NationStates Jolt Archive

To whomever deigns to read this:

I find it unsettling that my tax dollars are being spent to fund a war against internet pornography. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5346.html) There are any number of reasons to avoid this sort of behavior, but I will try to keep it to just three: the problems faced by the current administration, constitutional right to pursue such a campaign, and sheer logistics.

I mean, honestly, aren't things rocky enough for the White House and the rest of the Executive branch of the US Federal Government? Two wars (Bet you forgot about Afghanistan. Or at least hoped we did.), security leaks and ensuing indictments, corruption involving the highest levels of the government and oil companies and record-setting polls showing deeply intense dissatisfaction with the administration are taking their toll. Even your friends are starting to back away. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051117/D8DUG8207.html) Republican leadership is having difficulty passing a budget (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5017351), despite the fact that Republicans are in the majority in both the House and Senate and there's a Republican in the White House. Alito might be your second failed SCOTUS nominee (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051117-123056-7128r.htm) if his abortion rulings become a major issue. Part of the Patriot Act has been ruled unconstitutional, and there is opposition to its renewal next year growing in Congress. Given the security leaks, bribery indictments (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-11-17T194909Z_01_SCH770760_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-IRAQ-USA.xml), and ongoing watchfulness against terrorism (including abuses of civil rights on many (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng) fronts (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444)), I have to wonder where the Attourney General and FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570_pf.html) gets the time to hunt down the owners of pornography websites featuring consenting adults and accessed by consenting adults.

Secondly, what gives you the right? Rulings about what constitutes obscenity by the courts have been habbitually vague ("I don't know what pornography is, but I'll know it when I see it."), but I suppose you might be able to act proactively against Suicide Girls and other fetishist websites (links not provided due to obviously NSFW and NSFK content). I imagine few judges will rule on the side of bondage, at least not without impressive legal maneuvering by the lawyers representing such websites and companies. Still, doesn't this all seem just a little familiar (1977, Cincinnati and Hustler anyone?)?

That aside, we come to the biggest reason against this kind of endeavor. The internet is a huge, massive place. Really, really big. The kind of place that gives a sense of infinity much better than infinity itself acutally does. You can't win this fight. You can't make the internet safer, cleaner, or less NSFW. All you can do is outsource porn. You won't make it stop, you'll just make it move elsewhere, and since my internet browser reads Venezualan IP addresses just as easily as American addresses, you will have accomplished nothing, except perhaps giving me slightly more lag as the information has to travel through more routers. You cannot close the floodgate, you cannot stop this.

In short, I'm a little curious what you think you're going to accomplish. WTF?

Dear Citizen,

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I assure you that we are not spending any of your tax tollars.

I can tell you what they hope to accomplish--they're throwing a bone to their religious base, since they haven't been able to come through on anything else.

Fight the power man!

Dear Citizen,

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I assure you that we are not spending any of your tax tollars.

What? And what does this have to do with anything?

What? And what does this have to do with anything?
He's making fun of a misspelling in the original post. That's all.

He's making fun of a misspelling in the original post. That's all.
Oh. I see it now. Fixed. I attempted this post while under the influence of 375mL of vodka, so please excuse any typos or grammatical errors.

To whomever deigns to read this:

That's basically where I stopped reading this, and probably they as well.

To whomever deigns to read this:

That's basically where I stopped reading this, and probably they as well.

Then why did you feel the need to post?

Then why did you feel the need to post?

To point that out. Duh! :rolleyes:

Oh. I see it now. Fixed. I attempted this post while under the influence of 375mL of vodka, so please excuse any typos or grammatical errors.
Um, yeah, I bet you'd really have to chug that thing to so much as think that a war against internet pornography is all just the government wasting your tax dollars. What the FBI is doing is monitoring the internet for illegal pornographic content (If you would have actually read that article, they say numerous times that they're looking for criminally obscene content). You know, child pornography, very risque child sites, et cetera... everything that is not declared legal under the US constitution and United States laws on telecommunications, and so on.

It's not like they're hacking down every single porn site on the web. They're monitoring the very deviant sites that show, or seem to show risque and potentially illegal material (and very illegal material, for that matter.)

