More conservative crap for the children

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

U.S. Attorney’s Porn Fight Gets Bad Reviews
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force will focus on Internet crimes and peer-to-peer distribution of pornography

Julie Kay
Daily Business Review
08-30-2005

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.

Acosta’s stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.

His own prosecutors have warned Acosta that prioritizing adult porn would reduce resources for prosecuting other crimes, including porn involving children. According to high-level sources who did not want to be identified, Acosta has assigned prosecutors porn cases over their objections.

Acosta, who told the Daily Business Review last month that prosecuting obscenity was a priority for Gonzales, did not return calls for comment.

“Compared to terrorism, public corruption and narcotics, [pornography] is no worse than dropping gum on the sidewalk,” said Stephen Bronis, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder in Miami and chair of the white-collar crime division of the American Bar Association. “With so many other problems in this area, this is absolutely ridiculous.”

But not everyone agrees. With the rapid growth of Internet pornography, stamping out obscene material has become a major concern for the Bush administration’s powerful Christian conservative supporters. The Mississippi-based American Family Association and other Christian conservative groups have pressured the Justice Department to take action against pornography. The family association has sent weekly letters to U.S. attorneys around the country to pressure them to pursue the makers and distributors of pornography.

“While there are crimes like drugs and public corruption in Miami, this is also a form of corruption and should be a priority,” said Anthony Verdugo, director of the Christian Family Coalition in Miami. “Pornography is a poison and it’s addictive. It’s not a victimless crime. Women are the victims.”

The federal government generally has not pursued pornography and obscenity for at least a decade. The Clinton administration declined to prosecute cases, and no book stores, video stores or Internet sites – except those involving children engaging in sex – were closed.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a Christian conservative who stepped down last December, also disappointed social conservatives by not prosecuting porn during his tenure. In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Ashcroft placed his focus on anti-terrorism efforts.

But the social conservatives have gained traction with new Attorney General Gonzales, a close associate of President Bush who is considered a strong contender for a U.S. Supreme Court nomination. In May, Gonzales established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force under the office’s criminal division.

The task force, headed by Deputy Chief for Obscenity Richard Green, will work closely with Bruce Taylor, senior counsel to the criminal division’s assistant attorney general.

Taylor is one of the founding members of the Justice Department’s National Obscenity Enforcement Unit back in the 1980s. He reportedly has prosecuted more than 100 state and federal obscenity cases and is the prosecutor who went after Hustler publisher Larry Flynt in the early 1980s. He won that case and Flynt spent six days in jail, but the case was overturned on appeal.

The task force, according to a Justice Department news release on May 5, will be “dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of the distributors of hard-core pornography that meets the test for obscenity, as defined by the United States Supreme Court.”

In its 1973 landmark ruling on the subject, Miller v. California, the Supreme Court laid out a three-pronged test to separate obscenity from protected First Amendment speech. What the ruling said, essentially, was that if the material is offensive and prurient and has no artistic value, it is obscenity. The court left it up to local juries and communities to make the determination.

The Obscenity Prosecution Task Force will pull together prosecutors from sections covering organized crime and racketeering, asset forfeiture, money laundering, computer crime and intellectual property. They will be joined by prosecutors from the High-Tech Investigative Unit, which has computer and forensic experts. The focus will be on Internet crimes as well as on “peer-to-peer” distribution of pornography, according to the news release.

‘WASTING OUR RESOURCES’

Acosta, a Miami native who formerly held a high-level position in the Justice Department, is having a hard time persuading other law enforcement officials in South Florida, including his own assistant U.S. attorneys, to join the anti-porn crusade.

Sources say Acosta was told by the FBI officials during last month’s meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales’ mandate.

Acosta’s meetings with other law enforcement agencies also were not particularly fruitful, sources said.

Criminal defense attorneys and an American Civil Liberties Union spokeswoman say they are appalled at the Justice Department’s plan to prioritize the prosecution of obscenity when narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and fraud are rampant in South Florida.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union and a partner at Duane Morris in Miami, said, “It’s amazing that we’re wasting our resources on the morality police instead of battling organized crime, illegal drugs, corruption and undocumented immigration. I can’t even believe this.”

Rodriguez-Taseff said she doubted that Acosta’s anti-porn initiative would get off the ground, in part because it could end up discriminating by targeting South Florida’s large gay community. “We are far too diverse a community for any such prosecution effort,” she said.

