2024-03-28, 21:52 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: U.S. to get tough on Internet  (Read 7864 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tekhead
 
Elite
*
Posts: 1110

« on: 2004-02-16, 20:23 »

"U.S. Plans to Escalate Porn Fight
Justice Department hire of a veteran prosecutor answers criticism from Christian conservatives who have long sought a crackdown on smut.
By Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writer

February 14, 2004

WASHINGTON ? The Justice Department has quietly installed an outspoken anti-pornography advocate in a senior position in its criminal division, as part of an effort to jump-start obscenity prosecutions.

The Bush administration's election-year move follows three years of heat from the Christian right, which believes that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, a longtime friend and ally, has fallen down on the job when it comes to fighting smut.

Now, the appointment of a tough new cop on the porn beat and other recent moves by the department to bolster obscenity cases are galvanizing conservatives, while leaving representatives of the adult-entertainment industry to wonder whether they have become a political football.

Officials said the appointment of Bruce A. Taylor, who worked in the department during the heyday of its anti-porn efforts in the late 1980s and early '90s, shows that Justice is serious about cracking down on porn after what critics called lax enforcement by the Clinton administration.

In his resume, the 53-year-old Taylor, who got his start as a Cleveland city attorney in the 1970s, lists his involvement in more than 600 obscenity cases as a prosecutor or a legal advisor.

The defendants in those cases constitute a who's-who of adult-entertainment industry tycoons, including Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt and Reuben Sturman, a onetime comic-book salesman turned porn magnate.

In a survey two years ago, Adult Video News, a trade publication based in Chatsworth, identified Taylor as one of the top "enemies" of the industry. The story was titled: "These Are the Folks Who Want to Put You Out of Business."

Taylor, who in recent years has headed a conservative advocacy group fighting for tougher regulation of the Internet, has been given the title of "senior counsel" within the criminal division at Justice, with a focus principally on federal adult obscenity issues.

The department's obscenity chief, Andrew Oosterbaan, who has been drawing much of the flak from conservatives, will retain his position. But instead of reporting to him, Taylor will answer to a more senior-level assistant attorney general.

Bryan Sierra, a Justice spokesman, said that by hiring Taylor ? which the department didn't publicize but confirmed when asked by The Times ? the department was simply marshaling additional resources rather than undercutting anyone's authority or submitting to political pressure.

"Bruce has vast experience, both at the federal and state level, prosecuting those kinds of cases," Sierra said. "It is all part of our overall effort to kick-start obscenity prosecutions after a long absence."

Sierra said Taylor was unavailable for comment.

The department has made other moves recently to shore up its anti-porn effort, including assigning for the first time in years a team of FBI agents to focus exclusively on adult-obscenity cases.

In his fiscal 2005 budget proposal released this month, President Bush sought increased spending to fight obscenity; it was one of the few spending increases ? besides for anti-terrorist efforts ? in the otherwise austere proposal.

Porn industry representatives said all the activity had the look of an administration trying hard to appease an important constituency during an election cycle.

"This is a crude, crass political effort," said Jeffrey Douglas, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult-entertainment industry.

He questioned whether the public at large was as interested in cracking down on adult fare as the Justice Department and said the hiring of Taylor was "a very dangerous, disturbing step" toward infringement on free speech.

Some defense lawyers say Taylor's record in court has been a decidedly mixed bag. His first case against Sturman, the erstwhile comic-book salesman, resulted in a hung jury. A few years ago, he was brought in to act as a special prosecutor in a case against an adult bookstore operator in South Bend, Ind.; the defendant was acquitted. Some of the Internet legislation he has pushed in recent years has been roundly rejected by the U.S. Surpeme Court as violating the 1st Amendment.

But conservative activists said the moves in the Justice Department were long overdue. They have been unhappy because, with funds limited for purposes other than the war on terrorism, the department has been targeting only purveyors of the worst forms of sexually explicit material ? such as that involving simulated violence. One such pending case is against a North Hollywood film distributor known as Extreme Associates.

Anti-porn groups have argued that this tack misses the largest distributors and the bulk of the problem, including the growth of pornography over the Internet. They are looking to Taylor to launch a tough enforcement era.

