Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government The Courts United States News

FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn 1003

Posted by Zonk
from the how-do-you-explain-that-at-thanksgiving dept.
ErikPeterson wrote to mention an Ars Technica article discussing the FBI's new emphasis on online pornography. From the article: "Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn

Comments Filter:
  • What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by seanadams.com (463190) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:26PM (#13639637) Homepage
    Girl on girl? Black on white? The butt? Golden showers? DVDA?

    Since deviance is obviously in the eye off the beholder, I suggest the FBI should begin by carefully cataloguing each type of porn, and then publishing a free,
    up-to-date directory of all these deviant sites, so that we can add it to our firewalls depending on personal preference.
    • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639678)
      Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government.
      • by BandwidthHog (257320) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:45PM (#13639813) Homepage Journal
        So it’s only illegal if you pull out?
        • by Phil Urich (841393) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:09PM (#13640000) Journal
          Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government.
          -
          So it's only illegal if you pull out?
          -
          Wrong kindof thinking here. It's no fun to make it "only illegal if"; that's not how the justice system works, and certainly not how this kind of initiative in specific generally works. It's more of a "also illegal if" deal!

          Now, naturally, they aren't literally going to make pulling out illegal, but nearly everything up to that could be, or at least there is a certain contingent that would like it to be (I would be seriously scared and surprised if that actually came to pass). Note that only recently were the Sodomy Laws [wikipedia.org] in the United States entirely stricken down; true, they had been mostly dismantled (op-ed: rightly so!) beforehand, but the official, overall word on the matter was recent enough that there are many influential politicians and private parties who believe (for the sake of the souls of our children!) that these laws should find a return (or at least that similar measures of control should be implimented).
          • ... so all those congresscritters can continue fucking sheep and cows and horses and pigs, when they're not busy fucking over the average citizen ...

            http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02384648_farm16m.html [nwsource.com]

            ENUMCLAW -- Authorities are reviewing hundreds of hours of videotapes seized from a rural Enumclaw-area farm that police say is frequented by men who engage in sex acts with animals.

            The videotapes police have viewed thus far depict men having sex with horses, including one that shows a Seattle man shortly before he died July 2, said Enumclaw police Cmdr. Eric Sortland. Police are reviewing the tapes to make sure no laws have been broken.

            "Activities like these are often collateral sexual crimes beyond the animal aspect," said Sortland, adding that investigators want to make sure crimes such as child abuse or forcible rape were not occurring on the property.

            Washington is one of 17 states that does not outlaw bestiality

            They won't pass laws against this, but they will go after consentual sex between adults. Maybe they should put that Brown guy from FEMA in charge - then nothing will be done about it.

            Instead of wasting time with what goes on in bedrooms between consenting adults, they should be investigating graft, corruption, etc., in Foggy Bottom. They could start with Halliburton. BTW, they STILL haven't explained how Jeff Gannon (google Bush's man-date) got his press pass.

      • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:59PM (#13639920)
        I'd love it if people actually read the Bible.

        The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex.

        There's two cases close to it. The first is a man who "seduces a virgin". He has to pay a 50s fine (which is done for purely economic reasons -- if she can't later find a husband because she's been deflowered, at least she won't slowly starve to death). It is not catalogued either as something worthy of death, or even as a sin -- it's simply an economic matter. (Ex 22:16-17)

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus %2022:16-17&version=9 [biblegateway.com];

        The second is the fact that you can use and then throw away any attractive slave girls you can find. Their only recompense is that they have to be freed if they get discarded. While the Bible calls it marriage, it doesn't go through any of the normal rituals of marriage, and they don't even need to go through the normal process of divorce (which in OT times was just the writing of a divorcement notice to the wife). No real divorce, no real marriage. The man can sex her for as long as he want, and when they break up -- no harm, no foul.

        This is fairly similar to the relationships we have today.

        Also, it's important to note that Moses gave virgins as rewards to the conquering Israeli armies -- but he put all the captured women to death as punishment for having drunken orgies with the men of Israel, and getting them to worship Baal.

        All in all, I think the Bible makes a lot of sense, I just think that a lot of churches these days are lying to their congregations in order to "do what's best for them." As a Christian, I find that to be anathema -- one should never misrepresent what the Bible says, even if you think its for a good cause.

        At least a few churches are teaching the correct exegesis now. My friend's Methodist church, the, (ugh) UCC, my church remains quiet about it in order to avoid lying to teenagers that sex is a sin (the look away and whistle defense?). Even the main Jewish Church (the Conservatives) states that premarital sex is not against Talmudic Law.

