We Call It Our "Wet Spot" Strategy

Julian Sanchez | August 31, 2005

Apparently, the multifarious Wars on Terror, Drugs, Organized Crime, and Littering are all going so very, very well that the Department of Justice sees nothing amiss with making porn—that's plain ol' consenting-adults porn—its top enforcement priority. In a rare display of sanity, other law enforcement officials are showing some reluctance to fall in line:

Acosta, a Miami native who formerly held a high-level position in the Justice Department, is having a hard time persuading other law enforcement officials in South Florida, including his own assistant U.S. attorneys, to join the anti-porn crusade.

Sources say Acosta was told by the FBI officials during last month's meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales' mandate.

Acosta's meetings with other law enforcement agencies also were not particularly fruitful, sources said.

Bonus I-just-threw-up-in-my-mouth-a-little moment: A flak from some family values groups trots out the "for the children" argument, despite the fact that this will mean fewer agents to track down actual child molesters.

Comments

|8.31.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Julian, don't you know that a child molester only victimizes one child at time while a photograph of two consenting adults having sex uploaded to the internet can victimize tens of thousands of people at once? Get your priorities straight man!

|8.31.05 @ 10:38AM|#

For the love of God, won't somebody please think of the children?!?

Jeff P.|8.31.05 @ 10:46AM|#

First of all, a DEA official named "Acosta" is pretty funny. I'm certain his pals Molesto and Larcenia agree.
Secondly, I need to ask again: If porn is a "billion dollar industry," where is its PAC?
Perhaps they misunderstand the phrase "greasing palms."

|8.31.05 @ 10:47AM|#

I really think that most (if not all) of these anti-sex prudes have some pretty deep perversions hidden within. They are unconsciously very angry at themselves and deal with it by lashing out at the outside world. There is very little logic in this way of thinking.

|8.31.05 @ 10:48AM|#

If porn is a "billion dollar industry," where is its PAC?

I recall reading several years ago in the LA Times that they'd sent somebody to Sacramento to lobby.

But, honestly, a PAC would do them more harm than good. As soon as they endorsed a candidate that person's defeat would be assured....oh, I see!

|8.31.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Perhaps they misunderstand the phrase "greasing palms."

Sargeant Prostitua doesn't get involved in that kind of kinkiness.

|8.31.05 @ 10:52AM|#

"But, honestly, a PAC would do them more harm than good. As soon as they endorsed a candidate that person's defeat would be assured"

While I doubt that it could actually collect much funding, a "negative" PAC strikes me as a clever idea in principle, particularly for influencing primaries.

Jeff P.|8.31.05 @ 10:57AM|#

A porn PAC would certainly have some, um, persuasive forms of showing support, no?

|8.31.05 @ 11:03AM|#

"A porn PAC"

They are the first people I'm inviting to my fundraising luncheons...

|8.31.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Mr. Nice Guy--

I think the problem in their heads is twofold: one, a belief that sexual desire (as opposed to sexual activity) is inherently sinful; and two, a belief that I (meaning the anti-porn person) am basically sin-free. Therefore, anything which makes me feel sexual desire MUST be evil, because you know I'd never have any impure thoughts if left to my own devices!

Scratch beneath the surface of their rationalizations, and people like Acosta aren't any different from the Arabs who will, in the name of protecting women's "purity," pour acid in the face of any woman who shows hers in public. Had Acosta been born and raised in Iraq rather than the USA, he'd be one of the bastards trolling the streets of Baghdad this minute attacking non-burka'd women.

Jeff P.|8.31.05 @ 11:12AM|#

In all seriousness, porn is often mistakenly tied to a number of crimes, has some less-than-noble skeletons in its closet, is the target of lots of blanket legislation, and has lots of money.
Every other industry that fits those four criteria has a PAC.

|8.31.05 @ 11:32AM|#

Fucking IS a way of thinking of children!!

|8.31.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Jennifer,

I agree with your analysis of the thought process of the puritanical zealot. I also think they want to deprive others from access to porn because they don't want other folks having sexual desires and sexual pleasures if they can't.