Previous efforts by South Florida law enforcement to prosecute sexually explicit artists have fallen flat. Fort Lauderdale attorney Bruce Rogow successfully defended 2 Live Crew, the racy rap group that was charged with obscenity by former Broward Sheriff Nick Navarro in the 1990s.

“I’m not surprised that this is happening, because these things go in cycles and this is a conservative environment,” Rogow said. “But I think law enforcement has lost its enthusiasm for these types of cases.”

But not Sharp of the Family Association. He said any prosecutors who object to prosecuting obscenity don’t understand the law. “Most attorneys have been led to believe that what is illegal is not illegal in terms of obscenity,” Sharp said. “They have a misconception of what should be prosecuted. They think because it’s consenting adults, it’s not illegal.”

Sharp said the initiative is necessary because local law enforcement and city attorneys get “crushed” by high-powered lawyers hired by adult book stores or video stores when there are efforts to shut those establishments down.

“You need the federal government to assist,” said Sharp, who takes credit for closing six adult bookstores in his hometown in Mississippi.

But should porn be a priority in a place like Miami, where serious crime is rampant? “It’s all part of the same thing, of the organized crime syndicate,” Sharp said. “It has an effect on children.”

Allow me to play the devil’s advocate.

Let’s not be too hasty with the “conservative crap for children” subject.
The crap is not actually aimed at children.

Porn may be harmful to children. There is, of course, no evidence to support this, but it is not entirely irrational. Like alcohol or tobacco, porn is restricted by law to those of a certain age, but it can, of course, fall into the hands of young, impressionable children. However, porn is not being regulated as it should be, thus, eliminating it is a clear solution.

To contradict myself:

I’d say porn isn’t really that bad. There are many, many worse things that children can consume, like liver casserole. ugh…

if the material is offensive and prurient and has no artistic value, it is obscenity.

Well, in that case, I can think of a lot of reality shows on fox that are obscene.
Most if not all porn has no artistic value, but it does have an entertainment value.
I myself generally stay away from porn sites; they can do bad things to one’s computer. Maybe if porn were published in the form of discrete, hardcover books, then I’d by it. 8)

it would be more playing the devils advocate to suggest we expose a number of young children to porn and see how messed up they become. Until then this kind of stuff will keep happening [and then we could definitively say this is going way to far, its stupid]

[probably not very, because many ‘children’ of junior-high or highschool age become exposed to porn by friends]

oh, and ‘Pornography’ is defined by the community standards, a bit extrme example would be a topless person considered porn in america, but not several european nations. [the definition of the term in US law is at ‘community’ level, not state or federal… that said, the communities with a different definition are more conservative about their definition than … uhh, populus areas like california]

umm, well ‘protect the children’ is a good public relations move, regardless of the end effect. The people pushing this probably don’t see how we’ve already gone too far

Yea well, we need to save these children from there parents before they grow up to be religious extremist, the only way I know of how is to get rid of laws that protect children from pornography. It’s up to everyone to save the children from religious extremist, not to mention lazy ass parents that waste tax payers money and home land security.

Can’t allow these future terrorist, tyrants and dictators to breed.

Sounds like you’re trying to inflict your values on other just as much as they fundamentalists are.

Don’t get me wrong I think that the extreme right is just being absurd here, but you can’t stoop to their level.

(BTW Al_Capone, I hear you live in Vegas. What part do you live in and what school do you go to?)

I don’t see it as inflicting values because I’m not passing no laws against it, at least that’s the way I see it, if you have laws that is kept to protect the children from porn then you will have a point.

Pahrump and I graduated from Indiana.

The Clinton administration declined to prosecute cases, and no book stores, video stores or Internet sites – except those involving children engaging in sex – were closed.
Hmm, I wonder why.

Most attorneys have been led to believe that what is illegal is not illegal in terms of obscenity," Sharp said. “They have a misconception of what should be prosecuted. They think because it’s consenting adults, it’s not illegal.”
I agree.

I’m not sure i’m so hot on the idea though because it runs into the same problems that drug laws do: you can crush the distributors but the people who want it will seek it out (even illegally). This makes it very very hard to wipe out.

