroused genitalia, or induces a sexual response in the viewer. These are the standard porn definitions, but they all have undesired effect of causing the ban on serious and important works of art.
All porn has appeal to primarily males when they are sexually aroused. After sexual release, a work of porn (by my submitted definition) will seem trite, vulgar, and embarrassing. It will lose its aesthetic value as the viewer loses sexual arousal. A work that is considered as beautiful, valuable, and appealing after the ejaculation as it was during sexual arousal can not be considered porn. Almost all porn is consumed by males.
I am not advocating banning porn, regardless of the definition. The United States Bill of Rights prevents banning pornography, because when it has been created by consenting adults, it lies in the category of protected free speech.
I am merely submitting a realistic and workable definition of pornography that will prevent laws against porn from being used to destroy serious art works that deal with sexuality.
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or the Justice Department has a new plan to protect the Homeland: by turning the U.S. into a socially suffocating clone of an Islamic Republic, Bin Laden won't have any reason to attack us at all! Three cheers for their heroic insight!
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
The war on free speech is ongoing, as can be seen in U.S.BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING COUNTRY [zmag.org]:
Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
And here is the link to the American Taliban:
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ [reandev.com]
It's scarey stuff.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm sure it sometimes qualifies as abuse, most of the people in that scene really do enjoy it. I am most definitely NOT a part of it, but
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for declaring this "flamebait." That you're doing it to supress somebody for badmouthing the President whose appointee is responsible for this is all the irony I need in one day.
As Lenny Bruce once said, if you take away the right to say "fuck," you take away the right to say "fuck the government." And I can't think of a more fuckworthy government than the one we have now. They have done horrible, horrible things to defile the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment:
They have detained and deported foreign nationals for speaking out against American tyrrany. They have created "free speech zones" to corral and observe those who speak out against them. They hosted the G8 summit on an island and refused to let any but approved press observers come.
And in this case, they have decided to impose their own sexual mores on us by outlawing the transmission of images, words and sounds depicting activities they have declared "deviant."
So yes, I'm genuinely afraid that even as an American citizen, I will be monitored, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, interrogated, bankrupted, jailed, defamed and ruined by this government, for things I write or say. For saying "fuck Bush" and "fuck his government." When I say "the United States' activities in the Middle East both created and encouraged the people behind the September 11 attacks," I must remember that I'm speaking out against a government that has disappeared people for saying much the same, shipped them to countries whose idea of Q&A is to Q while smashing your hands with hammers then pouring boiling water on your legs until they get the "right" A.
And I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between a government that attacks those who truthfully document its atrocities and one that attacks those who trade pictures of people in handcuffs getting blowjobs. In either case it is a government that has ignored its own Constitution because it is inconvenient to the crusades---both figurative and literal---of the men and women currently in power.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously - I have no interest in reasoning with people who are basic rejectionists of the scientific method. Kierkegaard taught me that people of faith and the insane are functionally indistinguishable.
The fact is that electing Bush as President has put in place a far more moralizing attitu
Deviant Porn? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?
This oughta be interesting.
And that's the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't, until we're in court. So by allowing the government ot prosecute any speech, even if it legitimately "deviant", we've also restricted LEGAL speech that is not deviant, because nobody can tell where the line is.
This is, of course, entirely separate from the issue that i
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
my tapes (Score:3, Funny)
Oh no, not miscigination (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea why people want to get all up in other people's grill about pornography. But I don't understand the War on Drugs either, so perhaps I'm just crazy. What with my "utilitarian ethics" and everything.
Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?
Re:Oh no, not miscigination (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no, not miscigination (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the theory is known as the "WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" WAPTOC greater theory of social conformity, where by society is deemed to be best lead towards at state where no child can ever encounter an object or idea which may cause them to ask a question that in any way makes their guardians uncomfortable. This theory has the added benefit that when children reach adulthood they will be uncomfortable asking questions of their new "guardian", i.e. the state.
WAPTOC theory also enables both males AND females to remain completely ignorent for the maximum possible time of any details regarding their icky reproductive anatomies, enabling even minimally trained medical professionals to charge exorbident fees for "expertise" otherwise rudimentary knowladge.
Re:Oh no, not miscigination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no, not miscigination (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, my middle-class secular armchair analysis goes like this:
Children need to be shielded from all manifestations of Impurity possible. By so doing, their Innocence will be compromised to the minimum possible extent. They will grow up to beget more children, who will be better shielded and more Innocent than themselves, until one day the human race will become Perfectly Innocent beings and, as Perfectly Innocent, will be able to petition $(GOD) for readmittance to the Garden of Eden. $(GOD)'s unconditional love will have been earned once more, and we'll all get to enjoy a living paradise.
Mind you, I pulled this completely out of my ass. But that should be okay, because they did, too.
Schwab
Priorities.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the article also mentions things like urinating and defecating on people, which while I think it is disgusting, is really not hurting anyone, with the possible exception of spreading disease.
It is intersting that they can show the body of a dead hooker on tv, but then thex pixellate the nipple when the camera goes there.
This is a country where graphic depictions of violence is not only allowed, but glorified, but gets in an uproar over a boob at a half time commercial.
We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful.
Re:Priorities.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Priorities.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Priorities.... (Score:4, Interesting)
In this context, I can't say I'm shocked any more about the moral double-standards your current Administration exhibits.
Midget Porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Midget Porn deviant?
Yes?
What if you are a Midget?
Can a midget watch "large people" porn?
I am scared of deviant midgets I guess...
Re:Midget Porn? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Midget Porn? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing Better To Do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic.
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
I think (Score:5, Funny)
Furries (Score:5, Funny)
I am horrified and depressed by this anti-free-speech initiative, UNLESS 'deviant' means 'furry', in which case I am right behind these brave defenders of the constitution.
'Cause there's nothing worse than googling for 'round, firm, tanned buttocks' or whatever, and on the page of images that you get there's a picture of a poorly-drawn cartoon fox spanking a goth rabbit.
Not that I ever google for terms like that, obviously. That'd be utterly pathetic.
Now if you'll excuse me...
Republican here, Bush SUCKS (Score:5, Interesting)
Porn isnt evil, music, movies and games are not evil, the real evil is done by the prudish thought police, How long till the feds go to the beaches of Fla or SoCal and hand out baggy t-shirts to the bathing suit clad women there?
BTW could we find Bil Ladin faster if his nude pics were on the web somewhere?
Re:Republican here, Bush SUCKS (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, it's both Democrats and Republicans who were going after Take-2 for the GTA:SA Hot Coffee mod. Both parties want to regulate us into their vision of conformity.
If two consenting adults want to do unspeakable things to each other, then sell a video of it for profit, so be it. The larger question is this - The audience of people who consume "urine, defecation, S&M, etc." videos is rather small. What's the real reason for getting the FBI involved?
Just politics, as usual: A wedge issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
If we don't stand up together and fight against this very real threat to the impurity of our nations willies the terrorists will have won! You don't see them wanking off in their spare time! No! They are taking up hobbies, such as flying!
Everybody, I want you to stand up with me now, yes, even those with your spigots in your palms, stand up right now and put your hand on your heart. Now join me in a small prayer to save this nation from all its threats, one of the top of which is hurricane, war causing, terrorism supporting out of control yogurt squeezing. Let us begin:
Oh God!
Hey, Aren't You All Happy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, does this mean we get to search the computers of all these sexually repressed people? In Virginia, sex outside of marriage, not in dark, not vaginal, or not in the missionary position is considered deviant. That makes almost all porn "deviant."
Re:Hey, Aren't You All Happy? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, there is a good chance in some states that that pic or video with that hot chick and her vibrator can be considered "deviant." I wonder how many of these people realize that taking pleasure in denying sexual satisfaction is a fetish in itself, related to sadism.
A Definition (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexual Deviant: one so insecure and repressed about their own sexuality that they must impose their twisted views on others.
What's more perverse: having a woman shit in your mouth or dedicating your life to seeking out women shitting in mens' mouths (something you would could never come across by accident) just so you can tell them not to do it?
BDSM Illegal Now? (Score:4, Interesting)
To the government, does this mean that 'masochist behaviour' is somehow illegal? I'm a masochist - middle-of-the-road extreme, yes, but still a masochist. I like that stuff. It gets me off. and (cluestick!) it doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. I can see the point of cracking down on rape porn, child porn and other things where non-consenting people get hurt, but please, cracking down on BDSM? This takes things too far.
Precisely what are the government looking to achieve? Are they really trying to dictate to me that the only thing that I should enjoy sexually is straight-up missionary-position boringness, with the lights off and my eyes squeezed shut? This messing with what I can and can't enjoy in the privacy of my own home with other consenting adults is getting too much to bear - I'm fine with them fining people or shutting people down for not warning people what they're getting into with some sort of entrance page, or for not informing people that all acts carried out within the content on a given page are performed by consenting adults, but criminal charges? That's rediculous - what would be wrong with a simple disclaimer at the top of every page featuring 'deviant' content saying something like...
That ought to be the limit of the content distributor's liability - that way if little Johnny hangs himself trying sexual axphyxiation, he was at least *told* not to - if that sort of warning can keep shows like Jackass on the air while teaching kids how to set themselves on fire or jump into raw sewage - stuff which kids are likely to see as cool and try - then it ought to be enough to keep content on the net (or on the shelves of dedicated shops, etc) of stuff which, as well as being less likely to be seen as 'cool' like something like Jackass by little Johnny, is also probably no more dangerous.
As for the others - bestiality, yes, this is wrong and should be banned - animals can't consent, obviously. I've no qualms with them banning this, as I'm not a fan of animal cruelty in any form... as for urination and defacation, we're back to the 'consenting adults' thing - who am I (or anyone else) to tell people that want to piss on each other for sexual pleasure that they can't do it, or go looking for it? I'm sorry to keep picking on Jackass, but again, if they can get away with jumping into sewage, sitting in moving portaloos filled with excrement and tipping piss all over themselves, all with just a 5-second disclaimer, why can't 'deviant pornography' that does pretty much the same things get away with it too? Where is the line? This entire exercise is an utterly rediculous attempt at thought-policing.
(Posted as Anonymous Coward to protect the guilty)
Low standards... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Attorney General Gonzalez [usdoj.gov] and Director Robert Mueller [fbi.gov].
I thought this was just the submitter's mistake, but it is actually that way in the article. I shouldn't be surprised; Ars Technica should stick to their stupid overclocking articles.
We needn't wonder anymore (Score:4, Funny)
Old, old advice... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own homes it's simple... Don't get involved. Don't watch. Don't join in. You can pass all the laws you want but spiders will spin their webs "just the way they like 'em"...
Your own personal viewpoint and your morals are yours and yours alone. I'm happy for you that you think yours are the best. You're obviously young and know no better.
Sorry, the universe (and all that is in it) doesn't give a fuck what you (or I) thinks. That's just the way it is.
But the spirit of King Canute is strong with some retards^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people.
End of story.
It's culture, not religion. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bible does not forbid a great many things that could be considered deviant. I don't believe it says a word about women-on-women, never says that non-reproductive procreation is sinful (as long as your assistant is not married to anyone else), and doesn't seem to say a word about 3-ways, etc. I don't lay these down as challenges (indeed, feel free to correct me), but from what I know (yes, I've actually read the whole thing), none of these things are forbidden directly or even indirectly (though later passages imply that you shouldn't bad-touch anyone without being married to them).
Most of our "beliefs" come from cultural extrapolation of older mores. The things we home in on the most are only indirectly religious in nature. For instance, ever notice how our culture is far more obsessed with men screwing eachother (a sin, but not a major one) than it is with swearing (a violation of the ten commandments)? We make an overly-great deal about masturbation, yet the biblical quotes associated with it have nothing to do with it?
Our idea of "deviant" makes use of christian belief as an authority, but it's basis is on cultural values - those same values that make us look on non-homicidal cannibalism, polygamy, and other perfectly acceptable actions in other culture, with disgust or simple rejection.
