Bush's war on porn...Yeah, I feel safer

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
Now that I see that Bush is anti-bush, I'm anti-Bush.

washingtonpost.com
Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A21

The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

A few of the printable samples:

"Things I Don't Want On My R?sum?, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Federal obscenity prosecutions, which have been out of style since Attorney General Edwin Meese III in the Reagan administration made pornography a signature issue in the 1980s, do "encounter many legal issues, including First Amendment claims," the FBI headquarters memo noted.

Applicants for the porn squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards -- along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit -- define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.

"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.

Popular acceptance of hard-core pornography has come a long way, with some of its stars becoming mainstream celebrities and their products -- once confined to seedy shops and theaters -- being "purveyed" by upscale hotels and most home cable and satellite television systems. Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.

But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. The bureau decided to create a dedicated squad only in the Washington Field Office. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said. "Field offices should not, however, divert resources from higher priority matters, such as public corruption."

Public corruption, officially, is fourth on the FBI's priority list, after protecting the United States from terrorist attack, foreign espionage and cyber-based attacks. Just below those priorities are civil rights, organized crime, white-collar crime and "significant violent crime." The guidance from headquarters does not mention where pornography fits in.

"The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's top priority remains fighting the war on terrorism," said Justice Department press secretary Brian Roehrkasse. "However, it is not our sole priority. In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity."

At the FBI's field office, spokeswoman Debra Weierman expressed disappointment that some of her colleagues find grist for humor in the new campaign. "The adult obscenity squad . . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress," she said. "The personnel assigned to this initiative take the responsibility of this assignment very seriously and are dedicated to the success of this program."
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

:rolleyes:
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
This is true.

The DOJ was putting a priority on going after porn producers prior to 9/11, but had to put it on the back burner. Now, its coming to the front. I guess they figure there's no more domestic threat from terrorism. Whew!
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
Saw the handle "PresidentoftheFreeWorld" in the Currently Active Users the other day. Must have been GWB looking for the free porn thread that he had heard about at MadJacks.
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
If they're going to put a goon squad together to fight pornography, let them attack and pursue the kiddie porn.....kids have enough problems without being exposed to the world of pornography or pedophilia.....

Consenting adults is a completely different matter, which doesn't demand the morality crusade that this porn squad is undertaking.....

"Community standards" in relation to specific individual choice......if it's in public, it's one thing, for an individual to rent movies to watch in a private, non-public setting is strictly his/her own business, protected by the first amendment....

For all this talk about freedom, and how great this country is, we seem to be way behind the European viewpoint when it comes to nudity and pornography......for all the democracy and freedom we try to export to other countries we could damn well use some ourselves....
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
As we have seen since Bush took office, our individual rights have taken a beating and continue to do so. The FCC is talking about taking control of satellite radio and cable tv as well.
 

wayniac

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 7, 2005
27
0
0
Marco said:
If they're going to put a goon squad together to fight pornography, let them attack and pursue the kiddie porn.....kids have enough problems without being exposed to the world of pornography or pedophilia.....

Consenting adults is a completely different matter, which doesn't demand the morality crusade that this porn squad is undertaking.....

"Community standards" in relation to specific individual choice......if it's in public, it's one thing, for an individual to rent movies to watch in a private, non-public setting is strictly his/her own business, protected by the first amendment....

For all this talk about freedom, and how great this country is, we seem to be way behind the European viewpoint when it comes to nudity and pornography......for all the democracy and freedom we try to export to other countries we could damn well use some ourselves....

I agree with everything you said.
If they're going to go all out and crack down on pr0n, at least start off with wiping out all the depraved shit first and chucking those bastards in jail.
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
ferdville said:
As we have seen since Bush took office, our individual rights have taken a beating and continue to do so. The FCC is talking about taking control of satellite radio and cable tv as well.
untitled9aq.png
 

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
If they come out with another deck of cards for most wanted porn offenders, consider me the ace of spades. :)
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
By the way what is porn now days. I know 100 years a go it was anyone in there swim suit. If it didn't look like a pair levies.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
saint said:
If they come out with another deck of cards for most wanted porn offenders, consider me the ace of spades. :)
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
saint said:
If they come out with another deck of cards for most wanted porn offenders, consider me the ace of spades. :)

:clap: LOL! Strangelove has gotta be ranking pretty high in that deck too.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
As we have seen since Bush took office, our individual rights have taken a beating and continue to do so---

Maybe you make a list of rights you've lost and educate us with facts.