        In NT times, you had prohibitions against adultery and prostitution (same as the OT), and against general 'perversion'. The word for perversion was translated as 'fornication' which was then defined as 'premarital sex'. Some verses of the Bible are utterly absurd with this interpretation. Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication. (I.e., extra-marital sex, not pre-marital). The Bible has a word for Adultery, believe me. When you subsitute perversion instead, the verse actually makes sense.

        Don't listen to me. Read the Bible, figure it out for yourself. Don't reply here until you've gone through the whole concordance on the topic of sex. The Bible prohibits a massive number of things (prostitution, adultery, incest, bestiality, drunken orgies, anal sex with little boys, even homosexuality) -- premarital sex just aint one of them.
        • I'm surprised you haven't started a real firestorm with that because almost all of what christians say they believe, is in fact religious superstition and a good deal of it is against what actualy in the bible. Don't get me wrong all religions seem to suffer from this to varying degrees, I'm not picking on just christians.
          • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:27PM (#13640847) Homepage
            The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them. When Jesus died, he completed the "old law" and began the time of the "new law". The old law was indexed by the 10 commandments and the rest of the 600+ Jewish laws expanded on the index.

            The index (10 commandments) was arranged in order of severity. Worshiping other gods was more severe than murder. Coveting your neghbors ass is less severe than murder. There were probably 50 sub-laws that dealt with what is or is not coveting and what is and is not murder. Punishments were also laid down by the old law.

            The new law had two commandments. The first was to love God. The second was to love your neghbor. There were no sub-commandments. And that's the problem.

            Without any clear definition, early Christians had to "wing it" when it came to what they could and could not do. Is sticking it in the butt loving your neghbor? I dunno. And Jesus didn't really say.

            So, now the old law is used as a reference. Christians can pick and choose what they want to apply. Is murder OK? Probably not. Is it OK to send your wife to sleep in the barn because she's having her period? Probably not. Should you covet? Probably not. Can you stone your son at the city gate because he didn't finish dinner? Probably not.

            So, here's the deal. Christians can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
            • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by adrianmonk (890071) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:17PM (#13642146)

              The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them.

              ...

              The new law had two commandments. The first was to love God. The second was to love your neghbor. There were no sub-commandments. And that's the problem.

              ...

              So, now the old law is used as a reference. Christians can pick and choose what they want to apply.

              Aha! You're 90% of the way towards understanding Christian ethics. One of the fundamental ideas behind Christian ethics -- perhaps the fundamental idea -- is that there is no system of code that can completely and correctly capture the distinction between right and wrong. Laws are useful as guidelines, but they are never definitive.

              So yes, Christians can pick and choose. But how can such a system make any sense? How does it result in anything other than just total chaos where everybody just does whatever they want? The answer is that you're supposed to be seeking a good outcome rather than relying on a set of rules. In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul makes it clear that this is the Christian perspective: "'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial."

              And, even more fundamental than understanding the purpose of the laws is to lead you toward a good outcome (and that following the laws is in no way an end unto itself), you're supposed to be relying on God's direction to know what's beneficial and what isn't. That's a higher standard than following a set of rules. When you realize the rules aren't always right, what this means is that you should seek to do better than you do by following the rules alone. And this does not just mean "legalism is bad thing". What it means, in the Christian point of view, is that anything which attempts to substitute for following God's lead is inferior, whether it's rules or anything else.

              Naturally, this kind of system is prone to abuse. But then so is a system of laws -- people simply break them, or they find ways to do wrong without technically breaking them, or they make the rules into such a big deal that the system of enforcement becomes wrong and hateful and counterproductive. So what's needed ultimately is an attitude of wanting to do what's most constructive and beneficial. Then, even though the rules are non-binding, you still want to consult them because there is a lot of wisdom in them, and they are right 90+% of the time anyway.

              For more info on this, I recommend Dietrich Boenhoeffer's book Ethics, which I understand was written as a result of trying to work out the apparent conflict between Christian ethics and the feeling that it was his moral duty to support a group that attempted to assassinate Hitler. (Blowing up several people with a bomb doesn't really feel like a Christian thing to do, even if one of them is Hitler.)

        • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SamerAdra (893431) <SamerAdra@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:25PM (#13640118) Homepage
          1 Corinthians 7:1-9 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
          • by Anonymous Coward
            This is in the context of the previous section. Men of Corinth were leaving their wives abandoned at home and engaging in bestiality, pedastry and cult prostitution, leaving their wives abandoned at home.

            This is actually very good advice. Fuck your wife a lot and she'll be happy. Your wife should fuck you a lot and you'll be happy, and won't be inclined to go visit the Sex Megastore in downtown Corinth.