As a christian and a conservative I believe that the best way to keep your children away from porn is to keep your home a place where your children aren’t exposed to it. Putting the family computer in a public area, using the lock feature on cable tv, etc. Federal enforcement is not a substitute for a good home.

Porn has become very easy to access, the standards of the 60’s on what is allowable on TV have been lowered dramatically and the internet is rife with porn sites and spam mails. It’s tough to keep it out of your home. I don’t think the federal government can do more than a good home can though imho.

Hmmm… “save” these children from their own parents? That gives me an idea… Perhaps we could forcibly ship them all off to government-run “institutions” where they could be properly “educated” on the “correct” implementation of religion in their lives. And while we’re at it we can indoctrinate them on all the currently vogue political correctness and turn them into “good citizens”. Hey, ya know, maybe we can turn the public schools into boarding schools! Then we can pipe the porn right into their dorm rooms! I know, we’ll call them the “Hitler Youth”! Wow, great idea, Al_Capone!

But, wait… how will we know who’s a “religious extremist”? Will that include those from all religions, such as Hindus, Bhudists, Jews and Muslims?.. or will it be just the Christians? Will it be you who decides what an “extremist” is, Al?

Hmm… the only way you know how? I thot the ideas above were pretty good, too! Hitler and Stalin used them to great effectivness!

Oh yeah, and by all means, we don’t want to protect our kids! Gee, what kind of crazy logic is that? Wow, I’d almost feel honored if my kids were to be able to spend the night with the local child-molester or porn producer so that he’d be able to have his way with them! Shoot, how 'bout the whole week? It’d sure take a load off my mind, knowing that they were being introduced to sexual intimacy by “experts” in the field! Geez, you’re just brilliant, Al!

[By the way, for those who’s primary language is not English, I’m being sarcastic, here! FYI.]

Oh, yes, Al! Won’t you please save us from those nasty kids who grow up learning to “do unto others what you would have done to you” and “love your neighbor as you love yourself”! Also, could you deal with those terrible kids who want to “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” By all means, they shouldn’t be allowed to exist! Extremists!

Gimme a break, dude…

Oh, yes, Al! Won’t you please save us from those nasty kids who grow up learning to “do unto others what you would have done to you” and “love your neighbor as you love yourself”! Also, could you deal with those terrible kids who want to “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” By all means, they shouldn’t be allowed to exist! Extremists!

Gimme a break, dude…

Whoa! that’s not religious extremism! That’s just reasonable practicing of a religion. Nothing wrong with that. That’s good religion. Calm down!

Religious extremism is what the original post is about; when one faction of a certain religion takes legislature into its own hands and tries to force its ideals on an entire nation based upon religious scripture, and not secular and reasoned debate. That’s bad religion. Can’t have that.

But I guess my point is: where do you draw the line between what is “the reasonable practicing of a religion” and “religious extremism”? There are many laws in the U.S. that mirror similar statutes laid out in the Bible, for example, like those regarding the act of murder. Just because such similarities exist, do we discredit and disavow all such laws? As to the anti-porn law: why can’t such legislation be composed based on “secular and reasoned” debate? Surely there is good, documented, logical evidence out there that describes the effects of pornography on minors? Why couldn’t these studies be a sound basis for such legislation? Just asking…

BTW, I agree that such laws should be on a local level, and not imposed by the federal government - as per “community standards”.

But I guess my point is: where do you draw the line between what is “the reasonable practicing of a religion” and “religious extremism”? There are many laws in the U.S. that mirror similar statutes laid out in the Bible, for example, like those regarding the act of murder. Just because such similarities exist, do we discredit and disavow all such laws? As to the anti-porn law: why can’t such legislation be composed based on “secular and reasoned” debate? Surely there is good, documented, logical evidence out there that describes the effects of pornography on minors? Why couldn’t these studies be a sound basis for such legislation? Just asking…

Interesting point. It would be arrogant and pigheaded to try and draw that line. so I will do it: :slight_smile:

Secular reasoning comes first. This is essential to a government making laws but still promoting religious freedom. It is very plain to see that murdering someone is bad from a secular standpoint. Don’t need religion to figure that one out. Religious extremism is a practice that imposes non-secualar reasoning onto those outside of said religious group. For example, if a group of Jews get together and rally the U.S. government to ban pork and shellfish, that would be extremism.

However, there are certain issues that are influenced by religion, but also are controversial by secular reason as well. Like porn.

