Warning: Ashcroft Content

[HDPM]

Yet another attack on our liberties. Here it is. web page (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines)

More porn prosecution coming. This is ridiculous. The Justice Department needs a moderate budget cut of 85% or so I think. This policy is unacceptable coming from a mystic with the mind of a gerbil. Ashcroft needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, the only way to do it may be to elect a commie like Kerry. But this administration is a disaster on most fronts. Perhaps gore would have been worse. I am not as sure anymore.

I kind of think this ties into the Paglia article. Agree? Disagree?

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif geesh; can't you understand; duuuuh; this is pollytix..

bush needs to solidify his religious right voters now...he pacifies them with this meaningless crap; whats lurch gonna do?? come out in favour of porn??

as the year moves along; bush will have to move toward the middle; but he is using the power of incumbency to set himself apart from them heathen demos (i really do not think the clinton stench factor is yet gone.)

jmho..it's just politics as usual..

gl /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[HDPM]

I get the overall political strategy. But you don't go grind individuals up for exercising their freedoms. I guess I am a hopeless idealist. I just love seeing innocent people ground up by the government to try to get that marginal political gain.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/cool.gif i just realized..
;there is hope for us all...

seriously...

if someone can be a lawyer for any period of time; and retain their idealism...well holy hell; i guess that's why your such a darn good bloke...

i can only be idealistic at certain times at work now; and it doesn't seem to bother me; but i am still just overwhelmedly optimistic, idealistic, and marvel at the beauty of life; yes the amazing miricle of life when i spend time with my children...wow..

ya oughter try it hd...

a little different that the mutts..

gl...i liked your other article (john cole type); i used to read this kinda stuff all the time; refused to watch t.v. (except for sports)..but hey..

life is a blast...gl /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

From an article (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n07/roy_01_.html) by a senior research scholar at Harvard :

"<font color="blue">...There is a great deal at stake for American higher education and academic freedom. If House Resolution 3077 becomes law - the Senate will review the bill next - it will create a board that monitors how closely universities reflect government policy. Since the legislation assumes that any flaw lies 'with the experts, not the policy', the government could be given the power to introduce politically sympathetic voices into the academic mainstream and to reshape the boundaries of academic inquiry. Institutional resistance would presumably be punished by the withdrawal of funds.

HR 3077 contains other provisions that are equally outrageous. For example, it requires Title VI institutions to provide government recruiters with access to students and student recruiting information. The bill even directs the secretary of education and the advisory board to study - i.e. spy on - communities of US citizens who speak a foreign language, 'particularly such communities that include speakers of languages that are critical to the national security of the United States'.

What all this boils down to is an attempt to silence criticism of US policy, and put an end to disagreement with the neo-conservative agenda. It is not diversity that is being sought but conformity.</font> ".

These are certainly shaping up to be very interesting times ahead. I mean, under the excuse of snooping for crazy Muslim suicide bombers in American universities, the current administration is going for the big prize without any sign of serious resistance, anywhere.

[andyfox]

"bush needs to solidify his religious right voters now"

Why? Those folks aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway.

[Zeno]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes. The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, at least one sensible thing Janet Reno did. And Americans are finally catching up with the Europeans in at least one category. So we are become more cultured after all. Good News.

Ass-croft is a Toady with the brain of a Toad.



[ QUOTE ]
I kind of think this ties into the Paglia article. Agree? Disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]


Paglia never let 'pornography' bother her. But it does tie into:

It-is-art-image-media-instant-gratification-impluse-laserbeam-acuity-NOW.

[Glenn]

arg. It's getting soooo bad. I now will say it. I hope Kerry wins the election. I always defened Bush (wasn't a fan, just didn't hate him), but now I'll say it. He's an idiot. His people are idiots. It needs to be stopped. At least Kerry will be too busy taxing us into socialism to take away our other personal freedoms.

