Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the let's-vote-on-this-instead dept.

United States 574

Everyone knows how boring a debate on a controversial abortion bill can get on the Senate floor. So it's no wonder that Florida State Sen. Mike Bennett took the time to look at a little porn and a video of a dog running out of the water and shaking itself off. From the article: "Ironically, as Bennett is viewing the material, you can hear a Senator Dan Gelber's voice in the background debating a controversial abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.' Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

cancel ×

574 comments

Florida (2, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086356)

I think it is safe to say we earned our Fark tag the hard way.

Re:Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086824)

If this was Fark, someone would have already posted the source by now.

Re:Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087010)

But you make it look soooo easy.

I don't see what the big deal is (4, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086366)

You liberal nerds are just jealous you don't have female coworkers sending you naughty pictures.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is (1)

Kleppy (1671116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086494)

Our Corporate Policy is that you are only in trouble/punishable if it's sent BY you and not TO you.

It however mentions nothing about opening and viewing the material, or at least I saw no information on viewing. I would think you'd only be in trouble if it anyone else found it offensive or impaired your ability to perform your job (beyond the obvious sexual arousal).

Re:I don't see what the big deal is (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086728)

Her and three of her nude friends?

Re:I don't see what the big deal is (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086738)

Dude. He was also looking at video of a dog.

Bingo (2, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086934)

Bingo. It seems to me like the bigger "crime" is that he's not paying attention to doing his job. He'll then have to vote on that issue, and I'm hard pressed to imagine how watching bikini babes or dog videos is going to help him make an informed choice.

Re:Bingo (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087064)

I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

Porn..... (4, Funny)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086372)

now available in SEC and Senator flavors.

Fire him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086404)

next topic..

Hmm... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086418)

...anyone else surprised that porn isn't blocked as per the IT policy for the Senate? Or am I expecting too much?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086498)

Wow... I'd hate for you to be MY admin! Sheesh.

Re:Hmm... (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086514)

Do you have a filtering system that can identify pornography inside a video file inside a zip archive?

Re:Hmm... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086636)

You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086772)

You force your users to send each file in a large group of files individually and uncompressed?

(no, .tar.gz/.tar.bz2/.7z/etc/etc is not an answer here, they can all carry pornography)

Re:Hmm... (1)

IshmaelDS (981095) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086918)

I don't but I do quarantine any attachements that are archive's or executables and require them to get in touch with our helpdesk to download them. We have the ability (depending on who you get on the helpdesk they may have to go to a more senior tech) to view and scan the files to make sure they are business appropriate and virii free.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086948)

you can trace .zip files renamed as .zip.stopthat ?

Re:Hmm... (1)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087132)

Yeah, I'd have thought this was pretty trival. A lot of files have some kind of signature that identifies what type of file they are, often in plain text at the start of the file. This would presumably make basic filtering based on file contents pretty easy - ie if it starts with 'PK' and has binary content, I'd be guessing it's a zip. And if it starts with GIF, PNG or JFIF I'll be forwarding it to my special private server.

The only excuse for a file filtering program not to do this would be that the mail server was under too much load to MIME-decode and examine each attachment - but then most corporate mail servers will be running virus scanners which will need to do this anyway, so that's a pretty weak argument.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087038)

You force your users to send each file in a large group of files individually and uncompressed?

No, that's what FileNet, SharePoint, eRoom, and Documentum are for.
Upload the files to a CMS and send out a link; the above vendors even provide add-ons to automatically strip attachments and replace them with links to uploaded versions.

E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Me! Me! 42 (1153289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087076)

You allow your users to send and receive e-mail?

Re:Hmm... (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086860)

If you do, GP, share. I still have to find all my good user porn manually by reading their emails and looking through their files.

Re:Hmm... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086794)

I'm sure it is, and you know there are NEVER any holes in blocking technology.

Re: Or am I expecting too much? (0, Flamebait)

snikulin (889460) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086802)

Hey, Jesus does it too!

Re:Hmm... (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087050)

Yeah, you're expecting too much. Restrictions on the capabilities of the offices of elected representatives can be construed as disenfranchisement of the people he/she represents. Imagine if they were required to personally go through some labyrinthine process before they could actually cast votes. Or if their internet filter was so strict they could never use the internet to learn about issues facing them.