            Adultery and Prostitution are bad. Sleeping with your wife is good. A man should get married so he doesn't
            • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Calmiche (531074) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @06:57PM (#13640692)
              Which is interesting, since there are indications that Paul (Who wrote 1 Corinthians) was married at one time. It's not certain, but 1 Corinthians 9:5 seems to imply that all the apostles were married.

              Paul was also a Sanhedrin, one of the judicial ruling body of the Jews. Biblical historians agree that one of their tenants required their members to be married.

              The adjective used in that passage, "agamos", has connotations of widow rather that never getting married. Someone who has never been married is referred to as "parthenos". (Though there are some passages where the words are used interchangeably, so it's not 100% certain.)

              Paul referred to widows several times as being especially useful to the church.
            • by Error27 (100234) <error27&gmail,com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:58PM (#13642331) Homepage Journal

              1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
              2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


              In other words, being celibate is "good" but you shouldn't do it. Question: Out of the 2 choices, 1) becoming monks or nuns and 2) getting married, which one does Paul want them to do more?


              3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
              4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
              5a. Defraud ye not one the other


              Married people should have sex often. Even if you don't want to, remember that your husband or wife might so keep that in mind. Fun fact: The Talmud specifies the minimum frequency that couples should have sex. It varies depending on how much time you spend at work.


              5b. except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.


              If you both agree to not have sex that's OK but only for a short time. And even though you might feel that it helps your spirituality, remember that Satan can use it to tempt you. Also during those periods when you are not having sex, I think you shouldn't eat either, that would make you even more spiritual.


              6. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.


              That last thing about periodically not having sex is something I would discourage. But since you seem insistent on not having sex then I'm going to allow it.


              7. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.


              I wish that everyone was like me, but we're all different, that's why I think it's OK for you to not have sex even though I think you should get married and make lots of babies.

          • by Qzukk (229616) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @08:24PM (#13641191) Journal
            let every man have his own wife

            Awesome! So you're going to assign me a wife? Now I won't have to work on my social skills and can go back to playing WoW 20 hours a day!
        • by 0x20 (546659) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:42PM (#13640950) Homepage
          Don't listen to me. Read the Bible But if I read the Bible, then I'd be listening to you, which you just told me not to do. I've become confused. I'll stay here and await further instruction.
      • by deglr6328 (150198) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:37PM (#13640221)
        On the bright side, the name Gonazalez lends itself beautifully for use as a euphemism for some thorougly revolting and depraved sex act, a la the Santorum [google.com]!
      • So many fundamentalist Christians, so few lions....
    • by kentrel (526003) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639683) Journal
      " JAY

      Alright--first, I'll want to tongue your bung while you juggle my balls in one hand and play with my asshole with the other. But don't stick you finger in. Then. I'll wanna pinky you and put it in your friend's brown, while Silent Bob spanks into a Dixie cup. After that, I'll wanna smell your titties, for a while, and you can pull my nutsack up over my dick, so it looks like a Bullfrog. Then I want you to flick at my nuts while your friend spanks me into the same Dixie cup Silent Bob jizzed in. Then we throw the Dixie cup out. " - maybe that is...

    • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Raul654 (453029) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:32PM (#13639693) Homepage
      From TFA: "The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
      • Contradictory. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sTalking_Goat (670565) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:40PM (#13639768) Homepage
        If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value...

        According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

        In Kansas maybe this two staements would jive, but take a walk through Folsom Street fair in SF and tell me "sadistic and masochistic behavior" between consenting adults isn't within community standards.

        I thought foolishly that this shit would stop when Ashcroft left office. I guess not.

      • Re:What's deviant? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kent_eh (543303) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:46PM (#13639827)
        If content or expression is well within accepted community standards

        Which community?

        Orlando?
        San Fransisco?
        Fargo?
        Salt Lake City?

        Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?

        Of course, we can just go back to importing Scanadinavian porn, just like our fathers did back in the 60's.
        • Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Raul654 (453029)
          "Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?" - Yes (as a result of the Miller test, they already do) This is why porn companies avoid Utah like the plague

          • Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tmortn (630092)
            The community standard as related to porn distribution most notably challenged by Larry Flynt essentially said the community standard only held sway inso much as it related to public distribution of the content. IE to carry smut on store shelves it had to pass community standards.

            The whole case against Flynt was not predicated on the idea that hardcore porn was illegal but that to offer it for distribution was illegal in public places. The idea was to make it legal to create and own but impossible to distri
        • Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jcr (53032)
          Funny you should mention Salt Lake City, considering the history of the Mormon Church.

          After all, they were driven out of Illinois because their neighbors considered polygamy a perversion.

