New Attorney General must understand importance of obscenity laws
 

NEWS RELEASE from MORALITY IN MEDIA, INC.
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 239, New York, NY 10115
Contact: Robert Peters 1-212-870-3210



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEADERS ASK PRESIDENT BUSH TO NOMINATE A NEW U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO ?FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCING FEDERAL OBSCENITY LAWS?

NEW YORK (September 12, 2007)?More than 50 national, state and local leaders have joined with Morality in Media in sending a letter to President Bush, asking him (among other things) to nominate a new U.S. Attorney ?who fully understands the importance of enforcing federal obscenity laws.? The full letter is published at www.moralityinmedia.org (Current Issues page).

The letter signers say, ?We understand that our nation faces many pressing problems, including the threat of terrorism; but our nation also faces a growing moral crisis? It is clear that the explosive increase in the availability of pornography is fueling this moral crisis. It is also clear that there are federal obscenity laws already on the books that can be enforced against hardcore pornography?

?Our purpose in writing this letter is to encourage you to take steps necessary to bring about significant progress in this war against obscenity before your second term ends. You have spoken movingly about the need for cultural renewal; we believe that taking needed action now to clean up the glut of obscenity that pollutes our cultural environment would be a worthy legacy?

?We urge you to begin by nominating a new U.S. Attorney General who fully understands the importance of enforcing federal obscenity laws? We believe that Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzalez meant well when each stated that enforcement of obscenity laws is a Justice Department ?priority.? By our count, however, there have been fewer than 20 obscenity prosecutions against commercial distributors of ?adult? pornography? That is hardly a refection of a ?priority.?

?We also urge you to address with FBI Director Robert Mueller the matter of the FBI?s unwillingness to investigate all but a relative handful of obscenity cases. On the one hand, the FBI expends tremendous resources combating crimes linked to the spread of obscenity ? namely, sexual abuse of children and trafficking in women and children ? while on the other hand, it refuses to devote more than token resources to combat obscenity?

?We also urge you to make fighting obscenity one of your top priorities. President Reagan considered the problem important enough to invite national leaders concerned about pornography to meet with him at the White House?We also urge you to speak publicly about the obscenity problem. You can talk about how the explosion of obscenity corrupts children, ruins marriages, contributes to sex crimes? and undermines the right of Americans to live in a decent society?

?And finally, we urge you to consider the impact of Internet pornography on youth? Because the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the only laws that can be enforced against websites that allow visitors to view pornography free of charge (as teasers) and without proof of age are the obscenity laws. The Justice Department has received tens-of-thousands of citizen complaints about these teaser sites, but to date the Department has not acted on them?

?This ought to concern a President and First Lady who have worked hard to protect our nation?s youth. Among other things, hardcore pornography depicts adultery, pseudo child porn, barely legal teens?gang bangs, group sex, unsafe sex galore, sex with animals, sex with excrement, sex with siblings, sex with she-males, male-on-male rape, and the degradation, rape and torture of women?

?Mr. President, we urge you to take a leadership role in addressing the expanding obscenity problem. The wellbeing of our nation, communities, families and children are at stake.?

Seems the author got a little side tracked... what a pile... :pimp

Great... more bs to fight... just what we need.

Well, at least like with everyone else that isn't in a specific circle of "friends" .. chances are he won't pay any attention to them.

Some twisted views in that letter though imho.

What a bunch of asshats. I can't stand those fucking busy bodies.

Save the Children!








We want to Draft them.







And send them to a place they never heard of.








To get Killed for a Reason we can't quit seem to Remember.

"We also urge you to speak publicly about the obscenity problem. You can talk about how the explosion of obscenity corrupts children, ruins marriages, contributes to sex crimes… and undermines the right of Americans to live in a decent society…"

Decent society? It's the freedom of adult entertainment and expression that make the whole of the USA a decent society.

These people need some fact checks.

Ironic that the same freedoms that gives the author the ability to send that letter are the very freedoms that the letter requests trampling on.

If only our industry were so well organized as these guys...

They dont cite any data in their letter, thats a shame. Anyone could urge anyone else with a letter like that, it's all sales pitch. Well and good. But where is the data supporting such things like:
"how the explosion of obscenity corrupts children, ruins marriages, contributes to sex crimes? and undermines the right of Americans to live in a decent society?"

and:

"It is clear that the explosive increase in the availability of pornography is fueling this moral crisis."

The author is probably correct here (except for 2257 records keeping):

"..the only laws that can be enforced against websites that allow visitors to view pornography free of charge (as teasers) and without proof of age are the obscenity laws."

You can talk about how the explosion of obscenity corrupts children, ruins marriages, contributes to sex crimes… and undermines the right of Americans to live in a decent society…
+++++++++++++++

Where is the proof? Where is the evidence to support these wild assertions?