BTW, there is no set standard for what's acceptable and what's not... they put obscene content through what's called the Miller test. That's how they deem the acceptability, and whether or not it's covered by the first amendment. Again, if you would have read the entire article you would know that.

But they are hacking down websites. I've heard or seen, indirectly or directly respectively, of a number of relatively mild websites being attacked by this porn squad. They're not going after child porn and snuff films, they're going after bondage sites whose worst offense is some rope and handcuffs, some of which can only be accessed by an adult who provides a valid credit card number. I realise that this isn't always enough to keep a minor from accessing the content, such as through a stolen or hijacked credit card, but you can't blame a company for the misdeeds of another.

Edit: I'll note that I didn't read that article, I linked it because it was the closest article at hand. I aknowledge this was not the best debate tactic, but I don't really want a debate. I want to know why they're saying one thing and doing another, and spending my money to do it.

Dear Citizen,

Please stop spreading the "truth" before the FBI hacks down Jolt. And remember, you don't really know who online is really an FBI agent in disguise so be careful what you say, even on IRC. ;)

Thank you for good use of Hitchhiker's Guide jokes :)

Thank you for good use of Hitchhiker's Guide jokes :)

I was wondering when someone would catch that.

BTW, there is no set standard for what's acceptable and what's not... they put obscene content through what's called the Miller test. That's how they deem the acceptability, and whether or not it's covered by the first amendment. Again, if you would have read the entire article you would know that.
That's why every obscenity law is essentially meaningless, especially when it comes to the internet. Supreme Court rulings have already said that the most restrictive community standards can't be applied to the internet because it unnecessarily limits the freedoms of other communities. But that's not stopping this Justice department, because they figure they've got to give the religious conservatives somethng or they'll stop voting for them.

Why are you talking about my currency, the Tax Tollar!?

Posted on behalf of a friend who cannot be assed to register a nation just to make this post:

FoeHammer: If you read his entire article, you'll note he referrenced a website that had no connections with "criminally obscene pornograpy" but bondage and piercings, I've personally viewed said website and didn't find it obscene, NSFK? yes, but not worth legal action; I don't believe in a "Miller test" to determine if something is "acceptable" or if the 1st Amend covers it, I do recall the Constitution remarking on "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuiit of HAPPINESS"
Foehammer (admendum): "Again, if you would have read the entire article you would know that." I love when people think they know the whole thing, and assume no one else does, You obvious failed to read his article thoroughly and theirs
Nakaland: FBI can't touch a UK hosted forum, doesn't work like that, they're only targetting domestic servers as they only have jurisdiction there, read Raem's comment about Venezuelian IPs

Posted on behalf of a friend who cannot be assed to register a nation just to make this post:

FoeHammer: If you read his entire article, you'll note he referrenced a website that had no connections with "criminally obscene pornograpy" but bondage and piercings, I've personally viewed said website and didn't find it obscene, NSFK? yes, but not worth legal action; I don't believe in a "Miller test" to determine if something is "acceptable" or if the 1st Amend covers it, I do recall the Constitution remarking on "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuiit of HAPPINESS"
Foehammer (admendum): "Again, if you would have read the entire article you would know that." I love when people think they know the whole thing, and assume no one else does, You obvious failed to read his article thoroughly and theirs
Nakaland: FBI can't touch a UK hosted forum, doesn't work like that, they're only targetting domestic servers as they only have jurisdiction there, read Raem's comment about Venezuelian IPsRem, they might not have the jurisdiction, but they can still do it. Come on, it's the US government we're talking about here -- they're spending billions of tax tollars, remember? Oh, I just hate to argue with people who can't spell.

This is bushanomics here. Im bush like. The president is in direct connection with God. He has his phone number and everything. So the president always knows exactly what to do. Were not in two wars. Were in one war. The war on Tourism. Porn is something that republicans hate and so do christians only those tree huggin hippie earl hatin baby killin laberals like porn. So if laberals cant get their porn they will just have to cheat on their wifes and then another republican president will get elected. The war on Tourism must be fought because freedom must be spread like a rapid disease, like crabs. The FBI was created to go after porn not murders. Which do you feel safer walking the streets without a filthy immoral porn star or a man who just happens to kill people who piss him off. You know you just gotta look at whats best for people.