          -jcr
      • Re:What's deviant? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by markass530 (870112)
        Ok, i'll admit it that it has distrubed me that golden showers is now like a mainstream thing. I mean here I am checking out a hustler hardcore, and bam, I see chicks getting pissed all over. but Like I just said, this is (relatively) mainstream thing, so are they going to start prosecutting hustler now? Shit with the intelligent design debate this is starting to sound the fucking 1950's. If some dude likes watching chicks getting pissed on, it's his business, not mine.
    • by kotj.mf (645325) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:34PM (#13639711)
      From TFA:
      According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

      Not much of a clue, but still.

      I suppose I can understand an anti-bestiality crackdown. But where's the harm in watching a grown man eat poop?

    • by Simonetta (207550) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @06:57PM (#13640691)
      Allow me to submit a realistic working definition of pornography, since no one else seems to be able to:

          Pornography is a type of art that changes its level of aesthetic appeal according to the level of sexual arousal of the viewer.

          It's not correct to say that porn is any work of art that deals primarily in sexuality, has unclothed persons, displays aroused genitalia, or induces a sexual response in the viewer. These are the standard porn definitions, but they all have undesired effect of causing the ban on serious and important works of art.

          All porn has appeal to primarily males when they are sexually aroused. After sexual release, a work of porn (by my submitted definition) will seem trite, vulgar, and embarrassing. It will lose its aesthetic value as the viewer loses sexual arousal. A work that is considered as beautiful, valuable, and appealing after the ejaculation as it was during sexual arousal can not be considered porn. Almost all porn is consumed by males.

          I am not advocating banning porn, regardless of the definition. The United States Bill of Rights prevents banning pornography, because when it has been created by consenting adults, it lies in the category of protected free speech.
      I am merely submitting a realistic and workable definition of pornography that will prevent laws against porn from being used to destroy serious art works that deal with sexuality.
  • Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:27PM (#13639647)
    Isn't this the sort of thing the Taliban did - only to a more restrictive degree?

    I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.
    • Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mtrisk (770081) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:33PM (#13639704) Journal
      RAmen to that, brother. I guess that whole emphasis on fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe was just for show - the real battle is the battle of the sexual deviants!

      Either that, or the Justice Department has a new plan to protect the Homeland: by turning the U.S. into a socially suffocating clone of an Islamic Republic, Bin Laden won't have any reason to attack us at all! Three cheers for their heroic insight!
    • Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Homology (639438) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:38PM (#13639749)
      I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.

      The war on free speech is ongoing, as can be seen in U.S.BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING COUNTRY [zmag.org]:

      The internationally renowned correspodent for The Independent -- the great British journalist Robert Fisk -- has been banned from entering the United States. Fisk has been covering war zones for decades, but is above all known for his incisive reporting from the Middle East for more than 20 years. His critical coverage of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation that has followed it, has repeatedly exposed U.S. and British government disinformation campaigns. He also has exposed how the bulk of the press reports from Iraq have been "hotel journalism" -- a phrase Fisk coined.
    • Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)

      There's a radio commentator here in Atlanta who refers to Bush's moralizing government as "The American Taliban."
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:28PM (#13639648) Homepage Journal
    welcome our Puritanical overlords.

    Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by realmolo (574068) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:29PM (#13639672)
    I would say "Fuck you" to everyone that voted for Bush, but I don't want to go to jail for being "obscene".
    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by theonetruekeebler (60888) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:35PM (#13640198) Homepage Journal
      To the moderators:

      Thank you for declaring this "flamebait." That you're doing it to supress somebody for badmouthing the President whose appointee is responsible for this is all the irony I need in one day.

      As Lenny Bruce once said, if you take away the right to say "fuck," you take away the right to say "fuck the government." And I can't think of a more fuckworthy government than the one we have now. They have done horrible, horrible things to defile the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment:

      They have detained and deported foreign nationals for speaking out against American tyrrany. They have created "free speech zones" to corral and observe those who speak out against them. They hosted the G8 summit on an island and refused to let any but approved press observers come.

      And in this case, they have decided to impose their own sexual mores on us by outlawing the transmission of images, words and sounds depicting activities they have declared "deviant."

      So yes, I'm genuinely afraid that even as an American citizen, I will be monitored, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, interrogated, bankrupted, jailed, defamed and ruined by this government, for things I write or say. For saying "fuck Bush" and "fuck his government." When I say "the United States' activities in the Middle East both created and encouraged the people behind the September 11 attacks," I must remember that I'm speaking out against a government that has disappeared people for saying much the same, shipped them to countries whose idea of Q&A is to Q while smashing your hands with hammers then pouring boiling water on your legs until they get the "right" A.

      And I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between a government that attacks those who truthfully document its atrocities and one that attacks those who trade pictures of people in handcuffs getting blowjobs. In either case it is a government that has ignored its own Constitution because it is inconvenient to the crusades---both figurative and literal---of the men and women currently in power.

