# FBI recruiting for new "anti-obscenity squad" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780 "2005-09-21T21:46:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/41 "2005-09-22T15:40:57Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Done and done! > > I thought with Ashcroft gone crap like this would be easing off. > > Apparently not. > > -Joe Ashcroft was just a tool. Dobson, Falwell and Wildmon are the ones who want to censor us. They never left. And a censorship run is a very easy bone for Rove and Bush to toss them while they continue to screw their constituents financially. ---
**Author:** ![Wolfian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7ea924/32.png) [@Wolfian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolfian)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/42 "2005-09-22T16:39:21Z")
> [@unophobia](#): > > 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!!’ Fair enough, but what about people like me? I never saw the inside of a porn store until I was 18, yet I had seen plenty of porn. I did it the old fashioned way (older brother’s sock drawer) and via the internet. That was before peer-to-peer became popular. Trust me: very few minors are going to the porn store. You can get better for cheaper online. All you are doing is penalizing (huh huh penal) and needlessly nettling kosher adults. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/43 "2005-09-22T17:06:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (Check only one answer) I can’t do that. The correct answer is “A and/or B, depending on who is defining what’s obscene.” I guarantee you that some things I find obscene are legal, and some things the Falwell / Dobson crowd find obscene are not. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/44 "2005-09-22T17:10:47Z")
It’s a trick question. The point is, things don’t need to be protected by the first amendment alone. The are other points to be had, such as the fact that obscenity is not legally defined ([U.S. v. Extreme Associates.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Associates)), despite wishful thinking/rulings to the contrary, or that banning depictions of consensual acts serves no gov. interest, amoung many other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/45 "2005-09-22T17:16:56Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > 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. I’m not trying to challenge you or defend Bush, **ITRc** , but despite my attempts to follow both campaigns, I don’t recall him promising this. Any links? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/46 "2005-09-22T17:39:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sample letter for sending to your Rep. or Senator:… **Evil** I used your letter with a couple of alterations (nothing major, just grammar things) and sent it to Obama, Durbin and Scharkowsky as below: > [@](#): > > I understand from an article in the Washington Post that the FBI, under the direction of the US Attorney General is diverting manpower and money for an obscenity division that will be responsible for seeking convictions against people for sexual material marketed to adults – not child porn. > > Is it wise to be diverting this money and manpower from protecting Americans from people who want to kill us? > Can you guarantee me that no terrorist attacks will succeed from now on? I am more concerned that someone will blow Americans up than that some Americans will look at pictures others may deem offensive. > > As my legislator, do you think this is a wise use of US resources? Do you support it? If not, how will you oppose it? > > Thanks very much for your attention to this matter. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/47 "2005-09-22T17:41:55Z")
This isn’t anything new. Bush has long pledged to “start enforcing obsenity laws.” In his mind, there are enough obsenity laws on the books to start start shutting people down. The previous administrations have simply not been doing their duty by enforcing them. He (or his “obscenity czar”, which was appointed a while ago) has already made some harrassment lawsuits against mom-and-pop style organizations. I think the idea is to make life as hard for small porn businesses as possible. They’ve also passed some serious laws that only serve to harrass businesses- like the law requiring that all porn businesses keep copies of their actor’s ID’s for perpetuaity or twelve years after the business closes or else risk federal prison time (imagine- your hard drive crashes ten years after you get out of the business and suddenly the feds are at your door). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/48 "2005-09-22T18:25:14Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Ashcroft was just a tool. Dobson, Falwell and Wildmon are the ones who want to censor us. They never left. And a censorship run is a very easy bone for Rove and Bush to toss them while they continue to screw their constituents financially. . . . _Heh-heh_ . . . He said “tool” . . . ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/49 "2005-09-22T18:43:29Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > It’s a trick question. The point is, things don’t need to be protected by the first amendment alone. The are other points to be had, such as the fact that obscenity is not legally defined ([U.S. v. Extreme Associates.