Federal Government Renews Effort to Curb Porn
 

sorry if this was posted already

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4865348

Posted: September 27, 2005


A report by correspondent Larry Abramson about stepped up prosecution of obscenity crimes by the Justice Department was aired on National Public Radio this morning on the Morning Edition, and included comments by Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Michelle L. Freridge and First Amendment attorney Louis H. Sirkin, among others. The report can be heard here.


The five-minute long report takes a balanced look at recent steps by Alberto Gonzales? Justice Department to expand anti-porn efforts by, among other things, creating a special obscenity prosecution task force last May. According to the report, since 2001, the DoJ has racked up 40 obscenity prosecutions versus just four during the entire Clinton administration, but experienced a serious defeat earlier this year when Judge Gary Lancaster in the Third Circuit threw out charges against Extreme Associates. The DoJ is appealing that decision. (An article by Jeffrey Douglas about the Extreme case can be found here.)


The report quotes Extreme?s attorney, Louis H. Sirkin, commenting that the case proves that the anti-porn campaign is not about crime. ?Any argument that can be made? in the year 2005 that says that people shouldn?t be able to get certain types of material that is [by] consenting adults, there is only one justification for that argument, and that?s morality.?


Abramson then refers to Judge Lancaster?s apparent agreement with that assessment, when he ruled that there was no government interest in blocking even the most graphic adult porn if it was simply going to be viewed by consenting adults, and adds, ?[Lancaster] went even further, saying that now that the Supreme Court has struck down laws against sodomy, in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, ?The government can no longer justify legislation with enforcement of a moral code.??

A brief reference is made to the 2257 federal labeling laws, specifically mentioning the onerous burden the regulations would place on gay and dating sites, with a comment by Adult Friend Finder (AFF) attorney, Ira Rothken, underscoring the burden, ?It would be impractical for Friend Finder staff to be able to review all [IDs]. We would need warehouses full of people to be able to do that.?


Abramson then refers to a government contention that enforcement of 2257 will only target sites that produce porn, not dating sites, and that the regulations will help the government drive child pornographers out of business.


Michelle Freridge is then quoted, countering the government's position by making the point that the government is confusing child pornographers with people who simply want to enjoy sexual content. ?If the government would spend half the time they spend, and half the money they spend, chasing constitutionally protected legal adult speech, and spend that on actually enforcing the child pornography laws, they would benefit children tremendously.?


Robert Peters, of Morality in Media, is also quoted in the report, reinforcing the point already made by Sirkin that for people like Peters, morality rather than criminal activity is the barometer by which they judge the adult entertainment industry. ?I would be very happy to see all hardcore pornography prohibited,? says Peters, ?and I?ll tell you, that would still leave a lot of sexual material out there that in my opinion is pornographic and harmful, but that?s part of the compromise.?

Nice read .. Thanks.