  • Deviant Porn? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BandwidthHog (257320) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639675) Homepage Journal
    Well that’s a relief. Everything else I had read on this matter over the past week indicated that they would be stepping up investigation and prosecution of mainstream pornography.

    I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?

    This oughta be interesting.
    • by raehl (609729)
      The reason we need to protect ALL speech is because it's very hard, in advance, to know if your speech is legal or not. If we know that "deviant" porn is legal, well, how do we know if our particular flavor of porn is legal or not?

      We don't, until we're in court. So by allowing the government ot prosecute any speech, even if it legitimately "deviant", we've also restricted LEGAL speech that is not deviant, because nobody can tell where the line is.

      This is, of course, entirely separate from the issue that i
  • Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by GroeFaZ (850443) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639676)
    It should be trivial to mobilize ~98% of the slashdot crowd (who would be personally affected by this) to start a DDOS attack against the FBI servers. If only there was a direct link in TFS...
  • my tapes (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kohath (38547) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639679)
    That does it then. With this news, and the fact that it didn't rank in the top 50 Sci-Fi shows, I'm going to have to dump my Manimal [epguides.com] tapes.
  • by autopr0n (534291) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:30PM (#13639682) Homepage Journal
    Back in the 70's "Black man on white woman" porno was considered obscine.

    I have no idea why people want to get all up in other people's grill about pornography. But I don't understand the War on Drugs either, so perhaps I'm just crazy. What with my "utilitarian ethics" and everything.

    Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:39PM (#13639761)
      Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe the answer to problems is to allocate money to government programs. Republicans believe the answer is to declare war on it and allocate the money to specific military-industrial contractors.
    • Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?

      I believe the theory is known as the "WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" WAPTOC greater theory of social conformity, where by society is deemed to be best lead towards at state where no child can ever encounter an object or idea which may cause them to ask a question that in any way makes their guardians uncomfortable. This theory has the added benefit that when children reach adulthood they will be uncomfortable asking questions of their new "guardian", i.e. the state.

      WAPTOC theory also enables both males AND females to remain completely ignorent for the maximum possible time of any details regarding their icky reproductive anatomies, enabling even minimally trained medical professionals to charge exorbident fees for "expertise" otherwise rudimentary knowladge.
      • Don't forget that a key element in WAPTOC is that the parent should not have to actively monitor their children in any way. Their children should be able to go to places that without such heavy-handed regulation may not be "safe" - like the internet - without their parents having to sit with them or take any precaution to insure they don't encounter the questionable things. That's why they're trying to crack down on cable television and declare the VChip a failure, parents have to exert effort to use the VC
      • by ewhac (5844) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:46PM (#13640983) Homepage Journal
        I believe the theory is known as the "WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" WAPTOC greater theory of social conformity, where by society is deemed to be best lead towards at state where no child can ever encounter an object or idea which may cause them to ask a question that in any way makes their guardians uncomfortable.

        Actually, my middle-class secular armchair analysis goes like this:

        Children need to be shielded from all manifestations of Impurity possible. By so doing, their Innocence will be compromised to the minimum possible extent. They will grow up to beget more children, who will be better shielded and more Innocent than themselves, until one day the human race will become Perfectly Innocent beings and, as Perfectly Innocent, will be able to petition $(GOD) for readmittance to the Garden of Eden. $(GOD)'s unconditional love will have been earned once more, and we'll all get to enjoy a living paradise.

        Mind you, I pulled this completely out of my ass. But that should be okay, because they did, too.

        Schwab

  • Priorities.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:31PM (#13639687)
    Is'a always amazing to me to see what priorities the government has about crime. Let me first start off by saying that things like child pornography are truly terrible, and should be investigated and prosecuted.

    However, the article also mentions things like urinating and defecating on people, which while I think it is disgusting, is really not hurting anyone, with the possible exception of spreading disease.

    It is intersting that they can show the body of a dead hooker on tv, but then thex pixellate the nipple when the camera goes there.

    This is a country where graphic depictions of violence is not only allowed, but glorified, but gets in an uproar over a boob at a half time commercial.

    We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful.

    • Re:Priorities.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Medgur (172679) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:44PM (#13639808) Homepage
      Considering what a huge segment of the market cumshots, BDSM, humiliation, public nudity, and other "deviant" pornography make up I think it's fairly obvious that the American consumers are going to look elsewhere for the product. As such, they'll probably replace all physical porn purchasing with online porn, if they haven't already, from other countries. At the very least this crackdown is only going to hurt the multi-billion dollar American porn industry.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:07PM (#13639982)
      Alas, exposure to Japanese Porn has given me a fetish for pixellation. My wife really gets annoyed when I ask her to put on the pixellation costume I bought for her.
    • Re:Priorities.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HSpirit (519997) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:47PM (#13640984)

      This is a country where graphic depictions of violence is not only allowed, but glorified, but gets in an uproar over a boob at a half time commercial.
      Indeed, yours is a country where those responsible for said graphic depictions of violence become Governor of its most populated state, and where it is forseen that same person may have that same nation's Constitution altered so he may become President.

