Who's next? # 2

[Guest Thunderbuns]

When I started the original thread "Who's Next?" I never expected it to become so volatile and so lengthy.

 

In order to save this one from becoming bogged down amidst all the other opinions, I have started a new thread.

 

I heard today on CNN (where else?) a clip about a new law expected to pass in Pennsylvania about the same kind of censorship.

 

Evidently (and I may have some points incorrect but the jist of it will be right) this new law also intends to censor what the state attorney general considers to be pornographic. It will requre an internet service provider to take down any site that displays what is in the opinion of this one man, (the state AG), pornographic. Failure to do so will result in the ISP being charged.

 

While obstensibly aimed at kiddy porn sites it does not apecify that and will give ONE MAN the right to have complete discretion over what is to be considered pornographic and therefore unsuitable for public distribution. In other words, if he doesn't like it - you can't see it!

 

One can, by extension, imagine what will happen if other states think it is a nice little piece of legislation and should be enacted in their state as well.

 

Given the moral framework Asscroft's mind works within, coupled with what I feel is a similar bent from the President and further tempered with the kind of Supreme Court appointees Bush would like to promote,

I can't help but wonder what the future holds for you guys. What has taked decades to become acceptable might be eroded in a few short years.

 

I stand to be corrected. If you think I'm wrong - tell me so. But if I was an American, I would be worried.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest albinorat]

You mean no more self promotion from the aging hair ball, Munroe? How would one live?

 

I'm sure Hoo has lawyers who advise him and there are probably some who post here once in a while.

 

This was a tactic Reagan's people used his first time: get individual states to pass repressive anti-porn laws, rather than try to get them through Congress. Use "child porn" as an excuse.

 

I think the idea was that it would be easier to get a conviction in many state courts where 'values' are conservative than in Federal courts where there are issues of constitutionality, free speech, etc. Once you get a lot of convictions feds can 'piggy back' on them to get around Congress (or so the thinking went).

 

The Reagan/Meese initiatives cast quite a chill for four or so years. But in the event, they failed. The people behind this stuff are rigid nuts, and they target Playboy, Penthouse and other huge selling standard "soft" porn as well as the "harder" stuff (homo is always harder in the eyes of the crazies). The problem is that you can't say pix of hooters and artfully photo-ed snatch is OK but EVERYTHING else is criminal. Not even conservative juries went for that.

 

Secondly video and magazine businesses counter sued effectively -- they could not be responsible for every single image in every single video or zine that could possibly offend someone. The laws began to look anti-business and like big bro meddling, and oddly enough, a % of right wingers were offended by that.

 

So the Criminal Justice Dept started losing cases on appeal and dealt with a grass roots backlash from the very places they expected hard line support (why, even Newt Gingrich probably had a stash of cunt pix under the mattress -- you mean he was going to have to go jail for that?)

 

The biggest successes have been in some cities (like New York) where big porn shops and hustler bars were much reduced. That in turn impacted on prostitution and fly by night porn. But while laws were passed and enforced, what allowed success was real estate values skyrocketing. Ironically it's not only sex businesses that suffered but all smallish, marginal businesses, museums and theaters, from immense rents, heavy taxes, a small army of city regulators and neighbors who having spent fortunes on buying or renting their places did not want commercial endeavors, or "undesirables" even actors and art lovers uglifying the 'hood.

 

Ashcroft is a real and present danger, and flirters with what could be construed as child porn need to be very careful. Wiping that out or at least reducing it to an absolute minimum in USA was the only success of the Reagan/Meese initiatives.

 

But it's hard to roll back progress as even the Soviet Union found out. The fax machine and later the 'Net did a kind of damage to that system that nothing else had. Yes it helped that Reagan and some before him forced the USSR to bankrupt itself on weapons spending, but once they could no longer control the flow of info in the country they couldn't stop effective and wide spread anti-hard line movements.

 

Also, despite the extreme promotion and air time given the "Candyman" bust, it will very likely remain extremely hard to find the majority of sex sites on the 'net and to define jurisdictions where they can be prosecuted effectively. From what I've gleaned about Candyman (they seem to be being secretive) it was a Yahoo group, a Fed noticed it and the ads for it, joined, tipped off his superiors and they started going after individual Americans not neccessarily just for belonging but for making and distributing 'child porn' in USA. Probably to guarantee convictions they tried and I assumed succeeded in getting their targets to use the mails and phones as well as the 'Net.

 

But Yahoo sites were notoriously open, the owners were frequently brazen in soliciting memberships, and there was a lot of naiveté. I'll be curious to see how this evolves and what convictions result. Also how easy is it is to find sites that are not part of such a network and don't solicit so openly?

 

One technique is to use a case like that to frighten people off sex sites. That's more effective and less expensive than constant surveillance that may end up being judged unconstitutional.

 

Child porn is always a no win for the accused. But adult sites are often harder to get. So my guess is long run, Ashcroft will go down in flames. Hard right is often a losing position long term, even the Reagan people cut their ties to them second term and Bush Sr. went even further away from them. For now the sad question is just how many people Ashcroft will take with him and whether he is able to get some stuff into law unwatered down that will haunt free speech for a while.

 

As for this site, as I understand these things (I may not), Prostitution is already illegal in all 50 states, and the laws govern both the prostitute and the john. So theoretically this site is already illegal, assuming it can be proven that it deals in prostitution as opposed to free speech, and the right of free "cyber" assembly. But proving that beyond a reasonable doubt might provide a problem. Also it would mean targeting all forms of advertising ('free speech') that some Fed might think imply a willingness to participate in sexual activities of any kind (can one prove money is being solicited, that it was paid specifically for the sexual act?). Can they afford agents who only comb newspaper personals, bar zines, all gay and straight web sites of all kinds and can they afford to bring actions against ALL sites because someone thinks they are 'suspect'? And can they be sure of getting a large number of convictions?

 

I'm not hopeful, but I'm not too frightened yet. All we can do is wait and see...

 

And since I don't know a thing really about any of this I am certainly full of myself and a word waster!

 

Al

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>So theoretically this site is already illegal, assuming it can

>be proven that it deals in prostitution

 

Huh?

 

Prostitution?

 

What are you talking about? I'm here to trade recipes and helpful household hints.

 

Domestically yours,

 

FFF