So, expecting that representatives have to follow the dictates of the IT cadre is a bit much.

Not that they should ever need to look at porn, but it's an issue of how aggressive the filter should be.

Porn? It is censored! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086422)

The video appears to be censored. Hard to call it porn when what he appears to be seeing is nothing worse than what is available on daytime over the air TV.

Hardly qualifies as porn (5, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086438)

Risque or naughty, maybe. Still, the guy should have been paying more attention to his job.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (2, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086504)

being topless in most places is not an actual crime.

It only becomes a crime when women go topless for money in public.

You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.

Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (0, Troll)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086560)

Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.

Wait... What?

So it's only porn if it's illegal?

What the frack are you talking about?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086614)

I know what I'm talking about, what the frak are you talking about?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086834)

Anyone who uses the term 'frak' is an obvious moron and should have no say in any forum. Speak English not some fucking geek speak. You probably talk about the characters on your favourite shows as if they are real. Get out of the basement.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086768)

Depends on where those most places are. In most places in the US it is illegal (indecent exposure). NY state, Maine and a few beaches in CA are about the limits of legal female topless-ness. Oh and maybe a few places up in Oregon and Washington state.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086828)

Umm... no one said it was a crime... do you understand why looking at photos of nude women while at work is not acceptable behavior?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086916)

No, especially for senators. If they paid less attention to making new laws, we'd have far fewer problems.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (2, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086988)

Yes.

Now, do YOU understand that the image was:

A) Of Bikini-clad women. Not nude, and not even (as TFA falsely states) topless.

B) E-mailed to the Senator uninvited and unannounced, with a deceptive filename.

C) Sent by a female co-worker.

Basically, it's looking more and more like this Senator got Punk'd.

But hey, let's not let a few facts get in the way of a salacious story! This IS /. after all.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086994)

Really?

what about my friend that works HR for a stripper club?

I am certian it's not only acceptable behaivoir, but expected!

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087046)

Strip-clubs have HR departments?

Wow. Who'd-a thunk it?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086832)

Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086894)

You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.

Creative commons for boobs?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086752)

Maybe he already made up his mind how he wanted to vote?

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086928)

That's pretty much a given. Almost nothing ever actually comes to the floor for debate until at least sixty senators have already made up their minds about their vote. Anything actually happening on the Senate floor is purely grandstanding for the public, aside from the actual voting.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087262)

Not only that, but it was an abortion bill they were debating. Zero chance that that debate was going to change anybody's mind.

If there's a problem here, it's that the Florida Senate is wasting time with the sideshow instead of just cutting to the vote.

Just some lame rag trying to stir up controversy.

Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086976)

Asking a senator to pay attention?

Next, you will ask they actually read and understand the bill they are voting on...

You forget how this country works.

A setup (5, Informative)

Rurik (113882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086442)

Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

Re:A setup (3, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086596)

Honestly, I would rather my senetor [wikipedia.org] spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.

Re:A setup (3, Insightful)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087058)

Damned skippy. About the least harmful thing a Senator can do on the Senate floor is to look at porn. Given their innate gift of being able to fuck up anything up to and including a wet dream, I'd even rather they be having a full on circle jerk than doing what they've been doing. It wouldn't be near as big of a national embarrassment as the shit they've been passing as law.

Re:A setup (0)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086680)

Uh, wow. And I suppose the big "Sunshine News" logo was actually in the room? And the guy just repeated the exact same action twice??

It's EDITED, you dolt! You think a news organization would put that online _without_ censoring the naughty bits??

Re:A setup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086786)

Apparently you missed the point. The girls aren't naked.

Re:A setup (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087178)

And apparently you can't read. The girls are NOT topless! The black bar wasn't needed. It was added to provide the impression that the girls were topless, thus increasing the salaciousness and "newsworthiness" of the story.

I'm thinking YOU are the "dolt" here.

Re:A setup (2, Funny)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086698)

He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time...

Actually, not even that is automatically wrong.