      In this context, I can't say I'm shocked any more about the moral double-standards your current Administration exhibits.

  • Midget Porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ken Broadfoot (3675) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:33PM (#13639696) Homepage Journal

    Is Midget Porn deviant?

    Yes?

    What if you are a Midget?

    Can a midget watch "large people" porn?

    I am scared of deviant midgets I guess...

  • by Vicissidude (878310) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:33PM (#13639699)
    Let's see... We have the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. The FBI should have plenty to keep them busy with those first two things. Nope, they want to start a War on Porn.

    Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic.
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Spetiam (671180) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:34PM (#13639716) Journal
    Heh, with any luck, they'll go after the goatse posters here.
  • I think (Score:5, Funny)

    by TCM (130219) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:36PM (#13639734)
    I think that by deviant they mean this [bash.org]. The FBI agent with the nick BritneySpears14 must have been truly shocked.
  • Furries (Score:5, Funny)

    by kahei (466208) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:37PM (#13639737) Homepage

    I am horrified and depressed by this anti-free-speech initiative, UNLESS 'deviant' means 'furry', in which case I am right behind these brave defenders of the constitution.

    'Cause there's nothing worse than googling for 'round, firm, tanned buttocks' or whatever, and on the page of images that you get there's a picture of a poorly-drawn cartoon fox spanking a goth rabbit.

    Not that I ever google for terms like that, obviously. That'd be utterly pathetic.

    Now if you'll excuse me...

  • by a_greer2005 (863926) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:37PM (#13639742)
    I am a consercative who happens to side with the republican party more than the others, but I am so pissed at Bush that I cannot see some times: What happened to freedom? What happened to the first ammendment?

    Porn isnt evil, music, movies and games are not evil, the real evil is done by the prudish thought police, How long till the feds go to the beaches of Fla or SoCal and hand out baggy t-shirts to the bathing suit clad women there?

    BTW could we find Bil Ladin faster if his nude pics were on the web somewhere?

    • by SpecialAgentXXX (623692) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:14PM (#13640042)
      Yeah, I voted for him too and am finally removing my BUSH/CHENEY '04 bumper sticker. He's dramatically increased the size of government since he took office in '00 with the Dept of Homeland Security, War on Terror, etc. The US Dollar has also plummeted since he took office. Next time I'm going to "throw away my vote" and vote for the Libertarian candidate.

      Remember, it's both Democrats and Republicans who were going after Take-2 for the GTA:SA Hot Coffee mod. Both parties want to regulate us into their vision of conformity.

      If two consenting adults want to do unspeakable things to each other, then sell a video of it for profit, so be it. The larger question is this - The audience of people who consume "urine, defecation, S&M, etc." videos is rather small. What's the real reason for getting the FBI involved?
    • Politically, pornography is a wedge issue to split the middle-of-the-road voters from the Democrats, and activate them to vote for Republicans. It's really no different from "School Prayer", "Flag Burning", and a bunch of other issues that have been used to get the vote out for Republicans. My guess is that some political strategist like Carl Rove initiated this. Bush's terrible polling numbers bode poorly for Republicans in the mid-term elections. This smacks of a put-up issue to activate a segment of
  • Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Helpadingoatemybaby (629248) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:38PM (#13639744)
    I am so happy to see that the government is cracking down on the real threats to this nation! Far too long we have put up with pornographers and their damaging effects which could even possibly culminate in losses of life! I can't imagine anything more threatening to this nation than a 17 year old boy wanking violently in his room while looking at deviant nakedness, except possibly naughty words on television, which causes wanking, which causes taking the Lord's name in vain ("Oh god!"). This is a cycle dammit!

    If we don't stand up together and fight against this very real threat to the impurity of our nations willies the terrorists will have won! You don't see them wanking off in their spare time! No! They are taking up hobbies, such as flying!

    Everybody, I want you to stand up with me now, yes, even those with your spigots in your palms, stand up right now and put your hand on your heart. Now join me in a small prayer to save this nation from all its threats, one of the top of which is hurricane, war causing, terrorism supporting out of control yogurt squeezing. Let us begin:

    Oh God!

  • by CrazyDuke (529195) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:41PM (#13639782)
    I guess this means the war on terror is over, we've caught Osama bin Forgotten, and we are 100% disaster proof at this point. Hey, these jerkoffs keep telling me to look at the good side of things. I'm just doing that...