"He believes in taking on big cases that will have a major impact," said Patrick Trueman, an advisor to the Family Research Council who headed the Justice Department's anti-pornography unit in the 1980s and was once Taylor's boss. "They are bringing him in for the same reason I did: They want to win, and he is the most experienced guy."

In the 1980s, Taylor was the lawyer for an anti-porn group known as Citizens for Decency Through Law, which was founded by Charles Keating, who later became embroiled in the savings-and-loan scandals and went to jail.

Over the years, Taylor has advised scores of attorneys around the country on the niceties of obscenity law, and two years ago was invited by the Justice Department to participate in a training symposium for new prosecutors.

He maintains a collection of legal papers from pornography cases that covers "every brief in every case," according to Trueman.

Most recently, he has been the president and chief counsel of the National Law Center for Children and Families, a Fairfax, Va., group active in writing federal legislation outlawing indecent material on the Internet as well as fighting child exploitation.

Among the supporters of his law center is Cincinnati billionaire and philanthropist Carl Lindner, who in the early 1990s gained additional celebrity by helping lead the opposition to a local exhibit of sexually explicit work by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe.

Lindner gave Taylor's group $100,000 in 2002, according to federal tax records. "


oh my.  :blink:

(found on SE.com)
« Last Edit: 2004-02-16, 20:24 by Tekhead » Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2004-02-16, 21:53 »

I guess this should surprise me but it doesn't
Putin is cracking down on political dissent using the internet in Russia
China has been trying for years to do the same thing
The US is just trying to follow the superpower bandwagon, since they know that Freedom of Speech is antithetical to their governments remaining in power.

Ahhh if only John McCain hadn't gotten cancer...

The fact that things like Obsentities laws even exist boggles the mind, if you don't want to watch, then don't. To quote the greatest Canadian Prime Minister "The State has no buisness in the bedrooms of Canadians"
Logged
Angst
Rabid Doomer
 

Team Member
Elite
***
Posts: 1011

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2004-02-16, 23:20 »

This coming from the same country that banned anything involving homosexuality for how many years? I'm not saying I agree with the above. But come on, get your foot out of your mouth and stop playing the yapping dog role.
« Last Edit: 2004-02-16, 23:28 by Angst » Logged

"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2004-02-17, 00:15 »

What galls me is the interpretation of sexually explicit exhibitionism as "freedom of speech".  Freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution was created so that people could speak out in protest of public policies without the risk of being imprisoned for it.  Obscenity laws usually cover public exposure of things that the majority of the general public do not want to see in public.  It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes.  If there are laws and rules of conduct against people using certain words, which are defined as "hate speech", when freedom OF speech is supposedly protected under the First Amendment, I don't see how and why pornography should be protected anymore than someone using the "n" word is.

I think where the issue lies here is that what is being policed is a BUSINESS.  Internet porn = $$$.  With any other business there are laws and regulations governing when and where you can sell to people and by what means.  If a site is an adult site, and requires some kind of proof of age to enter then should it have sample content on the outside of the page?  This is still exposure.  Not only that, the internet is full of fraud and the availability of pornography on the internet is staggering.  Just run a google search for some rather innocent things and see how many porn links can show up once in a while.  Every other form of electronic commerce has regulations in effect.  Why should the porn industry be any different?  Who is guaranteeing that these porn peddlers are following commerce law like any other business?

I think where people are taking offense at this kind of regulation is a lot of people are seeing it as a bunch of holy rollers with victorian attitudes shoving their agenda down someone else's throat again.  I offer a counter point to this.  Where do people go who want to surf the net without running into stuff like that?  You can't send a kid to a library without the risk of them seeing something inapropriate in this day.  Where do people go who DON'T want porn shoved down THEIR throat?  There needs to be a balance on this.  I think adult material should be available to anyone who wants it as long as it is legal and the person is of legal age to see it.  I also think the industry should not be exempted from the same kind of scrutiny as any other questionable business.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Angst
Rabid Doomer
 

Team Member
Elite
***
Posts: 1011

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2004-02-17, 01:52 »

agreed
Logged

"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
dev/null
 
Banned
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 607

« Reply #5 on: 2004-02-17, 15:35 »

