The Terror of Porn

closePlease note: This post was published over a year ago, so please be aware that its content may not be quite so accurate anymore. Also, the format of the site has changed since it was published, so please excuse any formatting issues.

“When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.

“Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?

“The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it’s obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.”[SOURCE]

Well, I know I’m pissed. Not because I’m worried he’ll actually shut down the porn sites I visit (2257 promises to do that), but because I’m getting sick of all this conservative bullshit.

It’s bad enough that people are causing a stir over Kentucky schools not teaching I.D. (which, I should point out, is a pack of lies and carries no practical, educational value), but now they’re investing greater resources toward “protecting” us from porn rather than actual dangers. This particular instance is infuriating for a number of reasons.

Because porn doesn’t come to you. At least, not usually. Sure, I get spam in my inbox that probably has pornographic material in it, but I always just delete spam without looking at it, so I’m not affected. One could make the argument that they would be protecting me from spam, but honestly, most of the spam I get these days is trying to increase my virility or convince me to buy a knock-off Rolex, because [insert-famous-person-here] bought one. The fact is that even if porn is eliminated, there will still be spam (arguably a larger menace to society). Terrorism and organised crime, on the other hand, do come to you and directly effect you, sometimes going so far as to actually kill you. The bottom line is that, most of the time, you have to go in search of porn, but terrorism comes to you (and is actually damaging).

Because they’re wrong. Could an underage kid get sent porn spam and thereby be exposed to something lascivious? Of course, but calm down, because (A) they’re not being damaged by it, and (B) they probably also delete their spam without looking at it (and because (C) no one wants to look at gushing farm girls fucked by their fathers. Not even horny teenagers). I’ve heard of people dying bizarre, sex-related deaths, but none as a result of looking at porn. So who’s getting hurt by porn? According to the article, in porn made by consenting adults, women are the victim. See how they’re =consenting= =adults=? She’s an adult and can make her own decisions. If she chooses to be in porn, her problems are her own fault. Now, if she were being forced against her will to appear in the porn, that would be a different story, and I would fully support any effort to bring her captors to justice.

Because it’s futile. Even if they manage to squelch the porn industry in this country, they have no jurisdiction in other countries, so porn will still be available. Perhaps not in any physical form (magazines, video, et cetera), but online; and the moment citizens find out that the U.S. government is restricting our access to certain web sites (*cough* Communist China *cough*), porn or otherwise, there will be a revolution. In fact, destroying legal porn will only lead to illegal porn, and otherwise law-abiding citizens will become criminals when they’re forced to buy their porn on the black market.

Because we’re losing money. This is, quite possibly, the biggest problem plaguing America today; and it doesn’t stop with porn. First off, it’s a waste of resources. As a taxpayer, I know I’d rather have my taxes going toward protecting me against terrorists and criminals. But, of potentially greater impact, is that if the U.S. porn industry is shut down, we’re losing a huge financial resource and putting a hell of a lot of people out of their jobs. Porn is a multi-billion dollar per year industry that generates millions, if not billions, in taxes. Both domestic and foreign dollars are spent on U.S. produced porn, but if we’re no longer producing porn, American dollars will begin flowing out of the country.

The real problem is that there aren’t clear guidelines for what is considered obscene. Obscenity in U.S. legal texts is defined by the Miller Test, which is 66.6% subjective (the first of the three questions is pretty black and white, but the answers to questions number two and three would vary depending on who you ask). So one judge or jury could say that something is obscene, while a different judge or jury could say the opposite. It’s a total crap shoot. Luckily, we’re not alone out there. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is defending the rights of consenting adults the country wide.

And that’s it. No snappy wrap-up, no pithy conclusion. Just a rant.

0 People like this. Be the first!

4 Comments

  1. One of the more terrifying parts of that article is the fact that Albert Gonzales is probably the frontrunner for a Supreme Court nomination. Fortunately, he would be replacing a conservative, so the balance of power won’t shift.

    One question: Do parent’s have any say in their child’s lives anymore? If you listen to the family values groups, the answer is no. I think these groups don’t give parents enough credit with shaping how their children grow up. Parents have much more effect on their children than these groups think, and parents should ultimately be responsible for protecting their kids.

  2. Here is the reason that America is continuing to decline: When it comes to politics, Americans are lazy. Why? Because they’re too busy working at their jobs to do much of anything else.

    Do you think that if the country were as prosperous as it was under Clinton, we’d be standing for this? Back then, the president was indicted(!) for far less. Now we’re too busy to raise an uproar.

    So we’re placated. There are many things that LOOK like they’re doing the job, that are easy, that make us feel better, but aren’t effective. Do you really think that three hours of security checks at the airport are needed? Travel around to a few countries and compare. But it LOOKS effective.

    The war on drugs is another good example. They say they’re against the effects of drugs on communities (violence, poverty, etc), but do they go after real solutions? No! They go after drugs! Why? It does not make sense! Except, it does, as long as you understand that they are not trying to be effective, just trying to APPEAR effective.

    Pretty much the entire neo-conservative agenda breaks down this way. It’s all “feel-good, do-nothing”, whereas the REAL conservative agenda (man, how I miss real conservatives) was “it’s unpleasant medicine, but if we do this now it will pay dividends later”.

    Sigh. And so, not a conclusion, just an ending. ^_^

  3. It all boils down to approval ratings. Bush doesn’t give a shit about the people in NOLA, he just wanted to go down there to have his photo-op and, as you say, =appear= to be doing something.

    The NeoCons don’t care if their agenda is actually effective, so long as it garners favorable approval ratings. If they spent tax dollars to attack the source of drugs, or take preventative measures against threats, then they would have to bother explaining why they’re spending money on things that aren’t obviously problematic. If they go after those things that directly and immediately plague society (like drug use as opposed to drug trafficking), then no explanation is required and the masses just nod their heads and exclaim, “hurrah!”

    I’m reminded of a quote from the 1979 Peter Sellers film Being There. Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) is, more or less, an idiot savant (actually, he’s just a shut-in who knows nothing about society and is a whiz in the garden). He’s talking to the President (Jack Warden) and says, “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.” The President thinks he’s talking politics, and becomes very excited by this new, optimistic point of view.

    I was reminded of the quote because it’s very true and actually does apply quite well to politics. If the roots are not severed, then the plant will live. However, the same thing is true for weeds. If we want to get rid of them, we need to attack the weeds at their source; the roots. So, in order to stop problems such as drug use, we need to stop drug trafficking. It’s not an immediate, quick fix that the people can see working in their neighborhoods, but over time, drug use will decrease as the supply is cut off.

    The problem with that statement is “over time”. Our society is so used to getting what we want when we want that we have a hard time waiting for anything better.

  4. “One problem is that our nation’s leaders are giving us what we want. Party affiliation notwithstanding, appearing tough on terrorism is important. Voting for missile defense makes for better campaigning than increasing intelligence funding. Elected officials want to do something visible, even if it turns out to be ineffective.” – Security über-guru Bruce Schneier. [via]

Leave a Reply