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Associates)), despite wishful thinking/rulings to the contrary, or that banning depictions of consensual acts serves no gov. interest, amoung many other reasons. Scott: You have cited a Federal District Court case. That case does not make law, and binds no one except the parties to it. Moreoever, since the case has been appealed to the Third Circuit, it doesn’t even bind them. Would you care to cite any precedential case law in support of your position? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/50 "2005-09-22T19:09:54Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > They’ll have to pry my penis from my cold, dead hand. I’m currently in tears from reading this… I sure hope the conservative version of Michael Moore doesn’t interrupt your internet porn session to interview you ! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/51 "2005-09-22T19:19:25Z")
> [@bouv](#): > > A) Why isn’t it? (I will be the first to admit my knowledge on the Constitution is quite small) From both historical usage and Supreme Court precedent, not all forms of expression are entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. Examples include “fighting words” (not speech in the meaning of the 1st Amendment), advertisements (speech, but afforded less protection), and obscenity (not speech). As to why that is, to oversimplify, obscene materials do not, and do not intend, to convey a message. It is the free dissemination of ideas that is intended to be protected by the 1st Amendment. This distinction is why, for a long time, porn movies would start off with an actor in a doctor’s jacket introducing a visual representation of a case study in nyphomania - a dodge to be able to claim the film was conveying ideas. > [@](#): > > B) So what? Just because it’s not explicity protected by the first amendment does’nt make it illegal, does it? Last I checked, pornography was legal. What seperates pornography from obscenity? No, something that is not explicitly protected by the first amendment is not _per se_ illegal. However, if it is not protected, it is permissible for the legislature to make it illegal. As for what distinguishes pornography from obscenity, it is “community standards” - the community knows it when it sees it. > [@](#): > > C) Do you, personally, think this is a good idea? Diverting manpower that could be used to fight terrorism or arrest criminals just so we can shut down “Spanky’s Fuck Farm” because they forgot to fill out Form 27-B: Application for a Blow Job? I can’t answer for **Bricker** , but the mere fact that someone explains the current state of the law does not mean that said person agrees with the state of the law. It merely means that said person knows what the law is. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/52 "2005-09-22T19:23:19Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > As for what distinguishes pornography from obscenity, it is “community standards” - the community knows it when it sees it. One of the worrisome aspects of this will be the attempted application of the community standards of East Podunk, Arkansas to the entire nation. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/53 "2005-09-22T19:26:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. Um, no. First off, the Fed did not decide to leave the definition of obscenity up to local government. Instead, in _Miller_, the Supreme Court determined that the definition of obscenity is dependent, in part, on the prevailing standards of the community in question. IOW, a Penthouse would not be considered obscene in New York City, where they are distributed, free, to 3rd graders, but may be considered obscene in Provo, Utah. Note, the issue is “community standards”, not “laws enacted by local government”. Laws enacted by local government may be _evidence_ of community standards, but they do not set community standards. Second, the fact that local community standards have to be taken into account in determining what is obscene does not in any way diminish the power of the federal government to criminalize and prosecute obscenity, if it wants to. It simply has to, when prosecuting a pornographer, demonstrate that the offending material transgresses the standards of the community in which the prosecution takes place. IOW, the feds aren’t going to be bringing many prosecutions in Las Vegas. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/54 "2005-09-22T19:28:39Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > One of the worrisome aspects of this will be the attempted application of the community standards of East Podunk, Arkansas to the entire nation. Well, yes and no. In the old days, Hustler could only be prosecuted where Hustler chose to distribute its magazine. That’s still the standard for magazines, DVDs, etc. But the internet does cause problems for pornographers, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent your materials from being downloaded in East Podunk. To that extent, Podunk’s standards could end up being applied nationwide. Sua ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/55 "2005-09-22T19:38:46Z")