Here you go, this was posted in the message board of my school (I attend an online academy) in response to the purposal of a school dance. I think it demonstrates the above mentality quite well...

hello everybody, hey Holly my mom said that she realy wouldn`t want me to go to that dance because she says it sounds too much like public school and she homeschooled us because she didn`t want us to be a part of public school, so unless everybody going are christians, and the music your playin is christian music then I prolly won`t go.
« Last Edit: 2004-02-17, 18:44 by dev/null » Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2004-02-17, 20:52 »

Please Phoenix you really can't expect anyone to believe this is about buisness law as much as it is about trying to grab the American public by the privates and tell them what they can and cannot see. The internet was created with the purpose of being unregulatable, hopefully it'll fufill that purpose, irregardless of content
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #7 on: 2004-02-17, 21:52 »

Quote from: Devlar
Please Phoenix you really can't expect anyone to believe this is about buisness law as much as it is about trying to grab the American public by the privates and tell them what they can and cannot see. The internet was created with the purpose of being unregulatable, hopefully it'll fufill that purpose, irregardless of content
Incorrect, the internet was created as a means to facilitate timesharing of computers at universities and laboratories.  In fact, as a brainchild of the US Government (ARPANET), I'd say they have more of a right to it than anyone else. Slipgate - Smile

Note that I don't actually agree with my second point, I just thought i'd bring it up.

Also, have you fully considered the ramifications of a truly unregulated internet? Just for starters, would you prefer it if the FBI said "hey, the internet's unregulatable, I guess we can't go after pedophiles who do their stalking on it! Oh and those hackers are perfectly fine as well, cause man we can't do anything about what anyone does on the internet!"?

And, personally, I'm all for Free Speech and all that, provided it comes coupled with Common Sense and Decency. In your eyes, would it be perfectly OK for me to put a billboard across from an elementary school, showing a video (with sound) of a 50 man gay orgy complete with scat and BDSM? Cause in my mind, that's not too far off from children in public libraries doing research, at the rate the Internet's going at.

Then again, if the children don't like it, all they have to do is just pay it no heed, right?
« Last Edit: 2004-02-17, 21:56 by OoBeY » Logged
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #8 on: 2004-02-17, 22:08 »

I thought that the internet was a british invention (like the six-gun sam colt based his design on)
Logged
Dicion
 

Team Member
Makron
*********
Posts: 353

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2004-02-17, 22:15 »

[sarcasm] Man.. you know the rest of the world cant invent anything good anymore [/sarcasm]

In all seriousness though, mostly all inventions of the new Digital Age have been created in, or based off of things created in, the United States.. I guess europe ran outta ideas back in the middle ages Slipgate - Tongue Although Germans still make good Cars...
« Last Edit: 2004-02-17, 22:16 by Dicion » Logged
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #10 on: 2004-02-17, 22:22 »

check this out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3357073.stm

What do I know? I'm just an old hippy

(true about the gun - really)
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #11 on: 2004-02-17, 23:12 »

Quote from: dev/null
Here you go, this was posted in the message board of my school (I attend an online academy) in response to the purposal of a school dance. I think it demonstrates the above mentality quite well...

hello everybody, hey Holly my mom said that she realy wouldn`t want me to go to that dance because she says it sounds too much like public school and she homeschooled us because she didn`t want us to be a part of public school, so unless everybody going are christians, and the music your playin is christian music then I prolly won`t go.
All considerations of the intent of the content of this post aside, when I read this I can't help but think that home schooling is failing this kid.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #12 on: 2004-02-18, 03:41 »

Quote from: Devlar
Please Phoenix you really can't expect anyone to believe this is about buisness law as much as it is about trying to grab the American public by the privates and tell them what they can and cannot see.
There are agencies that do that all the time.  The FCC comes to mind.  The FDA tells you what you can and cannot eat.  The press decides what is and is not fit to print, television companies decide what should be shown on TV, and movie makers decide what should be made into film.  People decide all the time what you can and cannot see.  There are laws on the books to govern where Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc, can be sold.  Some of these are federal, most are municiple.  Still, they regulate what you can see and where you can see it.  Movies are given NC-17 ratings to keep children out.  Why is the internet any different?