That’s the thing, though. I don’t think there has been a controlled scientific study examining the effects of porn on children.

I’m sure scientists have better things to do. :wink:

Al_Capone, read this and the book it talks about:

Never underestimate the power of scientists to research stupid stuff. Ignobel anyone? :wink:

Martin

I just have one philosophy, what one person believes and does, does not bother me. I don’t try to shove my idea’s down their throat. They can do whatever they please just as long as it doesn’t harm myself or my loved ones. Just a little more tolerance would save the world a lot of strife. Remember we’re all the same species. 8)

My 2 cents

Yea, I’m a extremist, I am a Nazi, exactly where do you see me pointing out dictatorship here ? Dictatorship is made out of acessive LAWS, which mzungu seems to fit just fine. If its the only thing you fear of, is your end to being lazy and neglectful. Riding of these porn laws will force parents to be more accountable, something that socialist and conservatives don’t want.

Children deserve to have a responsible parent and I don’t see this law doing that.

Maybe you heard of the seven deadly sin, Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Greed, Agany, and sloth. Let’s see here, this would be Pride and sloth in my opinion.

So, I guess the original post wasn’t really about “religious extremism”, then?.. just kidding. I’m with you on the whole keeping religion-based morays out of the legal code. Nothin’ but a mess down that road, as our infamous friend, the Emperor Constantine, clearly demonstrated. However, when there are potential (secular) benefits to be had, then why not consider such legislation?

Please, don’t get me wrong… I wasn’t by any means calling you that or any such thing! (I sincerely apologize if you got that impression from my earlier post!) I was merely using a sarcastic tone to point out where taking your (well meant) comments to their logical conclusion. No offense meant.

I get what you’re trying to say, but I tend to disagree. As a parent I would view such a legislation (if it were on a local-government level) as yet another ally in my own efforts to attempt to protect my kids from these kinds of influences. I wouldn’t just sit back and say, “Oh well, there’s a law now that’ll keep my kids from surfin’ porn. Cool, now I can go sit on the sofa and veg out with a bag o’ chips!” And I don’t think there are that many parents out there who’d think that way, either. Kind of a stretch, actually, to make that assumption. If the parents are of the sort to have this attitude, then I’d say such a law wouldn’t have that much bearing on their success on the whole anyway.

My take on porn: its main destructive power is in the fact that it fundamentally is in conflict with human relational commitment. It undermines monogomous relationships by its very nature. The social and cultural ramifications of this are severe. Others may disagree with this, but its what I think.

Sorry… just gotta… “Darn! I just committed agany again! Man, that buggar just gets me every time!” :smiley: heehee…

You bet your ass that’s how parents think, they think just because rape with a minor is illegal as well as murder, doesn’t think it’s ever going to happen, they just run right off thinking nothing of it. Like leaving a child in a car in the middle of July or a pool without a cover and a lock fence. Hey, where I live, I hear alot of news that could of been prevented by parents. Listen, you want a kol, they have it, you want a password to keep them from login on, you got that too, want a safty search and parential control for Dish TV, it’s there. These things happen because of the stupitity of the parent. And guess who’s paying for them, the tax payers. What a waste of money to pass and keep stupid laws because of the ignorant of the parent.

Hey, I grew up on porn, I seen it plenty of times and look how well I turn out :smiley:

hmmmmm deep philosphical debate material that is.

on an more basic note. i agree with you al_capone. i think parents need to have “accountability” however the state has a hard time. since if parents can do anything, then they can get away with murder… oh its my kid, they just fell in front of the car…

but i agree more accountability, less reliance on the government to clean up your mess is needed. there is a fine balance. and IMO bush is a fundamentalist christian that is doing the wrong thing for the US. A democratic country turning into a religious state… that is a step backwards.

Alltaken

It’s called a Republic Alltake. Democracy is a step back for the US.

Have you ever considered the fact that many women from Russia, Bulgaria ,Albania and other countries of eastern Europe and Asia were forced to become prostitutes by criminals (propably by mafia) .Those women were taken by those guys and promised to go to more developed countries in order to find a(legal) job but when they came to an other country they had no idea what was expecting them.
Also there are many teen girls that become prostitutes for the same reason(ages 12 -16)

Well porn movies is also a factor responsible for situations like this and I hope you understand why

ps:Sorry for my bad english