So if I were living in East Podunk where the word “Belgium” is considered obscene, and a radio station in the next city/county/state utters the word “Belgium” (because it’s _not_ obscene there), and my fragile little ears hear it, could I get that station punished as a result? For a group of folks who keep harping on “personal responsibility,” the inability of conservatives to find the “off” switch continues to amaze me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/56 "2005-09-22T19:48:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > So if I were living in East Podunk where the word “Belgium” is considered obscene, and a radio station in the next city/county/state utters the word “Belgium” (because it’s _not_ obscene there), and my fragile little ears hear it, could I get that station punished as a result? > > For a group of folks who keep harping on “personal responsibility,” the inability of conservatives to find the “off” switch continues to amaze me. Well, in your example, the threshhold question would probably be what the FCC had to say about it; their standards are considerably higher than merely proscribing obscenity. They can punish conduct which is not legally obscene. Of course, their punishment is not criminal in nature. ---
**Author:** ![D.E.S.K.Top668](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@D.E.S.K.Top668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D.E.S.K.Top668)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/57 "2005-09-22T19:48:38Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > They’ll have to pry my penis from my cold, dead hand. It could be worse. At least they won’t be prying your hand from your cold, dead penis. **That** would be embarrassing (not to mention time to get Viagra) 😃 Peace - DESK ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/58 "2005-09-22T20:08:27Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > Well, yes and no. In the old days, Hustler could only be prosecuted where Hustler chose to distribute its magazine. That’s still the standard for magazines, DVDs, etc. But the internet does cause problems for pornographers, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent your materials from being downloaded in East Podunk. To that extent, Podunk’s standards could end up being applied nationwide. > > Sua So what happens when the servers and the transactions all happen offshore? Offshoring services is nothing new, plenty of bandwidth. Can the prosecute use if they can’t get to the distributor? IIRC, this is how gambling sites are being run. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/59 "2005-09-23T13:25:55Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > So what happens when the servers and the transactions all happen offshore? Offshoring services is nothing new, plenty of bandwidth. Can the prosecute use if they can’t get to the distributor? IIRC, this is how gambling sites are being run. I studied this a long time ago, so my memory may be faulty, but personal possession and “use” (heh, heh) of obscene materials is not criminal. (An exception is kiddie porn, but that is treated very differently, in consitutional terms, than mainstream porn). So, an offshore server is safe, unless the govmint can convince the offshore government to criminalize the conduct - and, of course, so long as the owners/managers of the offshore obscenity server don’t visit the U.S. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780/60 "2005-09-23T13:40:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, in your example, the threshhold question would probably be what the FCC had to say about it; their standards are considerably higher than merely proscribing obscenity. They can punish conduct which is not legally obscene. Of course, their punishment is not criminal in nature. I’m not sure if that’s true, **Bricker** - keeping in mind that I know nothing of this area professionally. But I don’t think that the FCC “occupies the field” with regard to indecency/obscenity. In fact, the fact that, as you noted, the FCC doesn’t have criminal prosecutorial powers pretty much shows that it doesn’t. As to your original question, **rjung** , it’s a non-starter hypothetical. Remember, community standards is only part of the obscenity test. The full test is: “(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest …; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” _Miller v. California_, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). Thus, even if East Podunk found “Belgium” to be an obscene word (more accurately, that it “appeals to the prurient interest”), it would not be obscene under parts (b) and (c) of the test. But perhaps I am being too literal. 😉 Your real question is whether a radio broadcast in one community, heard in another community where the content of the broadcast would be considered obscene, is prosecutable. The answer is, it depends. It depends on whether the broadcasters intended, or should have known, that the offending broadcast could be heard in East Podunk. If it were a situation that East Podunk is 200 miles away and the radio station has an normal range of 150 miles, but occasionally spills over due to atmospheric conditions, IMO the broadcasters could not be prosecuted. OTOH, if East Podunk were in the station’s broadcasting area, or if it were close to the edge, and the broadcaster knew that the station could normally be picked up on East Podunk, then it might be prosecutable. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-recruiting-for-new-anti-obscenity-squad/322780.md?page=4)