FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn

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."

Re:Interesting.

[Homology]

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:What's deviant?

[Raul654]

"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

Sounds reasonable to me

[peeping_Thomist]

There have been obscenity prosecutions for decades. In the South, local police have always played a cat and mouse game with local porn video stores, taking them to court when they sell material that violates local community standards. Most Americans believe this is a legitimate function of local government. The Internet has made it increasingly difficult, probably impossible, for local law enforcement to keep pornography in their local communities under control. The FBI seems like the appropriate law enforcement agency for dealing with this new problem. They will easily find material that will fail the Miller test, and they'll easily get convictions.

The move away from local community standards and toward national standards is not a good thing. Most social conservatives would prefer that local standards had continued to be enforceable at the local level, so that we could protect our local communities even if all the other communities went crazy. But so long as we have moved into an age in which local standards are unenforceable, it is inevitable that the worst of the worst stuff out there is going to be prosecuted. This sounds like a reasonable way to do it. The new standards will be much more lenient than many local communities would prefer, but they will be better than nothing.

Re:Interesting.

[theonetruekeebler]

There's a radio commentator here in Atlanta who refers to Bush's moralizing government as "The American Taliban."

Re:Interesting.

[t1m0r4n]

There's a radio commentator here in Atlanta who refers to Bush's moralizing government as "The American Taliban."

And here is the link to the American Taliban:
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ [reandev.com]

It's scarey stuff.

Re:What's deviant?

[Guardian Hacker]

Preface: I am not a lawyer. What I write here is based on my best understanding of the law.
====================
Basically, anyting that is obscene falls into the realm of illegality. If something is deemed to be obscene then it is not protected by the First Amendment.

In 1973 the case of Miller v. California resulted in a three-prong test to determine if a work is not protected by the First Amendment.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger stated that the following three criteria must be met (note that ALL THREE criteria must be met):

1. if the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the material, when taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive manner, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law
3. the material, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Re:What's deviant?

[xs650]

Maybe not even then. It depends on which bodilyt orifice you were pulling out of.

Senior security analyst: its a running joke for us

[Wwolmack]

Also, a great article on this from the Washington Post (via the San Francisco Chronicle, no registration req'd).

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 05/09/21/MNGRSER4141.DTL&type=printable [sfgate.com]

some choice quotes:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on 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 Resume, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

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

Re:How Ironic

[smchris]

That was just a "few bad apples". For every kid wantonly sodomized it appears several Iraqis were beaten to death with a cleanly puritanical dispassion. Which just goes to show, it really _is_ the sex that catches our interest.

Re:What's deviant?

[slamb]

> > The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex.

> Sure it does: [...] fornications [...] fornication [...] fornication

Try reading sometime. Here's the part of the grandparent post that you missed:

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.

"Fornication" is an English word, never found in the original text. This may shock you, but language can be ambiguous. Thus, translations can be wrong. This is why Muslims consider only Arabic versions of the Qur'an to be correct. Sometimes I wish Christians did the same.

Re:USA - land of the free!

[stwrtpj]

There are some very legitimate reasons to consider pornography as socially destructive because of the exploitive treatment of women in pornographic media.

Yes, I agree! I think it is positively heinous how all this exploitive porn is plastered all over the net! It's terrible how these photographers set up people with large guns right off camera, ready to murder any woman who doesn't comply, and ...

Wait, they don't do that. Most of the women are posing of their own free will.

Uh ... what was your point again?

Re:How Ironic

[learn fast]

Wasn't it Gonzalez who attempted to justify the use of torture while he was a Bush advisor?

Yes. Here's the memo (warning: PDF) [msnbc.com]

You see, the war on terror is a "new paradigm" (donchya love that phrase?) that "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." But not stopping porn! Take FBI agents off terrorism duty and into porn duty. Fighting the war on terrorism is so important that it trumps the Geneva conventions, but stopping porn is so damned important it trumps even fighting the war on terror.

Don't worry, I'm sure Gonzalez will be able to do a lot less harm as an associate Supreme Court justice.