The same applies to the war on drugs. Puritans do not want to allow others from escaping from reality or enjoying the pleasures of chemistry. They feel that they have to spend each waking moment with their face in their daily muck, so they will be damned if anyone else should be allowed to escape this same fate.

|8.31.05 @ 12:30PM|#

I'm sure glad they're taking agents out of the crimes against children unit. Anyone know some good child porn sites? I've always been curious.

|8.31.05 @ 12:58PM|#

The porn industy's PAC is called the Free Speech Coalition. They have a graphic of a bunch of porn chicks re-enacting the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. I kid you not.

John Ashcroft made obscenity prosecutions such a high priority in 2001 that FBI agents were actually taken off of other beats, including anti-terror, to free up manpower. Oooops.

|8.31.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Anybody happen to see the King of the Hill episode that aired the other night? About the campaign by Peggy Hill and two other neighborhood women to save the school's canceled after-school program? Which quickly degenerated into a nasty internecine brawl for political control of the school board?

Catchphrase: "IT'S FOR THE FREAKING CHILDREN!"

drf|8.31.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Joe: kinda makes you wish ashcroft actually beat the dead guy......

Stevo: (re: freudian dreams). Maybe that is the show you should stop watching before nighty-night and not Hogan's Heroes..... hmmmmmmm.

Crushinator: you're just saying that because yer paw wouldn't let you go out with Bender.:)

|8.31.05 @ 1:46PM|#

John Ashcroft made obscenity prosecutions such a high priority in 2001 that FBI agents were actually taken off of other beats, including anti-terror, to free up manpower. Oooops.

But that's not the really bad part, Joe.

The really bad part is that he kept porn such a high priority when the WTC was a pile of rubble.

|8.31.05 @ 1:47PM|#

Jennifer:

I think these assholes would portend that BOTH sexual desire and activity are sinful. The one exception for the latter is between a MARRIED man and woman, lights out, missionary position, and soley for the intention of having children.

Fundie sex must be amazing. In total darkness, the wife pulls up her housedress and grunts "get it over with". God forbid that she make any other kind of motion or utterance.

Man, that makes me hot.

drf|8.31.05 @ 1:52PM|#

And, Mr Guy:

you could chant about walking through the valley of death. or, here, the canyon of life????????

YODELLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

|8.31.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy's description of fundy sex makes me think there is a market for orgasm inhibitors. Fundys could take it so that they won't feel the pleasure when they engage in the disgusting, sinful act. They can feed it to their kids so that they won't ever commit Onanism or disgustingly, sinfully fornicate with their boy/girlfriend. They can export it to the fundy Muslims and fundy Jews who are as disgusted by sexual pleasure as they are. Are fundy Hindus and Buddhists sexual freaks too? If so, it's a world-wide market. 'Cept maybe Thailand.

Ooo, and they can feed it to those bonobos that are always sticking any available member in any available orrifice. 'Cause God knows, sex-for-pleasure is wrong in the animal kingdom too. At the very least, they are bad examples for our impressionable children.

Yes sir, there is gold in them thar orgasm inhibitors. Anyone want to help me out with venture capital?

|8.31.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy and Portlander,

look: fundies .

|8.31.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Fundie sex must be amazing. In total darkness, the wife pulls up her housedress and grunts "get it over with". God forbid that she make any other kind of motion or utterance.

For the record, most evangelical / fundamentalist couples I know of have a healthy sex life, and admit to liking sex. Although I'm sure there are people out there who still hold to the idea that sexual activity of any sort is sinful, most today would say that only extramarital activity of any sort is sinful. Sex inside of marriage is good, and not at all sinful. The radical ones think that premarital sex is better than getting married just to have sex, and that people who "live in sin" are effectively married (at least in God's eyes), so that sex in those relationships isn't sinful.

The anti-porn crusades come out of a deep-seated belief that porn cheapens sex, and threatens the relationship between husband and wife, so it's wrong to make and distribute. It's not necessarily that they're puritanical (though there are plenty of those sorts, too); it's that they have very, very different ideas about the role of sex in society. Give them the credit they're due - wrong they may be, but they're not evil.

|8.31.05 @ 2:28PM|#

I'm having a brainstorm. I'm going to start a fundamentalist porn site that has totally black pictures of darkened bedrooms. I'll also have audio clips where you MIGHT hear a bedsheet ruffle or a mattress creak.

