From the Washington Post, 9/20/05, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html:
What the double-penetration-facial-cumshot-FUCK is going on here? Why is this FBI business at all? Did Congress pass some kind of federal anti-porn law that the papers never mentioned? Does any Doper care to defend this policy?
I don’t like to resort to arguments like “they’re taking money away from fighting terrorism for THIS???” but it leaps so readily to mind here that I don’t mind. Talk about stupid.
I’m glad the FBI agents have this well in perspective. But this does say something about the people we have in charge, doesn’t it? They’re telling the FBI to pay extra attention to something that’s unarguably legal and consensual in every sense. This would appear to be naturally, a gift to social conservatives, and therefore the last thing we need. What a waste. I hope Congress has the good sense to get mad about this.
It’s a waste of time, a waste of money, and if it means going after people for something that is currently legal, then they themselves (FBI) will be breaking the laws they swear to uphold. Why does the FBI hate America/freedom/fill-in-the-blanks-with-the-word-of-your-choiuce
Yeah, I’m confused too. What part of adult porn marketed to adults is illegal? Or will they merely be enforcing the age restrictions? Speaking of that, I encountered a curious situation at a local video store. The counter is split approximately in half between the porn section and the regular section of the store, which are separated as usual by a partition. However, lately, you have to go to the porn-section side of the counter to rent any video. With respect to minors, I’m sure there’s some violation of law occurring there.
Well, FBI has to sniff for evidence that the pornagraphers are distributing porn to minors. THAT is still illegal.
But I do think that ‘Chidren can set up the V-chip and turn on to PPVs better than the parents’ is an affirmative defense. Gonzales will have to get around that.
But not a federal crime, unless it goes through the mail or something like that. If your local porn store sells to minors, that’s outside FBI jurisdiction.
It’s called “appeasing your right-wing religious fundamentalist voter bloc.”
They’ll have to pry my penis from my cold, dead hand.
When the parents start gawking to their senators, then the FBI jumps in, and looks for evidence ‘up the line’ as to why the original pornagrapher did not do his part, or why the distributor did not do her part, to prevent that video from being distributed to that minor.
They harrass the pornagraphers and distributors enough to make them wrap each and every item they make in a sleeve with 48-font lettering that says ‘DO NOT DISTRIBUTE TO MINORS, LEST YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR CHILD SEX ABUSE!!’
Good for you that was a cheap glass of wine I just spewed all over the desk.
Why? What else might you have spewed over this thread? :eek:
I think it becomes a federal crime if it’s done over the internet.
And once again, penis ensues.
Was there every any doubt in your mind that penis would ensue? Hell, this whole thread is “Hey, look everyone! These people (the FBI) are tryna stop penis from ensuing!!”
That said, I wholeheartedly second Qadgop’s objection.
That is, Revtim’s objection, Qadgop not having made any actual objections. :smack:
I’m not really grasping why anybody is surprised about this. During both his campaigns, Dubya unambiguously promised his base that he would fight to have every pornographer and retailer in the country shut down. Over the last two years his administration has been trying to do exactly that. Only a handful of successful prosecutions have taken place, but hundreds of companies across the country have been intimidated into shutting down. What’s so surprising about him trying to expand his victories by dragging another federal agency into the battle?
[Seymour Skinner] Welcome to Dick Cheney’s America [Seymour Skinner]
This isn’t something the majority of Americans supports, is it? Or have I been spoiled by the SDMB, where even the majority of conservatives are pretty non-conservative socially?
[Beavis]You said Dick huh huh[/Beavis]
But seriously, I don’t see how it could turn out good. First off, when the Fed decided to leave the definition of “obscenity” up to local government, they pretty much painted themselves right out of the picture. Then, there would be the difficulty of defining just what “obscenity” is. What if, it is just a weak plan to appease The Base - to make a token ineffectual effort, and then quickly give up and say “well we tried”?
Thread? The thread is safe from my spewing. Especially a cold, dead-handed thread.