Now is when I go to the LP website and make a donation. Let's all do it, maybe we can common sense them up a little and eventually they'll produce a viable candidate or at least a strong lobby.

[GWB]

Come on folks. Pornography is bad. Get married already. I got my Laura, I don't need no dirty pictures.

Also, Atty Gen. Ashcroft informs me that there are no job openings for "computer forensic specialist" as described in the article:[ QUOTE ]
Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.


[/ QUOTE ] Sorry I couldn't help those of you who expressed an interest in the position.

Regards,

W

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif it doesn't mean they will vote at all...

the election may come down to whether more religious righters go to the polls or blacks..

rather simplistic, but hey...why not throw supporters a bone or two...

gl /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Boris]

If it's a question of throwing a bone then why not just do it the old fashioned way, through porkbarrel politics. Trampling the constitution like this, and that is exactly what is going on here, would put even Huey Long to shame.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Ashcroft needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, the only way to do it may be to elect a commie like Kerry.

That's the dilemma in a nutshell. When the Dixiecrats and Bible-beaters joined the GOP, our options got very limited.

[MMMMMM]

^

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif henry kissinger really did say "if it's merelt unconstitutional; we do it right away; if illegal we might discuss it a day or two"

get real

gl /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif bush's anti-porn "campaign will not have one iota odf an effect on any long term policies; it just caters to a group he wants to vote for him..

jmho..

gl /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Ashcroft needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, the only way to do it may be to elect a commie like Kerry.

That's the dilemma in a nutshell. When the Dixiecrats and Bible-beaters joined the GOP, our options got very limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it ironic. In the 2000 election, John Ashcroft was running for re-election to the Senate. The Democrats were so desperate to steal that election, that they convinced a judge to keep the polls open an extra 2 hours in heavily Democratic precincts.

Well they succeeded in stealing that election. If they had done the same in Florida, they could have succeeded in stealing the election from me too.

Well, Ashcroft wouldn't be running the DOJ if he had won that stolen Senate election. It serves them right.

Of course, if you stepped back and didn't swallow what the liberal media tells you about Ashcroft, you would discover he is doing a fair and good job.

W

[MMMMMM]

"Of course, if you stepped back and didn't swallow what the liberal media tells you about Ashcroft, you would discover he is doing a fair and good job."

I don't think ordering DA's to seek the maximum penalties in prosecutions is necessarily "doing a fair and good job." Many judges both liberal and conservative across the country are outraged at this.

[adios]

There is a line IMO and certainly kiddie porn crosses the line. I don't think there's much disagreement about that but perhaps I'm mistaken. Anyone want to defend the free speech rights of those involved in kiddie porn? Actually the Free Speech Coaliton has I believe has in the case involving virtual kiddie porn.

High court allows virtual-child pornography (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0417/p01s06-usju.html)

The question as always is where does one draw the line because THERE IS A LINE. Feminist organizations claim that pornography promotes violence against women. What about that argument? Anyone want to defend the free speech rights of those involved in "snuff" films? The DOJ has a site devoted to violence against women. Ironically the information I've reviewed indicates that feminist groups are somewhat disappointed with the administrations efforts in it's handling of the issues regarding violence against women.


High court allows virtual-child pornography

Citing the distinctions between idea and deed, the court says free speech covers computer-generated imagery.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court has taken its first bold steps into the world of virtual reality, overturning an attempt by Congress to ban computer-generated images of child pornography.

In an important First Amendment decision, the nation's highest court ruled yesterday that digital images of "virtual" children engaged in sexual activity must be afforded a higher level of constitutional protection than pornography involving real children.

Should the 1st amendment protect computer-generated images of child pornography?

The 6-to-3 ruling marks a major victory for free-speech advocates, who worried that the law represented the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to justify ever-broader censorship. It is a setback to those who had argued that there is no way for viewers to differentiate between real-child pornography and virtual-child pornography and that they should be attacked legally as the same evil.