I'll be interviewing any interested girls. They must be of pure body, mind, and soul. And also have big..um, eyes..

|8.31.05 @ 2:33PM|#

"The really bad part is that he kept porn such a high priority when the WTC was a pile of rubble."

Yes, but the 9/11 attacks only killed about 3000 people, while pornography spiritually kills millions each year!

drf|8.31.05 @ 2:33PM|#

"They must be of pure body, mind, and soul. And also have big..um, eyes.."

does their vision improve when they get cold????

incorporate the Original Whizinator (r) with your idea, and I know a fellow who could get some funding for the fundies.

|8.31.05 @ 2:38PM|#

grylliade:

Points well taken, but they are indeed "evil" when they seek to impose their puritanical beliefs on anyone besides themselves.

That includes whining to the government to ban any consensual behavior between adults.

|8.31.05 @ 2:40PM|#

"does their vision improve when they get cold????"

I think you got the points :)

|8.31.05 @ 2:49PM|#

"But that's not the really bad part, Joe.

The really bad part is that he kept porn such a high priority when the WTC was a pile of rubble."

I don't know about that. IIRC, the investigations were dropped and there weren't any obscenity cases brought by the Justice Deptartment for years after 9/11. No?

|8.31.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Are fundy Hindus and Buddhists sexual freaks too? If so, it's a world-wide market.

Nope. Fundie Hindus are actually the folk who brought you the Kama Sutra. And Buddhists? Well, they just don't care about anything now do they? But, that'll be a good thing; God's Chosen pack of wild Fundabeasts will be able to overrun them that much easier. I mean, without sex to preoccupy people, they have to resort to war, don't they?

I actually have a Victorian How-To guide to for new brides that advises them to "close their eyes and think of the Queen" while their husband is doing his dirty, sinful business. I like to think that it was written by crypto-lesbians who were trying to soften society up for their planned gynocracy. It's much less depressing that way.

|8.31.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Just close your eyes and think of Pat Robertson...

|8.31.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Shem: You mean the same queen who didn't believe there could be such a thing as lesbianism?

|8.31.05 @ 6:10PM|#

In light of certain scientific advancements in the last three or four decades, you'd think that the fundies would completely forgo creating children the old-fashioned way, and simply resort to invitro fertilization.

Perhaps they could extract the man's godly seed with a syringe.

See? No pleasure, a pinch of pain, and ten times the piety. Jesus would, I'm sure, turn a cartwheel.

|8.31.05 @ 6:16PM|#

Yes sir, there is gold in them thar orgasm inhibitors. Anyone want to help me out with venture capital?

See Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House.

|8.31.05 @ 6:53PM|#

IIRC, the investigations were dropped and there weren't any obscenity cases brought by the Justice Deptartment for years after 9/11. No?

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5022/LEGAL/pornography/ indicates indictments brought in 2002 by the DoJ. But I do find references to Ashcroft pursuing far fewer obscenity prosecutions than either Reno or Gonzales.

|8.31.05 @ 7:48PM|#

Do you guys have a problem with people who assume that anyone who wants drugs legalized just wants to get high?

If so, why are you assuming the worst about those you disagree with on this issue?

|8.31.05 @ 10:52PM|#

It's not necessarily that they're puritanical (though there are plenty of those sorts, too); it's that they have very, very different ideas about the role of sex in society. Give them the credit they're due ? wrong they may be, but they're not evil.

It is also worth noting that the major feminist groups are also vehemently anti-porn, anti-prostitution, and generally anti-adult-entertainment. Which is why the Democrats are also anti-porn, although of course not as much so as the Republicans.

|9.1.05 @ 1:00AM|#

What I'm missing is this: What is there to prosecute?

Porn featuring consenting adults is still legal. Are they chasing down 7-11 Clerks who don't card as well for titty-mags as they do for tobacco? Teens browsing google-image-search for thumbnails of nudie pics? Who would be the butt-end of this prosecution?

What Law Is Being Broken?