I Don't Think So (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086758)

Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

I disagree. If you zero reference the women from left to right, women one and three have no visible straps that would hold the top part of their bikinis up. While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material. I do agree that he was just opening up an NSFW e-mail sent him to him and it didn't look like he was "viewing" it as it seemed to be closed as soon as his brain registered what he was looking at. Three seconds and then closing the window is not really "looking at porn" in my book. Accident at best. Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work [photobucket.com] .

Re:I Don't Think So (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086890)

While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material.

http://www.google.com/search?q=strapless+bikini [google.com]

I love the US. At least the parts of it I've visited (San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas and New York). I still don't get you though. Where's the porn?

(Maybe it's because I'm Swedish ... )

Re:I Don't Think So (4, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087122)

There is no porn; the prudish sects of America are showing up for this one.

Re:I Don't Think So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087080)

Slashdot has embarrassed me at work

Well Slashdot these days is embarrassing in general...

Re:A setup (3, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087206)

He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time

Whereas reading Slashdot on a private employer's time is perfectly acceptable.

Re:A setup (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087302)

Mod this man (or women) informative.

Missing the Point (2, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086450)

I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

Re:Missing the Point (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086508)

This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

Re:Missing the Point (1)

weszz (710261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086624)

unless he's an independent (and not just a democrat or republican who ran as an independent), I would say yes.

Re:Missing the Point (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086724)

Then why is it important that he pays attention?

Why is it even important that he actually goes to the voting?

He could simply send a memo saying "This year I vote whatever [party leader name] votes" with the exact same result.

Everything else is self delusion.

Re:Missing the Point (1, Troll)

ig88b (1401217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086642)

My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

It depends. If he's a republican, yes. If he's a democrat.. maybe.

Right now, all republicans are voting along party lines but only some democrats are.

Re:Missing the Point (4, Interesting)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086850)

That's primarily because they are in full lock down right now due to their deep minority status. Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on. When there is some wiggle room in the balance of power certain legislators are able to put their vote counter to the party because it won't matter. The democrats did exactly the same thing when they were backed into a tight minority in the 90s. Welcome to the game that is American politics.

Wait until the census comes out and the gerrymandering begins! Then we'll see some gamesmanship.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087274)

Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on.

You have to wonder about the people who blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship these days. Sheesh! When will Republicans stop being the party of no [time.com] and instead of seeking to stop the opposition, instead start beginning to work for what they want?

Re:Missing the Point (1)

Jer (18391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087134)

My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

Probably, given that he's a Republican Senator and the bill was about abortion. He was probably only in the room to make sure there was a quorum. Or waiting his turn to get his own bloviations on the bill read into the record.

And as far as this:

This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

First - State Senator. Not Federal Senator. State Senator. Meaning that he's voting on bills that affect the state of Florida.

Second - All Senators have a staff. The staff does most of the work. They read the bills, summarize it all into a nice set of bullet points, and work with the Senator to figure out how to vote or what changes to recommend or if this is a good bill to demagogue against to score political points. If you're lucky, you've elected a Senator who is really good at finding smart people to do that work. The debate that goes on on the floor of a state Senate (or even the Federal Senate) isn't there to change anyone's minds - it's there to put things into the record and to give people who like to bloviate their opinions in the Senate an opportunity to do so. It's a nice fiction that we teach children that the debate on the Senate floor actually matters, but like Santa Claus it doesn't work that way. The real debates go on behind closed doors in people's offices and at whatever clubs the Senators frequent while they drink with their friends after hours. The horse trading and vote getting is done behind closed doors - the "debate" on the floor is for covering asses, demagoguery, getting good sound bites that might make the news, and impressing the other Senators with your rhetorical skills.

The fact that he was apparently checking his mail while one of his colleagues was performing his role in the voting ritual doesn't really offend me all that much. His vote was decided long before he hit the floor of the Senate and he's there to carry out his part on the ritual. On the other hand, if his story is bullshit and he was surfing the web rather than doing something at least somewhat productive with his forced down time he should be openly mocked and ridiculed.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086558)

Bills are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages of legalese, constructed by dozens of staffers over the course of several months. Bills don't get written on the senate floor, they get written literally in back room offices by people at least one, and usually two levels removed from the actual representatives, and then summaries are made and distributed. The 'debates' on the floor are seldom more than grandstanding their views, as opposed to anyone trying to convince each other of anything.