:mad

Can't catch a break...

The FSC should be writing a retort to the President.

" The Justice Department has received tens-of-thousands of citizen complaints about these teaser sites, but to date the Department has not acted on them…
"


How many people access porn sites EVERY day???? I think that the MAJORITY should have the say.

Hwaaaaahahahahahahhaha


That was great. best joke I have EVER heard.

This is the Morality In Media. These are the same group that were the only actual people to file complaints about the Janet Jackson nipple slip and they have been after Howard Stern for years. They are a right wing group that has an agenda and does whatever they can to move it forward.

The sad thing is that our current president listens to people like this.

This new AG nominee is going to get a hard drilling by the democrats before the is put into office. I would love to see one of them ask him if he thought porn or terrorism was a bigger priority.

These morons want to cleanse the world of us. Scary thought. They don't mention how pornography can actually save marriages, do they? They also don't mention that it is a form of art, do they? Morons. Not the first of it's kind and definitely won't be the last :mad:

Link to the study don about pornography saving marriages? Please explain how a slut getting fucked in all orfices then gets a facial...is a form of art?

Definition of pornography...

por·nog·ra·phy /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Definition of obscene...

ob·scene /əbˈsin/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-seen] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?adjective 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

Close up shop. Sell vacuum cleaners & encyclopedias.

The funny thing about this is that all this shit comes from the party you support. :upsidedow:error

It's all relative. What is obscene to one may not be obscene to another person. I am not offended by two people having sex as much as I'm offended by some religous nutjob praying to a fairy tale book and telling people they won't go to heaven if they don't send money.

I agree that what is "obscene" is subjective and that is why the Supreme court ruled that what is "obscene" is to be decided by community standards.. but by definition "pornography" is obscene.

You calling someone a "religous nutjob" is subjective and is not based upon any "objective" thinking...but you have the right in this country to be subjective...just the same as the "religous nutjobs" have the right to be subjective in their thinking.

But how do you determine a community's standards. Do you hold a vote? And considering how many people search and look for pornography on a daily basis, it's hard to prove that it doesn't meet the community standards. You would have to prove that your community doesn't look at that porn or any porn that is similar. And on top of it, you would have to prove that the one selling the porn knew that it was obscene in the first place.

A prosecutor (either county or state)...in all states...is the initial determiner of what is "obscene" based upon what he believes violates community standards and in some states his determination will be placed before a Grand Jury then they become the determiner of what they believe violates community standards. At trial in most states seat a jury of 12 (some states have a jury of 6) then they become the determiners of what they believe violates community standards.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that members of your community do not view porn (btw...it is a relatively small percentage of people that view porn on any kind of regular basis) and the prosecutor does not have to prove that the pornographer knew that his product was "obscene". All a prosecutor has to do is have a jury agree that it is obscene.

That is our system...that is the law as decided by the Federal Supreme court.

BTW...one has the choice of becoming an activest in an effort to overturn law or get law modified...other that that one has to live with the law...as it is.

Wow I wasn't aware the courts used dictionary.com definitions to define legal baselines. Learn something new every day!

I understand how the court system works.

The prosecutor doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want, but Miller vs California clearly states that the porn has to lack artistic value and be against community standards for obscenity. If a signifigant percent of the population in the community views the type of pornography being presented, it is hard to judge that it is against community standards. But you're right, it's up to a jury decide. A jury could convict me of a video of me and a girl kissing as being obscene.

As for stating that the pornographer doesn't need to know whether his material is obscene, simply read up Smith vs California that states otherwise as to protect the chilling effect on speech that may be protected.

Either way, it's a fascist law and ruling.

It is estimated that 40 million Americans view pornography regularly. That isn't a small percentage. Porn accounts for 25% of all searches made on search engines.

THey know they are in a losing battle but they keep trying. Prosecutors dont want to take Obscenity cases unless it is way over the top stuff because they know they will lose. its getting harder and harder to get a reaction out of a jury.Shit I watched that new couples show on HBO,I saw cocks. A girl riding her husband and you can see his balls while she is riding him, another girl giving her bf a handjob and playing with the cum afterwards. On nip/tuck a mother and daughter fight over who is going to blow the doctor. Shortbus was shown in the local multiplex.MiM wants the government to go after playboy and vivid but they will not do that because they cant win.

They do not and at no time did I say they do.

Exactly and well put.

We have a representative government so it is the representatives of the people that make the laws...so in essence you are calling the people "facists".

Usually ignorance does not prevent one from being prosecuted...but it may cause a jury not to convict.