There are commerce laws passed by states that enforce use tax on products sold over the internet that prior to the last two years were governed under interstate commerce and exempt from taxation.  A law was passed outlawing spam and the forging of email headers.  The sale and ownership of domain names is governed by business practice laws, and everyone knows about the RIAA's questionable enforcement tactics in regard to copyright law.  You cannot tell me the internet is not regulated.

Laws are passed that govern apropriate conduct in public.  This is the foundation of any civilized society, that is, rules are passed with the consent of the majority as to govern behavior of the citizens who wish to live in that society.  That some laws govern what can and cannot be displayed in public again falls under the consent of the majority or the decisions made by the officials they elect to office.  If you disagree with how things are run in America then don't move there.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
McDeth
 

Makron
********
Posts: 388

Wildly Inappropriate

« Reply #13 on: 2004-02-18, 04:22 »

Quote from: Phoenix
 If you disagree with how things are run in America then don't move there.

 
Frankly Pho, I am disappointed you made this comment because it is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you were anyone else, I would have called you a "stupid douche bag" and totally ignored you for the rest of my life. However, I like you, so I'll tell you what is wrong with this quote.

This "love it or leave it" jingle is wrong in the sense that sometimes change does need to made. If  people in the past had attitudes like this, there would still be Jim Crow Laws, or even slavery. I mean, you don't believe in the enslavement of a group of people, do you bird? If people felt this way in the 19th centuary, the 14th amendment wouldn't have passed. Hell, if we don't love the internet, why don't we just pick up and leave it without changing it?
Logged

Beer? I'm down.
dev/null
 
Banned
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 607

« Reply #14 on: 2004-02-18, 04:36 »

If I disagree with how things are run in America, I should move out? Um, last time I checked, this country was suppose to be a democracy, and as such, I should be able to make a strive towards change. Of course, since the majority of this country is stupid white Christians, a lot of change is needed. This is a perfect example of that good old Christian mentality too. Genocidal rampages are just fine and dandy, but the slightest hint of sexuality and you?re going to Hell. You can turn on the television at any time of the day and see your favorite action ?hero? involved in mass murder, or some overpaid, undereducated athlete engaged in equally violent processes, and then packaged to every brain dead consumer across the country. The halftime show at the last Super Bowl comes to mind. Here you have an utterly retarded, and ultimately violent sport, promoting simple minds through a constant barrage of commercials, yet the thing everyone becomes upset about is some woman flashing her breast. Oh how we?ve fallen. I guess there?s bound to be some such scars after centuries of moral brainwashing though, eh? Not only does our government lack the proper funding to regulate the internet to a ?satisfying? degree, but they also lack the intelligence. That is the one thing the American populace does have going for it, our government is made up of morons. But, I can see other ways around this problem, if you?re sooo worried about pornography. Perhaps you and your ilk could go build your own ?cleaner, better? network of information, and in turn, leave our?s the spork alone. Or, maybe just create a subsection, like ?.christ?, huh? To be perfectly frank, you need to take Jesus? male reproductive organ out of your mouth, because his scrotum is obviously hindering your view of the world. But hey, if you want to pull that ?love it or leave it? shit, go right ahead, so long as you?re paying my way into Canada. I?d be more than happy to leave this fascist wasteland behind anyway. You talk about civilization, HA! Civilization is for the weak, it is created by those who are socially elite so that they may maintain what little hierarchy they have left. The weak and useless are kept alive as commodities at the expense of the rest of us, for they would surely die without such special barriers. Contratu-sporking-lations, this is what your so-called civilization has done, destroyed the natural order of things. Strength and intelligence means little in this day and age, for everyone has placed their trust in objects of false value, they worship the almighty dollar, just as blindly as your ilk follows the ?Lord?. He is, after all, your shepherd, and you are all sheep! It is, however, inevitable for a society of sheep to be ruled by pigs and hounded by wolves, for when governments put whole populations to sleep, outlaws don?t team up with alarm clocks; outlaws, like poets, simply rearrange the nightmare! Perhaps it?s time for you and your kind to WAKE UP? Look past the fa?ade which is passed on as reality; destroy the veils of mysticism and superstitions, free yourself from the chains of other?s dominions, let your soul fly free, be yourself, you know what?s right and wrong, don?t let others dictate it, and certainly don?t try to dictate others! The core problem with every organized religion is just that, it allows superstition to delude and destroy whatever good it may have to say through it?s philosophy, don?t be fooled, you?re being taken as fools. Power is knowledge, and those in power do not want you to be knowledgeable, thus they set up mind traps, mazes for your cerebrum so that you may fail in any goal you set out to accomplish. Conditioning sets in at an early age, since a young mind is an impressionable mind, this is obviously the most appropriate time to begin. Said conditioning is all around you. You feel it when you go to work, when you go the church and when you go to school. You may not be familiar enough with it to see it, but you can feel it, and the effects it has on you are more than obvious to those paying attention. In this day and age though, a simple revolution is impossible. In order to conduct a successful revolt, one must have the majority behind them, or an ace up their sleeve. So unless you have a few spare tactical nukes lying around, you will need the support of the masses. This is where the plan begins to fall apart, for the masses are so blindly dependant upon the system that they will gladly give their lives to protect it, whether they realize it or not. No, brute force is not the path to take. While it may cause dismay among the enemy, they will eventually come out the victors and stomp you like a worm. This, however, is what you must become? a worm. You must burry yourself in the fruits of their labor and eat away at it from the inside. After a reasonable amount of time, the system will eventually collapse under its own weight. The revolution is coming, whether is be physical or mental? Which side will you choose?
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #15 on: 2004-02-18, 08:17 »