So, while I agree with you in principle, there probably is little to no reason for him to pay attention in that situation.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

weszz (710261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086710)

Maybe we should drop the whole deal and vote on the back office people... put some term limits on staffers perhaps? Or find some way to make them do more than know the summary...

I know I wouldn't get too far if someone only gave me summaries of the projects I work on...

Re:Missing the Point (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086568)

What if he was reading his email?

Don't tell me you've never gotten silly emails like that from friends or family?

Re:Missing the Point (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086748)

So his ears don't work because he's looking at something else for mere seconds? Please. I do all sorts of little non-work things between work things in order to maintain focus. If I did nothing but work at all times I would literally fall asleep.

This is nothing but manufactured outrage to make political hay. If I were in Florida I'd be more likely to vote for the guy now than before, since it seems to me Republican-or-no he's probably not some too-tightly-wound moralist of which there too many on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

aliddell (1716018) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086814)

voting on bills that will affect his entire state.

Fixed that for you. He's a *state* senator.

Re:Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086840)

Have you ever watched a senate "debate"? It's no debate at all. It's just a serious of blow-hards taking turns repeating their side's hyperbole and rhetoric over and over until they run out of time, punctuated by people asking to have their statements for/against this disastrous/historic/evil/essential/anti-american/pro-american bill entered into the record.

You're missing the point. (1)

itomato (91092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086986)

This was a *Florida* Senate session, not the USA.

About the most important thing they could discuss right now is that fucking sea-floor oil geyser.

They're pitching an abortion bill around - have been for twenty years. Bo-ring.. Bring on the state of emergency and the hardcore discussions about what resources to deploy to LA.

Also, I don't know about you, but I happen to find appropriately aged girls in bikinis extremely inspiring and rejuvenating, especially when they arrive unexpectedly during an 82-degree senate session.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

Mr_Perl (142164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087164)

I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

State Senator. Unless you're one of the tea party secessionists you'd probably not call a state your entire country.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087272)

Didn't we have this very same debate about a week ago, except with pilots and videogames?

Just because he's a politician doesn't make what he did automatically wrong.

Doggie porn? (2, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086462)

Looks innocent enough to me. If I were an American (or even a human being), I would be inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, whatever else I might think of him. He's obviously not spending time trawling through hardcore sites - his friend just needs a NSFW tag.

Give a dog a bone . . . ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086648)

Live, in your Senate . . .

Sad (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086466)

The saddest part is that the repercussions of these actions wouldn't be the same if he was browsing any other, not job related, content.

Not weird discussing legislation whileviewing porn (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086532)

This guy did something similar while they were debating the law that made it illegal for monkeys to piss in their own mouths.

If they have porn on the floor... (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086554)

...this is clearly a janitorial problem.

Porn isnt the issue (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086666)

Its that he was doing personal activities while 'on the job'. He wants to watch porn, fine, but do it while on his own time.

Email? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32086672)

It looks to me like he's opening email messages and one had that picture while another had the video attached. Notice he doesn't stay on either very long but flips back to the same original web page. Very possible that those were two attachments and he was working through his email and happened upon them. But notice that he didn't dwell on either -- just opened them and flipped back to the email.

If that's the case, he needs some slashdotters to give him a security / virus / spyware debriefing, but that's about it.

Do as I say, not as I do (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086706)

What I find most interesting is that Florida State Senator Mike Bennett represents District 21. That district, encompassing zip code 342xx, still has laws that ban pornography.

He has a bright future... (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086734)

...as a future SEC employee!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Not Porn (4, Insightful)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086760)

It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

Re:Not Porn (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086900)

Not when one is a Republican, the party of (check their anti-sex, anti-personal-freedom-other-than-Second Amendment) voting record before modding me) the Christian Taliban.