    Oh, does this mean we get to search the computers of all these sexually repressed people? In Virginia, sex outside of marriage, not in dark, not vaginal, or not in the missionary position is considered deviant. That makes almost all porn "deviant."
    • by CrazyDuke (529195) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:21PM (#13640095)
      Oh, it is also worth noting that in many states, sex toys and masturbation are considered devient. I know sex toys are banned Alabama; and, yes, this law is enforced. And in Texas, women have been arrested for it dispite there being no law specifically banning them. I don't know about other states.

      So, there is a good chance in some states that that pic or video with that hot chick and her vibrator can be considered "deviant." I wonder how many of these people realize that taking pleasure in denying sexual satisfaction is a fetish in itself, related to sadism.
  • A Definition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mollymoo (202721) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:47PM (#13639834) Journal

    Sexual Deviant: one so insecure and repressed about their own sexuality that they must impose their twisted views on others.

    What's more perverse: having a woman shit in your mouth or dedicating your life to seeking out women shitting in mens' mouths (something you would could never come across by accident) just so you can tell them not to do it?

  • BDSM Illegal Now? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @04:54PM (#13639884)
    The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." (Emphasis mine)

    To the government, does this mean that 'masochist behaviour' is somehow illegal? I'm a masochist - middle-of-the-road extreme, yes, but still a masochist. I like that stuff. It gets me off. and (cluestick!) it doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. I can see the point of cracking down on rape porn, child porn and other things where non-consenting people get hurt, but please, cracking down on BDSM? This takes things too far.

    Precisely what are the government looking to achieve? Are they really trying to dictate to me that the only thing that I should enjoy sexually is straight-up missionary-position boringness, with the lights off and my eyes squeezed shut? This messing with what I can and can't enjoy in the privacy of my own home with other consenting adults is getting too much to bear - I'm fine with them fining people or shutting people down for not warning people what they're getting into with some sort of entrance page, or for not informing people that all acts carried out within the content on a given page are performed by consenting adults, but criminal charges? That's rediculous - what would be wrong with a simple disclaimer at the top of every page featuring 'deviant' content saying something like...
    DISCLAIMER: All acts portrayed in the media content below are performed by consenting individuals over the age of 18 at time of filming. These acts should not be performed unless you know what you are doing, and should not be performed alone.
    That ought to be the limit of the content distributor's liability - that way if little Johnny hangs himself trying sexual axphyxiation, he was at least *told* not to - if that sort of warning can keep shows like Jackass on the air while teaching kids how to set themselves on fire or jump into raw sewage - stuff which kids are likely to see as cool and try - then it ought to be enough to keep content on the net (or on the shelves of dedicated shops, etc) of stuff which, as well as being less likely to be seen as 'cool' like something like Jackass by little Johnny, is also probably no more dangerous.

    As for the others - bestiality, yes, this is wrong and should be banned - animals can't consent, obviously. I've no qualms with them banning this, as I'm not a fan of animal cruelty in any form... as for urination and defacation, we're back to the 'consenting adults' thing - who am I (or anyone else) to tell people that want to piss on each other for sexual pleasure that they can't do it, or go looking for it? I'm sorry to keep picking on Jackass, but again, if they can get away with jumping into sewage, sitting in moving portaloos filled with excrement and tipping piss all over themselves, all with just a 5-second disclaimer, why can't 'deviant pornography' that does pretty much the same things get away with it too? Where is the line? This entire exercise is an utterly rediculous attempt at thought-policing.

    (Posted as Anonymous Coward to protect the guilty)
  • Low standards... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slamb (119285) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:00PM (#13639926) Homepage
    I wouldn't take any part of this article seriously. I quote:
    According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults

    It's Attorney General Gonzalez [usdoj.gov] and Director Robert Mueller [fbi.gov].

    I thought this was just the submitter's mistake, but it is actually that way in the article. I shouldn't be surprised; Ars Technica should stick to their stupid overclocking articles.

  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:09PM (#13640001) Journal
    What happened to the Taliban. There are no Taliban left in Afghanistan, they have all emigrated to the US. In fact, I think Mullah Omar is hiding out in the supreme court.
  • Old, old advice... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry (788340) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:35PM (#13640202) Homepage
    If thine eye offends thee... pluck it out.

    If you don't like what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own homes it's simple... Don't get involved. Don't watch. Don't join in. You can pass all the laws you want but spiders will spin their webs "just the way they like 'em"...

    Your own personal viewpoint and your morals are yours and yours alone. I'm happy for you that you think yours are the best. You're obviously young and know no better.