"war against obscenity"

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.o...rist-thumb.jpg

One study showed that 9% of Americans view porn on a somewhat regular basis...which would be approximately 27 million based upon the population...but in fact would be less than that because some of the population are not old enough or have the desire to view porn. That same study showed that about 14% have intentionally viewed porn as an adult. BTW...I do not have a link to the study so there is not any need to ask. I am also aware that different studies on almost any subject produce different results.

The 25% of all searches...I assume would be comprised mostly by regular viewers of porn...and some infrequent viewers.

Believe it or not...most people have a life and an active sex life and do not have a need or a desire to spend their time viewing porn.

There are a strong percent of our population that are fascists (whether they believe they are is another story). Remember that this is a country that elected people that supported slavery, women not voting, and genocide of other races. Just because a percent of people elected them to power doesn't make it right.

And as for representatives we elect, it's not like we have free choice. We have a choice of two parties, two parties that have made it near impossible for anyone else to get elected.

Actually it does, California vs Smith. The same concept used to defend search engines that link to child pornography. If you don't know something is obscene, you can't be prosecuted for it.

You are correct. Most County prosecutors do not and will not persue obscenity cases unless it is outrageously over the top...not so much because they will lose (because I believe that would win in the majority of counties in the US)...but because of budgetary issues. Their budgets are over stretched to deal with "real" "hard" as well as drug related crime.

In either event, 27 million people is double the amount of people in this country that watched any World Series game last year. Note that more people have TV access than Internet access in this country. If that is a small percent of the population, then so be it. Are you really trying to say that people who view porn online are a small percent of the population?

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms.

Their are a multitude of parties that people can choose from...their are two really popular parties which the majority of voters choose to elect from.

You have sited a singular case...but I repeat that ignorance will not "usually" prevent one from being prosecuted.

I doubt its small, its a 15 billion dollar industry and if it was so small Jenna wouldnt of become a mainstream personality or Ron Jeremy.

According to the study 9% (and this would not be 9% of the population...it would presumably be primarily adults) view porn on a regular basis and 14% view porn infrequently. And this study was about all sources of porn...not just porn dispersed by the internet.

In my personal opinion...I believe that the majority of the adult population have a life as well as an active sex life and do not have the need or the desire to view porn...certainly not on any regular basis. Ask yourself why any "normal" well adjusted person would have a need or a desire to view porn on any kind of a regular basis.

Why would any well adjusted person have a desire to view porn on a regular basis? Because it helps them satisfy a biological urge. Porn is as old as human civilization, questioning the desire for it is no different than questioning our desire to listen to music, admire artwork, or tell a joke.

As for who needs it, I couldn't give you a psychological breakdown. I know there are a lot of single people out there, people who are not getting sex in their marriage, or even people who do have someone and enjoy the stimulation of watching porn with their partner. I know that billions of dollars of it are sold every year. Hotels, cable networks, and newstands carry it for a reason. Cell phone porn is expected to do over $3 billion by 2011 and companies like Girls Gone Wild somehow continue to profit from running late night commercials.

So you can continue to say people don't need it, or there is little desire by the public for it, but the people and companies who have made millions and will continue to make millions would disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
(btw...it is a relatively small percentage of people that view porn on any kind of regular basis)

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
It is estimated that 40 million Americans view pornography regularly. That isn't a small percentage. Porn accounts for 25% of all searches made on search engines.

Even if you are correct in the estimated 40 million Americans view pornograpy regularly...this would represent approximately something over 13%...which is still a relatively small percentage of Americans. The study showed that 9% regularly view pornography. Four percent more would not be much of a difference between your figure and the study's figure...and that would indicate that "normal" well adjusted people do not have a need nor the desire to spend their time viewing porn...now wouldn't it?

The 2000 census says we have 250 million people living in the US. Of that, 80 million are under the age of 18 and were not questioned in the survey. That would mean that 40 million out of the available 170 million people left view porn regularly. That is over 24% of the American adult population that views porn regularly. Since males are 75% of porn consumers, you can equate 35% of all males view porn regularly.

While this percent may seem small to you, that audience is larger than that of those who watch the Super Bowl every year. It is a larger percent of people that workout regularly, go to the dentist regularly, or go to the movies regularly. Oh, and the percent of adults who view porn regularly is higher than the percent of adults who go to church regularly.

Guess there are a lot of unnormal, un-adjusted people out there.

BLah blah...

If what ever study you are referring to was referring to the 2000 census so be it...but the current count is approximately 300 million Americans...and I repeat the most recent study shows 9%. There is not any reason to continue on this subject of percentage...it is been more than played out.

It's fine. I was just pointing out that the percent of people who watch porn regularly are higher than those that go to church, the dentist, or workout. If you consider those people not normal, then that is fair.

king do you have a link to the study would love to see it and who did it.:)

fuck, that was alot of reading, but alot of good info..


anyway, didn't see anyone mention that the new Attorney General was appointed earlier today