1. Religion & Spirituality
Send to a Friend via Email

Discuss in my forum

Austin Cline

Administration's New War on Pornography

By April 7, 2004

Follow me on:

Apparently, terrorism and drugs aren't the only threats to society that are on the Bush administration's radar screen. For the first time in more than a decade, the government is significantly upping the amount of money being used to combat adult pornography. Why? Because, you know, Western civilization is at stake. You're either with us or against us. Porn is an "imminent threat." There are Weapons of Masturbatory Destruction which need to be destroyed before they are deployed against the United States. We will rely on a Coalition of the Antisexual to counter this danger. And besides, God told Bush to do this.

The Baltimore Sun explains:

Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains. Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel. ... It is unclear, though, just how the American public and major corporations that make money from pornography will accept the perspective of the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives. The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority.
The Justice Department pursued obscenity cases vigorously in the 1970s and '80s, prosecuting not necessarily the worst offenders in terms of extreme material, but those it viewed as most responsible for pornography's proliferation. Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible." ... 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.

According to one FBI agent tasked with tracking pornography, "I think we're going after the bad guys and we're making a difference." You see, according to Republican administrations (notice that these prosecutions mostly stopped under Clinton), people who sell sex are the "bad guys." It doesn't matter if they sell really hard-core stuff or light fluff - what counts is whether their activities contribute to the pervasiveness of pornography in society.

What does that mean? It means that pornography per se is what is evil. There is no distinction between "acceptable" material and material that goes "over the line." Anything sexually explicit is unacceptable. Anything sexually explicit must be stopped - for our own good. We need to be protected from the imminent threat of pornography just like we needed to be protected from the imminent threat of Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Who knows, maybe pornography is the new Al Queda weapon to undermine a godless America!

Read More:

Comments
February 18, 2007 at 10:11 pm
(1) Wonn Roppots says:

It’s greed, the multibillion dollar per year porn industry that puts money in the pockets of cable companies, internet companies and porn companies…but it’s an industry that is destroying America. Porn is extremely destructive to America. In 1997 several porn stars had AIDS!
What does that tell you? How many performers cried in Mexico, because they really didn’t want to be in that part in those porn scenes that were released in America? Not everything is actually consented! Not all performers knew back in the 1990′s that the contracts meant the scenes would be exploited all over the internet and junkmail spammed to all of America. In fact some performers would have never did the scenes at all if they knew it would be exploited all over the internet, all over cable TV and all over the world. When half of the women in America are single women and not married or in a lasting relationship…how can you say porn is healthy? It is rough and bad for what men think about women after watching porn. Porn is not educational. It is a mistake that is over exploited all over the internet and all over the world. And if performers knew about the internet who were in the films back then had a choice…it would be…eat dirt and starve…rather than be in some smutty film. Why can’t all the people in America have their freedom of choice to VOTE whether America wants porn shops, porn internet, porn from America all over the world? Most women in America would vote against porn! Let America vote!!

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.