Quote
Why is the internet any different?

Ever hear of a man named John Stuart Mills, pretty much the first guy who qualified "Freedom of Speech"?

Mill's Harm Principal - If  the words I say do not cause you direct bodily harm then you are free to say it

This is what Freedom of Speech was supposed to look like in the United States
FCC - Scrapped
FDA - Actually these guys could still exist to ensure that drug companies don't tell you something that does lead to your direct bodily harm
Movie Rating Councils - Scrapped
Laws on where you can sell Hustler - Scrapped
Slander and Liabel Laws - Scrapped

So why is the internet different, because as you said, newspaper and movie makers decide what to print, on the internet, no one decides what to print, you finally have a medium of communication that is not controlled by some rich fat cats shoving their "globalizing", "secondary group", "consumeristic" and "egoistic" views on you. THATS why the internet is different, and that's why it is a threat to every one of those fat cats and every politician in this or any godforsaken government in the world.

Oh and for the record I won't live there, I'm getting off this sinking content while I still can, Holland 2005!
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #16 on: 2004-02-18, 08:26 »

The Movie Ratings Council is entirely voluntary and any movie can freely choose to be listed as Not Rated.

PS: dev/null, this definition from dictionary.com might interest you...

par?a?graph    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-grf)
n.
   1. A distinct division of written or printed matter that begins on a new, usually indented line, consists of one or more sentences, and typically deals with a single thought or topic or quotes one speaker's continuous words.
« Last Edit: 2004-02-18, 08:30 by OoBeY » Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #17 on: 2004-02-18, 08:35 »

Daman:  Devlar does not LIVE in the US.  I never said love it or leave it, I said if you disagree with how things are run in the US don't move there.  That includes the political process for enacting CHANGE.  My statements are hardly ignorant, and if you had read a little more closely you would have understood this.

Quote
(dev/null @ Feb 17 2004 - 10:36 PM) To be perfectly frank, you need to take Jesus? male reproductive organ out of your mouth, because his scrotum is obviously hindering your view of the world.

dev/null, you have been warned TWICE now about posting sexually explicit content on the board, as well as being disrespectful to other forum members.  I will give you one warning and only one.  Do this again, and you will be permanently banned.[/color]  Frankly I don't give a damn what you think of me for this attitude as well.  You can think what you want of me and what I believe, but if you said this to any other forum member I'd do the same thing.  Take your hateful bigoted views and go somewhere else if you can't be civil.  We do not need this here, nor will it be tolerated.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: