Ashcroft Pledges To Fight Online Obscenity 27
sil points to an article at Wired which says that Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress (specifically, the House Judiciary Committee) this week that "Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site operators that feature obscene images." "I wonder how one would be affected on the international level. So much for freedom of speech, and expression." says sil. Full article on Wired.
Re:Shame shame shame (Score:1)
Re:Shame shame shame (Score:2)
There have been a lot of them. In each of the cases I'm familiar with, someone got someone's name or address dead wrong in the database, and it amounted to a torte offense. They weren't sued because they were posting a list of pedophiles, they were calling someone a pedophile in print who clearly wasn't.
One local case, a fellow decided to post a list of rapists and child molesters in the area, obtained from the State Police, on a website and on printed flyers stuck on telephone poles in the vicinity of the supposed convicted. He got it wrong in at least one case, an upstanding father of three who had been accused of (not charged with, not convicted of) criminal sexual conduct back in the sixties. Well, the well-meaning loud mouth lists him as a twice convicted felon, convicted of abusing his own children. You know how well that goes over in court, doncha?
And when the spanking was over in civil court, the township fined his ass to the fullest extent for the illegal posting of fliers without a proper permit, and he was prosecuted for criminal trespass. You can't go walking up on just anyones property as you please to staple fliers to their trees, especially when you choose to tell the world lies.
Re:Ashcroft can suck my big fat hairy... (Score:1)
Thanks again,
Gigantic Waste of Resources and Money (Score:4)
The only thing that this latest effort is going to result in is some smaller pornsites having to shell out big bucks for legal bills. After much money is spent, 3-5 people will have some smears on their records, and the Feds will have spent millions. Perhaps 2-3 people will actually spend time in jail.
Missouri Election Outcome (Score:1)
--
Re:Wrong!!! (Score:2)
--
Troll? (Score:2)
--
Re:Defining Obscene (Score:1)
Shame shame shame (Score:5)
It's a shame that the government would use Child pornography as a scapegoat to promote taking away someone's right to view pornography. Let me make some facts clear, first off my wife is the Euro Director of EHAP [ehap.org] (Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia) so I have no problems seeing pedophiles go to jail or being killed (sorry I have no tolerance for those who hurt kids.) But using the kids is an excuse by the government to minimize the rights of people one step at a time.
There's a site [flashback.se] that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations. Why doesn't governments all over allow these kinds of sites to run if they were so concerned with the children?
The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."
Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our nation's children."
Getting back to privacy, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what should or should not be seen on the Internet or other due to the impartiality of it all. For instance I find Rotten [rotten.com], Defacation Vacation [defvac.com], offensive as all hell, yet why shouldn't they have the same liberty to post their expressions? I also find the Catholic religion offensive so why shouldn't I have the same right to have those leaders arrested since it's not my cup of tea.
You cannot have fair laws which state The cow can't jump over the moon but the pigs can, because its not fair. Government was put in place by the people, all of the people, and to bend over to try and appease a select amount of people is hypocritical as all hell.
Aside from this all, how is this going to affect the future outcomes of privacy? First they say they're doing this for the people, then they'll say implanting your brain with whatever product they choose is in your best interest as well. Its extremely disturbing, and I hope groups like the EFF [eff.org], ACLU [aclu.org], and others get involved to halt the government from overstepping their bounds.
Re:Bestiality != fetish (Score:2)
Free porn can't be legally stopped by FedGov...... (Score:2)
if you take a strict constructionist approach to the US Constitution because the 9th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned by the US Constitution or not listed but directly connected to one (such as the creation of new branches of the military) doesn't exist for the federal government. In other words the federal government can make an air force, a space force or whatever because the US Constitution says that it can build a military (by saying it can raise armies and navies, for those that don't know the USAF was once a part of the US Army), but cannot regulate pornography because no where in the US Constitution does it say that there is power to establish a national code of morality.