--and while on the topic do you consider do you consider children/boyscouts have any rights
--and considering over 75% of population is Christian and less than 1% Agnostic and Athiest what do you feel about assault on religion
---and how about Eminent Domain that liberal element of supreme court pushed thru

on porn agenda --here is what has transcribed in Bushes term--if anyone can show any "factual" NEW changes please post them--facts please--not idle rumors or opinions--now I can see all out assualt on child porn but non other--if your an ACLU card toting member you might have prop with that but most of us don't I am sure-- a few FACTS--

Since 2001, the Bush Department of Justice has prosecuted 40 obscenity cases, with indictments pending against another 19 persons or organizations. This compares with four prosecutions during the Clinton administration from 1993 through 2000. This increase has taken place at the behest of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, or CEOS, a unit at the DOJ criminal division.


On May 5, the DOJ announced plans for a new Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, dedicated exclusively to the investigation and prosecution of sexual content crimes. The Task Force is part of $13.8 million increase in the DOJ?s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section budget, a unit of the criminal division. The CEOS budget increase includes the hiring of several new attorneys, FBI agents, and forensics experts who specialize in cyber technology.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales publicly expressed his commitment to going after pornography, saying that ?obscenity and child pornographers rip at the heart of our moral values and easily corrupt our communities. Enforcement is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect our children and citizens from exposure to obscene materials.?

Despite the fact that the Bush administration has found it possible to prosecute obscenity cases, it is looking to strengthen its hand, and is focusing particular energy, both in regulatory changes and rhetoric, on the issue of child pornography, an issue that its critics charge is a red herring in the debate.


Less the than three weeks after the Gonzales statement, the DOJ revealed plans to strengthen provisions attached to the 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, U.S. 18 USC 2257 laws. The original intent of the 2257 regulations was to keep minors from appearing in adult material. The justice department claims the new record keeping requirements will do a better job at protecting children from exploitation by pornographers, even though only four underage performers have slipped through the existing regulations in the past 20 years, according to prosecution records.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Just a quick post to expose another lie being thrown around by the Neocon Right on this board. Let's see who appointed all these "liberal" Judges and their "liberal" agendas.

Chief Justice: William H. Rehnquist
Appointed by: Republican (President Reagan)

Justice: John Paul Stevens
Appointed by: Republican (President Ford)

Justice: Sandra Day O'Connor
Appointed by: Republican (President Reagan)

Justice: Antonin Scalia
Appointed by: Republican (President Reagan)

Justice: Anthony M. Kennedy
Appointed by: Republican (President Ford)

Justice: David H. Souter
Appointed by: Republican (President Bush)

Justice: Clarence Thomas
Appointed by: Republican (President Bush)

Justice: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Appointed by: Democrat (President Carter)

Justice: Stephen G. Breyer
Appointed by: Democrat (President Clinton
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
DTB, why is it that anybody who dares to oppose or even question Bush is regarded as wrong or an enemy of this country? News flash, we have lost more liberties since Dubya became president than during any administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
Lux I am open minded--once again as I stated before WHICH liberties are you speaking about? If there are some I am not aware of that I consider detrimental to someone other than criminals and terrorist I'll climb right on his back with you. Fair enough?

"Just a quick post to expose another lie being thrown around by the Neocon Right on this board. Let's see who appointed all these "liberal" Judges and their "liberal" agendas."

As for We neocons-- do a little FACT finding before you take the liberal stance of calling everyone that doesn't agree with you liars--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would have thought you'd learned your lesson by now--open mouth--insert foot :)

"Do you wiork for Fox News?"
Nope Smurph but thought items you don't find in liberal media would be of interest.

and speaking of intersting I found something that is quite puzzeling. In doing research on Supreme Court justices only liberals Ginsberg and Berger where appoint by dem pres (Clinton)--the others were appointed by Rebs--WHY would a conservative Pres appoint a liberal justice??????"

http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194757&highlight=appointed+Ginsberg
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top