Watching P*rn at Taxpayer Expense

Paying religious conservatives to surf for p!rn is not a wise use of the nation's tax dollars.

< The LGBT Debate | Pollack Seeks F.U. For NOT Talking About Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whoa, I know a crony plum when I see it! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ellie on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    Looks like the mandate in these moral values times has been to replace the adage of cops having the best dope to dopes having the best porn.

    my forte (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    They certainly lust after my archives.

    ROFL (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    I feel like I have run into this guy somewhere on the net posting on political blogs.  I always wondered what his day job was.

    a Day of Reckoning (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    You are not likely to find such people engaged in thoughtful dialogue on left-leaning blogs because these laws are built mostly out of dogma, not science, which when confronted with Reason, evince as but a House-of-Cards.

    I need to update my resume... n/t (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:14:15 AM EST

    by all means (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    although this site needs updating, it has some good links

    Do they need any volunteers?? (none / 0) (#7)
    by RedHead on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    I'll have to ask Senator Vitter if could provide me a reference the next time I "see" him (wink wink).

    hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    you could check and see if any of these numbers hold any clues for you

    Additionally, in this particular niche you express interest in, The History Channel's Cat No. AAE-72388 provides a comprehensive genesis of the laws up to where they are now. The nominal price is well worth the savings of otherwise years of research needed to compile such a timeline.


    Pornography (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:09:03 PM EST
     per se is not illegal but  "obscenity" is.

    Potter Stewart once said he couldn't define it but   knew it when he saw it (I'm not sure if he was speaking from experinece or merely being glib.) In any event as the article says the supreme court defined "obscene" in Miller  to mean: a work taken as a whole that  lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards. That means pornography does not necessarily have to involve minors to be illegal.

      That's not much better than "I know it when I see it" and the  looming issue with internet porn is you're  in NYC or San Francisco and create a website. Some crusading cop or DA in backwoods Georgia accesses it and the prosecution states it should be judged by the community standards there.

    appetite (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    Joe Francis (of the ever-so-soft Girls Gone Wild, acclaim) is the Hugh Hefner of the day. He was specifically targeted because of the "normalization" quality his projects have had upon society. (Compare the branding of McDonalds, effect) His works barely even warrant sublimation, in order for examination in polite company. Yet he appears to have risked death while in custody of the Florda jails. In a supreme irony, it was a federal judge that perhaps saved the gifted Francis by extraditing him to Nevada to face federal tax charges.  Speaking of Nevada, in that New York Times article, it states:

    The grant, about $150,000 a year, has helped pay for Mr. [Tom] Rogers and another retired law enforcement officer in Reno, Nev., to harvest and review complaints about obscene matter on the Internet that citizens register on the Justice Department Web site.

    Speaking of Reno, this page does a good revisit of Reno:

    Listen, people in this field have an enormous apetite for porn. But this decision today, by the Ninth Circuit will most likely ultimately lead to faster normalization, as they feed their appetites for ever more naked totty, (under "pretext of law - color of authority", of course):

    "To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled." (In a fifteen-judge en banc panel decision by the Ninth Circuit today)

    That is because these airport, see-through-the-clothes scanners (still in their infancy, they will soon get far better detail), are in the pipeline and will be an especially big hit for examining kids.

    Now consider how the government impinges upon adults by §2257, with a flimsy argument of expediency, (after Niccolo Machiavelli - doctrine of expediency; theory that the end justifies the means, irrespective of how unscrupulous or Draconian such actions may be.)

    Bad, law, bad.

    what's more (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    Something else no one has been talking about, is that a lot of these laws might be driven by those many [ostensibly] uptight spies that are getting all agitated by watching targets surf porn, since the advent of the Internet.

    imitation, not necessarily flattering (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sumner on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    Now a few Australian elites want full time paid jobs hoarding and lording over porn.