The only exception to that rule is for-profit pornography because that is interstate or international commerce. However if no money is made by the site owner (intentionally, not the result of bad business planning) then it isn't commerce and thus cannot be regulated. And for the morality police among us I would say.... most porn I agree is disgusting and unethical, if not all of it, but I like to think of myself as a man of principle and thus I won't make an exception here.
Ashcroft to Fight Obscenity Online (Score:1)
Fuck You.
Bestiality != fetish (Score:1)
neither is "pedophilia" isn't one either.
Bestiality is a non-consensual action taken with an animal who can't consent.
Given, one could argue that an animal consented... "he got hard, he mounted me, he licked me.."
BUT
One cannot expect that an animal exactly understands the actions taking place.
And an animal certainly can't give verbal, nor written consent nor non-consent to the actions.
This is the same argument against pedophilia -- that a prepubescent child can't fully understand whats involved, and can't really consent.
As far as bestial pornography goes, it really exists in a legal morass. It's probably illegal in more places than most people realize, although IANAL -- I would guess there might even be a website somewhere that details these laws.
And, besides, can you get an animal to sign a model release... not to mention, should it be 18 in dog years or human years before being able to Star in Lassie Does Dolly?
Standard war cry. (Score:2)
The other one is it is for your safety. They have metal detectors and x-ray machines at federal buildings because of the Oklahoma bombing. If they had metal detectors then, McVeigh would have been prevented from driving a bomb up to the side of the building.
while I still can (Score:1)
The key word is *obscenity*... (Score:2)
Re:Ashcroft can suck my big fat hairy... (Score:1)
Re:The usual (Score:1)
First name "Ben"
Last name "Dover"
Re:Shame shame shame (Score:1)
I don't think censorship is the way to deal with this, but you have to admit there really is a problem. I just don't know what a good solution is.
Perhaps you've suggested your own answer: user-moderation and setting your browser at "0"!
Of course, that answer would be unacceptable to Ashchroft and the right-wing Christian fundamentalists who set their browsers at -1 so they can find stuff which should be banned from all adults to "protect children" and conform to their sense of what "decency" should be allowed to be expressed in society. (Just part of the right-wing Republican agenda to carve some major exceptions in the First Amendment on their way to winning the "culture wars".)
Defining Obscene (Score:1)
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
And ASHCROFT knows what is obscene? (Score:2)
"We're sorry citizen, but wearing that shirt critising your government is Obscene. You are under arrest."
"We're sorry citizen, but those George Orwell books have been determined to be Obscene by the Party. You'll have to come with me."
"We're sorry citizen, but YOU have been deemed obscene. Your skin is not white, your eyes are not blue, and your hair is not blonde. Please follow me to the vaporization chamber."
Where the HELL are we going with this? When will america wake up to the power hungry, wannabe-DICTATORS in charge?
-Kasreyn
P.S. Yes, this is a very alarmist and off the wall post. Check your browser - you're at Slashdot! Whoops! Looks like you don't need to flame me for it.
Your sarc filter is broken :) (Score:1)
Read it again, and think "<sarc>"
---
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Re:Standard war cry. (Score:1)
You're right there, they often restrict our rights or violate our privace "for our safety."
Um, you're wrong there. Metal detectors at the doors will not stop anyone from parking a van full of explosives next to the building, just like the "Star Wars" missle defense won't stop a bomb-carrying (or bioweapon-carrying, or MP3-carrying) boat from floating into New York harbor. But they're sure to tell us their ineffective yet highly offensive efforts are "for our own good" -- and call all who oppose their tactics "Pro-Terrorist".
Re:And ASHCROFT knows what is obscene? (Score:1)
I like "Kill all extremists" better (fits on a bumper sticker, where I first saw it).
Re:The usual (Score:1)
Re:The key word is *obscenity*... (Score:1)
Also, our US obsenity definitions allow for banning of pics/vids of certain fetishes (no, pedo does not count as a fetish) such as bestiality and watersports.
If we give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
Re:And he's Attorney General? (Score:1)