Re:The Ever Dreaded .....Dirty Gonazalez....?

[deglr6328]

Bullshit. Here is the full [sfgate.com] interview. The man is a superstitious hypocritical asswipe, end of story.

Christians and BDSM

[Anonymous Coward]

I stumbled across an interesting site a while back.

http://christiansandbdsm.com/ [christiansandbdsm.com]

This site states that BDSM in and of itself is not necessarilly anti-Christian, as long as it is practiced within the bounds of marriage with both parties consenting to it and agreeing on boundaries.

Re:Logical error?

[eaolson]

Oral and anal sex are illegal in many US states. Same with gay sex

Just to nitpick, since Lawrence vs. Texas, any laws outlawing private homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. According to the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], this probably applies to heterosexual sex as well.

Since some of the more radical conservative judges on the Supreme Court do not believe Americans have a right to privacy, and with two judges needing replacement by the Bush administration, this may not be the case too much longer.

Re:How Ironic

[Jonn Carnnack]

Wasn't it our government who engaged in deviant torture pornography at Abu Gharib?

And between non-consenting adults at that...

I agree with this analysis wholeheartedly :.exampl

[backslashdot]

America supposedly have a Christian heritage, yet the whole bible isn't followed.

For example many "Christians" believe that it's ok to torture people without knowing for 100% certain that they are guilty, because it can save lives .. that it's ok to torture some non US citizen innocents if americans are to be saved. I have heard this view being pushed as to why the prisoners in Gitmo shouldnt have rights, we dont have an obligation to determine their guilt or innocence and therefore they should be tortured for information.

Many so called christians are in no way deserving of that name. That is the reason many people have turned away from chrisianity. Because of the false ambassadors.

However the bible is quite clear:

Proverbs 16:8 (New International Version)
8 Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice

And the meme going around that illegal immigrants deserve no rights:

Jeremiah 22:3
3 This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Deuteronomy 1:16
16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.

Leviticus 24:22
22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

Exodus 12:49
49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you."

Leviticus 19:33
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.

Deuteronomy 10:18
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.

(there are a lot more .. try searching or better yet read the whole book)

Re:But bestiality is still legal in Washington

[jweatherley]

including one that shows a Seattle man shortly before he died July 2, said Enumclaw police Cmdr. Eric Sortland.

The Seattle Times is being a bit coy there. Leave it to Private Eye [private-eye.co.uk] to explain just how he died:
 

"Basically, his colon was ruptured, along with his lower organs," Police Commander Eric Sortland told reporters in Enumclaw, Washington state, "and he bled to death after suffering massive trauma from extensive internal injuries. When we first arrived at the ranch, the other men there said they had no idea how it had happened, but then we found a cache of hundreds of hours of videotaped man-on-beast sex sessions, hidden in a barn, and realised we were dealing with a bestiality ring. These people were very diligent in filming their activities, and eventually we found what we were looking for: actual footage of the man being thoroughly sodomised to death by a stallion.
 

I'd say that merits a tick in the deviant column.

Re:What's deviant?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Misinterpretation: The sin of Onan was not properly fucking his brother's wife. Some illiterate fool thought it was about masturbation. How much different would world history be if the church required you to fuck your brother's wife? Instead, we have a prohibition from jerking off, and look at what misery that has caused.

Re:What's deviant?

[Vaughn Anderson]

Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication.

"Fornication" is an English word, never found in the original text. This may shock you, but language can be ambiguous.

From the Bible:
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication , and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery .

Jesus is pretty cleary here, fornication == adultry && fornication == other sexual perversions (ie, bestiality, etc..) which makes sense as a reason to be able to divorce from a total sexual immorality perspective, not just adultry.

Below is the actual greek words used in the scripture. There appears to be no ambiguity here at all. The actual greek text... the word "fornication" is translated from the greek "Porneia" ( porn...?) .


FORNICATION:
porneiva Porneia (por-ni'-ah);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4202

illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

ADULTRY:
moicavw Moichao (moy-khah'-o);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb, Strong #: 3429

to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with