Porn,Policies,Perversion,Posse law Porn Policies, Perversion Possession, and Party Politics

Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi

Shockingly, top U.S. attorney Anthony Acosta said the other day that the highest priority of the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Justice would be going after the (legitimate) adult industry.It’s not that I can’t believe that that of all things is their top priority. I just can’t believe he said it out loud. For some time now I’ve suspected that Alberto Gonzales and the DoJ had waged an all out war on pornography; and not just in its illicit forms such as child pornography. But why would a representative of his office come right out and say it? As it is, he’s not only put the industry on high alert that the entire U.S. judicial war-machine is after it, he’s alienated certain members of law enforcement and members of his own prosecution team.To play devil’s advocate here, maybe he was indirectly speaking out to certain backers of the current administration that Bush et al. were on their side. It’s no secret (like the article says) that this administration has the support of ultra-conservative Christian groups like the American Family Association. Maybe the declaration was just to appease these Bush backers. (And just as an aside but isn’t it ironic that, for a president that’s so tough on the sex industry, every other sentence that contains his name has a sexual innuendo to it?). Even as the department sees the impracticability of destroying porn in every manner, shape, or form. But if you were the AFA or a member of such a group, that would sound great to your ears.And I’m not even knocking the AFA. Every group has its own agenda and the AFA is no different. The eradication of porn - which I’m not on board with - is one of it’s chief goals, and understandably so. It’s not like grander social, government, safety, and international issues are on their docket. My gripe is with government who has greater responsibilities to the public than to listen to the select, yet highly vocal, religious right.Even the Democrats are taking a page out of the Republican handbook: they’re even jumping on the “end all pornography now” bandwagon. In Operation Win-Over-the-Red-States (because the Southern US “red states,” if you will, comprise an overwhelming majority of the religious right), democrats and republicans alike are tripping over themselves to see who can crack the whip the hardest, the loudest, and with the most authority on the adult industry. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D- Ark) recently proposed the popular/infamous (depending on your stance on pornography) sin tax bill, wherein all online adult sales would be charged an additional 25%. Senator Hillary Clinton (D - NY) proposed a far less onerous statute that would fine electronic retailers who try to sell video games of an inappropriate rating (Mature or Adult) to underage kids.In an article I wrote previously, I lambasted the pending Lincoln proposal (at the time, it was just a strong probability that the bill would be suggested). But it wasn’t along practical guidelines. My argument was more along moral lines; namely, the fact that the tax would be like punishing the porn consumer who’s only exercising his Free Speech rights to legitimate adult material. On the other hand, this Judicial Department crusade (which would also involve the FBI and other law-enforcement entities) makes no practical sense. As it’s been stated, it’s just a waste of valuable resources. In order to pursue this anti-porn venture, prosecutors would have to be taken off child pornography cases. Not that you need me to tell you how important it is to stem the proliferation of underage sex content; but the next time you get a moment, type the word “porn” into Google and search the News link. It seems every other story involves child smut.So if the government wants to tackle porn, the sexual exploitation of minors for profit would be a good place to clean up first. Next, it would do well to take a serious look at what its counterpart is currently doing across the pond. British legislators are trying to create laws that would make it a crime to possess “extreme” forms of pornography on your computer. The laws would just be an extension of an obscenity statute that has existed for almost half a century , but the statute would now apply to the internet as well. In reference to “extreme pornography”, the paper written on the would-be law includes such acts as bestiality and necrophilia, in addition to the sexual violence and the violence in a sexual context mentioned in the article. In my opinion, here’s the kicker as far as the paper goes: it actually invites public feedback! As far as I know, UK citizens are actually encouraged to write in with their opinions. So not only is British government going to kick you-know-what and take names. It’s going to heed some input, then kick you-know-what and take names. And all this for possessing depictions of sexual acts that most people would regard as perverted to begin with.(Aside 2: Research conducted recently came to the conclusion that viewing pornography and/or violence has a short-term blinding effect. Could it be just a coincidence that these laws were proposed right about the time the results of this study got out?)Governing with the consent of the governed: What a novel democratic concept! And not just listening to the collective voice of a conservative few to rule the entire masses. So to Gonzales and co., I would say you have to crawl before you can run. Continue to enforce codes (such as Title 18 U.S.C. §2257) which ensure that children are not sexually exploited, and codes that arose from the 1973 Miller v. California Supreme Court ruling concerning obscenity. Maybe even get a statute like the one that they are entertaining in Britannia for cases of “extreme smut.” It’s not even a crime yet in this country to possess any pornography which could be construed as obscene. Baby steps, people. Another thing that struck me about the British endeavor was the realization on the part of a high-ranking law-enforcement official that while they didn’t expect to totally rid the internet of such offensive material, the new law would be a step in the right direction.In the same vein, US anti-porn legislators need to temper their enthusiasm a little and not be so hell-bent for leather in their desire to rid the country of all pornography. But even if they don’t do that, at least they shouldn’t go around with so much braggadocio. Sheesh! Those guys at the Free Speech Coalition are actually looking for a fight...