    Sorry, the universe (and all that is in it) doesn't give a fuck what you (or I) thinks. That's just the way it is.

    But the spirit of King Canute is strong with some retards^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people.

    End of story.
  • by LithiumX (717017) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:45PM (#13640280)
    Make no mistake, while the people behind this will draw from their religious convictions, for the most part this sort of policy is due to our culture.

    The bible does not forbid a great many things that could be considered deviant. I don't believe it says a word about women-on-women, never says that non-reproductive procreation is sinful (as long as your assistant is not married to anyone else), and doesn't seem to say a word about 3-ways, etc. I don't lay these down as challenges (indeed, feel free to correct me), but from what I know (yes, I've actually read the whole thing), none of these things are forbidden directly or even indirectly (though later passages imply that you shouldn't bad-touch anyone without being married to them).

    Most of our "beliefs" come from cultural extrapolation of older mores. The things we home in on the most are only indirectly religious in nature. For instance, ever notice how our culture is far more obsessed with men screwing eachother (a sin, but not a major one) than it is with swearing (a violation of the ten commandments)? We make an overly-great deal about masturbation, yet the biblical quotes associated with it have nothing to do with it?

    Our idea of "deviant" makes use of christian belief as an authority, but it's basis is on cultural values - those same values that make us look on non-homicidal cannibalism, polygamy, and other perfectly acceptable actions in other culture, with disgust or simple rejection.

    The bible does not say that two men can't screw one woman's anus. It's our culture that quite plainly tells you that you're a sick individual if your interest in that goes beyond gross-out wanted-to-see-it-once curiosity. If you're into watching people screw animals, you have psychological issues - either that, or you live in the wrong part of the world.\

    It's not religion. It's culture.
  • Theocracy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by venomkid (624425) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @06:02PM (#13640385)
    Realize that our current government is headed by aspiring nationalistic theocrats, and the "War on Terror" and the "War on Porn" don't seem like such disparate goals.
  • How Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drubber (60345) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @06:08PM (#13640417)
    Wasn't it Gonzalez who attempted to justify the use of torture while he was a Bush advisor? Wasn't it our government who engaged in deviant torture pornography at Abu Gharib?

    Just checking...
  • by dtfinch (661405) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @06:57PM (#13640690) Journal
    Isn't their top priority supposed to be fighting crime?
  • Yeah (Score:3, Funny)

    by Saint Stephen (19450) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:07PM (#13640744) Homepage Journal
    This shit has got to stop. The government has no business doing this kind of thing. It's obvious they're not trying to prosecute people, they're trying to create a climate of fear. This is fine for terrorism. But not for perverted sex. That's creepy.
  • by Wilson_6500 (896824) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @07:15PM (#13640782)
    But how can they have an initiative like this unless all the FBI agents investigating this stuff are themselves "clean" of all this stuff? Will they fire anyone who they somehow discover has a fetish, even if they never act upon it? Will the FBI investigator's job application say on it "have you ever jacked it to horses, half-man half-horses, men who kinda look like horses, or any bodily fluid"?

    I mean, no matter how draconian the administration becomes, the people who run it are still human. Do the investigators themselves agree with this bar none, or are they afraid to speak up for fear of losing their job? Hell, should I be afraid to post this here? Is /. going to become a kind of cyber Chestnut Tree cafe?

    This occurs to me pretty often--do the folks who enforce this agree with it? I thought I heard somewhere that there was some water-cooler talk to the contrary. I wish I could remember where I read it--I think it was the Washington Post--but they reported that the agents were making comments to the effect of some of those we've seen here: "well, it's nice to know we've won the war on terror," and all that.
  • My Take... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @08:20PM (#13641169) Homepage Journal
    ... and you can quote me on this:

    "Other people's fetishes are weird."

    If you're part of our current administration, you can replace the word "weird" with "disgusting," "deviant," or "illegal."

    If you're a new-ager, you can replace the word "weird" with "misdirected," "unhealthy," or "disrespectful."

    If you're a broad-minded individual, you can replce the word "weird" with "hilarious," "creative," or "interesting ... with real potential."

    If you're a pornographer, you can replace the word "weird" with "profitable."

    In no case can you apply the phrase to your own fetishes, which, by definition, are hot.

  • Logical error? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eaolson (153849) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @08:29PM (#13641221)

    So, does this mean that they're going to prosecute people for taking pictures of adults doing things that are perfectly legal to do?

    So we can DO it, we just can't LOOK at it?

  • by nzkbuk (773506) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @08:47PM (#13641327)
    We all know what the real reason is. Someone can't find any of "the good stuff". So now they have the FBI looking for it all.
    FBI siezes a copy and passes the most deviant on to higher up's who eventually pass it on to those who helped get them into office.

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...