The bible does not say that two men can't screw one woman's anus. It's our culture that quite plainly tells you that you're a sick individual if your interest in that goes beyond gross-out wanted-to-see-it-once curiosity. If you're into watching people screw animals, you have psychological issues - either that, or you live in the wrong part of the world.\
It's not religion. It's culture.
Theocracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
How Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Just checking...
Fighting smut a top priority? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, no matter how draconian the administration becomes, the people who run it are still human. Do the investigators themselves agree with this bar none, or are they afraid to speak up for fear of losing their job? Hell, should I be afraid to post this here? Is
This occurs to me pretty often--do the folks who enforce this agree with it? I thought I heard somewhere that there was some water-cooler talk to the contrary. I wish I could remember where I read it--I think it was the Washington Post--but they reported that the agents were making comments to the effect of some of those we've seen here: "well, it's nice to know we've won the war on terror," and all that.
My Take... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Other people's fetishes are weird."
If you're part of our current administration, you can replace the word "weird" with "disgusting," "deviant," or "illegal."
If you're a new-ager, you can replace the word "weird" with "misdirected," "unhealthy," or "disrespectful."
If you're a broad-minded individual, you can replce the word "weird" with "hilarious," "creative," or "interesting
If you're a pornographer, you can replace the word "weird" with "profitable."
In no case can you apply the phrase to your own fetishes, which, by definition, are hot.
Logical error? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, does this mean that they're going to prosecute people for taking pictures of adults doing things that are perfectly legal to do?
So we can DO it, we just can't LOOK at it?
They can't find the good stuff (Score:4, Funny)
FBI siezes a copy and passes the most deviant on to higher up's who eventually pass it on to those who helped get them into office.
Re:violent porn (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not against a restriction on such things as well, but let's be consistent here: let's ban real and fictional footage of violence too, right?
I shouldn't have to see pictures of terrorist attacks on my television, nor depictions of murder on my crime dramas, nor violence in movies. All those things are fictional or real depictions of crime, they are being SOLD to me, or offered for free to sell advertising.
Really, America -- WAKE UP. If you want to protect the children, TRY TO BE CONSISTENT. Kids are great bullshit detectors, and when they see tobacco and alchohol being glorified, they tend to disbelieve warnings about things like cocaine. Similary, when they can turn on the TV and see a pretty vivid portrail of a violent crime on NETWORK TV, they will see it as hypocritical for someone to say they can't see some other footage or depiction; especially if they believe "it isn't real."
Let's not forget that it is the CREATION of pornography which is typically the true crime. Go after the people making and selling the turly awful crap. Once you cross over the line into chasing down people who have seen something, who did not create it, you run the risk, as another poster above put it, of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. "Let's humiliate this guy over here." "Let's humiliate her, she spoke out against us." GO AFTER THE SOURCES.
In China, DVDs of the 9/11 tragedy were sold FOR ENTERTAINMENT. There are people in this country that get off over videos depicting real deaths. ("Faces of death.")
We need to draw the line here clearly, be consistent, and above all, send a CLEAR and CONSISTENT message about WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, and just as important -- WHY.
Re:Congress is not empowered to regulate porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws against porn, drugs, sodomy, homosexual marriage, slavery, censorship, etc. are no more 'right' at the local level than at the national level. People go on and on about how the federal government has no right to declare laws across the whole nation that they, as residents of a particular state, disagree with. Yet those same people are just as happy to turn around and declare such laws across the whole state? Whole county? Whole city?
The size of the community shouldn't be the deciding factor as to which laws do and don't make sense. Either we're trying to get along, or we're not. Enacting these laws is creating an artificial dilema:
a) we can decide to conform, even though we weren't harming anyone, just because our neighbors are stupid;
b) we can rebel, which never goes well, always seems to cause casualties, and then we -will- have harmed someone.
Is asking for a fight really worth it?
Re:USA - land of the free! (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some very legitimate reasons to consider some forms of pornography as socially destructive.
Good for them. Last I checked though, the US had a separation of religion and state.
Re:USA - land of the free! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.gif [usdoj.gov]