Supreme Court precedent permits the government to enact an outright ban on all pornography involving real children, in large part because it victimizes the children who are its subjects. In their action today, the justices stood by that precedent and refused to expand it to include virtual depictions on a computer screen.

"The Court's First Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct," Justice Anthony Kennedy writes for the majority.

In a dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist says that court's decision will make it harder for law-enforcement officials to protect children from child pornographers and pedophiles.

"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child-pornography law is a compelling one," he says. "The [Child Pornography Protection Act] is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

In striking down two provisions of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, the court found that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad, saying it sought to censor a wide universe of speech that was neither obscene nor child-pornographic.

Bill Lyon, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association of adult businesses, supported that determination. "Our whole argument was that the law is overly broad and it was unnecessary to criminalize a visualization in which no child was sexually abused," he says. "Adults have the right to view and discuss what they want, and every time we try to make a dent and say, 'All except this,' we start to harm the Constitution."

On the other hand, pornography opponents argued that pedophiles use virtual-child pornography to lure children into illicit sexual relationships and that such potential criminal use of computerized images should strip them of any protection under the First Amendment.

The high court disagreed, declining to adopt an analysis of the case that turns primarily on either the content or the effects of virtual-child pornography. Instead, the court made clear that the ban on child pornography is justified in large part by the abuse suffered by real children.

When that abuse is not present, other legal avenues must be used to attack pornography, such as obscenity laws. "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has," writes Justice Kennedy. "The prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."

He adds that the law is so broad that it prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea – that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity – that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages," he says.

Kennedy warns the law might have a chilling effect on literary and artistic works that in some minor way involve images of teens engaged in sexual activity. He cited the motion pictures "Traffic," and "American Beauty."

In the end, the decision is likely to overturn some cases and will change the way future ones are prosecuted say anti-child porn advocates. "This case adds an additional burden on the prosecutor," says Dan Armagh, former state prosecutor who is now at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va. "Now, the government must prove the identity of that child."

• Ron Scherer contributed to this report from New York.

[Bill Murphy]

Or B&amp;M poker, FTM?

[jokerswild]

If I were Bush, I would take offense that you post about having relations with my wife.

[jokerswild]

You really shouldn't bring up Florida. The fact that JEB Bush conspired with that girlfirend of his(Harris I think) to disenfranchise 250k African-Americans is just a start. Why didn't Ashcroft investigate that? Obstruction of justice nailed the Bush II roll model:Richard Nixon.

[Cyrus]

Whoa. Pornography - that's a dozen threads' worth of a subject, right there.

Briefly, some points :

- Pornography has not been proven, through study after study, to unduly affect people. (Of course, like everything else, excess leads to excess. We are not talking about obsessive behavior, which can have as its focus anything, from pornography to door knobs.)

- Not even the most ardent opponents of pornography, eg McKinnon, have proven anything like that, as far as I am aware.

- A large percentage of women, usually underestimated or under-reported, enjoys pornography. As expected, of course, tastes differ between men and women in their pornography too.

- Pornography is not easy. The Czech National Film School was assigning to its graduate students the task of making various films, short in duration of course, covering every aspect of film making, a political documentary, a personal documentary, a fictional account if XYZ, etc etc and a pornographic film. I don't know if they still continue this fabulous method.

- Pornography is not easy, II. When the punter is already horny, anything will do. but try to arouse the erotic instinct to the general audience! It's not as trivial as one might think.

- Whenever the subject is discussed someone will always bring up two issues (a) violence against women and (b) child pornography. On the latter, there is little to be said besides "throw the perps in jail!" and "throw away the key!". On the former, we are always talking about consenting adults, of course.

More, later, maybe.

[Frozen]

Great. The Bush regime can't get Bin Laden...but they're doing a fantastic job against Ron Jeremy, Martha Stewart, and Tommy Chong.

As a firm Believer in Ayn Rand style laissez-faire capitalism, I used to think the Republicans were the lesser of two evils. Now I see that voting Libertarian is my only option.