Re:Not Porn (2, Informative)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087098)

It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

I agree, but tell that to John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, most of the GOP, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now wants to modify the State Seal, because the Roman goddess Virtus has a bare breast. [washingtonpost.com]

Hate to defend the guy. . . (5, Insightful)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086792)

. . . but it looks like he might be telling the truth. The video doesn't let us see how long it was up or how he opened the picture, but when he closes the browser, you can clearly see Firefox's download window open. It certainly looks like he had opened the photo as an email attachment.

Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

Re:Hate to defend the guy. . . (1)

alex-tokar (1727590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087118)

Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

Is he? For a second there I thought that read "Mozilla Internet Explorer 6"...

Florida perv capitol of the world... (0, Flamebait)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086892)

...so it's no wonder he's looking at porn, or bikini clad women. What's worse is he's republican and they were debating an abortion bill and women's rights... ironic to say the least that he's there surfing the net and looking at porn pics and doggie videos. I bet he does that all the time and completely wastes tax payers money. I live in florida and I can tell you it's the perv capitol of the world. Florida has the most sex offenders, the most perv's, and the most lying republican politicians....

That's some twisted logic there, Lou. (0, Flamebait)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086936)

21 comments, and half are along the lines of "I don't see what the problem is".

It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office; no more than the GOP appreciated the SEC doing the same. Nice set of double standards we've got working there.

Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087234)

Stop harping on the "taxpayer" thing. If he's your state Senator, and you think he is less effective because of it, work to vote someone else in. That's it. Spoiler alert: The replacement won't spend every waking minute advancing the interests of his district.

Every white collar organization has some level of waste. Guess what? They hire *people*. People aren't perfect. When you purchase a product, part of the cost of the product was the cost of smoke breaks. Or the cost of their marketing department surfing for porn (or Slashdot for that matter). Expecting every single individual in a government job to be 100% efficient at all times is expecting the impossible, because unlike Santa, we don't have the ability to enslave ceaselessly industrious elves to do all our work for us. Unusual levels of waste should be called out, but checking e-mail (and clicking a link sent to you) while a bill is endlessly rehashed on the floor isn't the same as ordering gold toilets for your office bathroom.

And FYI, I posted a nearly identical defense of the SEC. The staffer who was surfing for porn 8 hours a day should be fired, but for the other guys who did it once or twice a week for a few weeks should be warned and otherwise ignored (assuming no aggravating circumstances). Surfing for porn in a private office is no worse than occasionally browsing Slashdot. This isn't political for me, this is realism. Rejecting every person who occasionally takes a wasteful work break from government employment would mean a government with no employees.

Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087290)

They were hardly "naked". 4 girls, all 4 with bikini bottoms on, 2 with bikini tops on. that's 6 out of 8 pieces of clothing. for 80% not naked.

It was a reply... (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32086938)

"Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

She sent it in response to his "tits or GTFO" text message.

Contents of the email... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087028)

Here is what the email said:

"Hey Sparky,
Just wanted to send you a little hello from me and my girls in Florida. Missed you at spring break teddy bear. Here's a shot of me and my friends. They can't wait to meet you."

Lowering standards (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087142)

Do you call that porn?

Come on, folks. We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more. That photo isn't more than R-rated.

Lenovo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087190)

US Senators are being issued laptops produced by Lenovo?

I guess they must have under bid their competitors.

Lenovo must figure that they'll be able to make up the difference in other ways. *coughspwarechips*

PORN ? (5, Insightful)

dindi (78034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087204)

I am sorry, I know I am from Europe, where being topless is just the norm sometimes even in a park, but calling a picture of 5 topless women PORN is a little bit of an overreaction.

I am not saying, that everyone viewing your private crap behind you in congress, and watching this kind of crap on any meeting is right, but it is not PORN.

Besides, he is at work. How many of us looked at this article/video at work? Well, then I guess we cannot throw the 1st stone at him.

OMG America Can't Be That Uptight (2, Insightful)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087228)

There was nothing on that screen that you would not see on any beach outside of the U.S. aside from the black censorship bar covering their tits.

And besides, the more time politicians spend looking at porn the less time they have to fuck up the country.

Give the guy a break... (4, Insightful)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087268)

It looks like he opened up the mail and then closed it right away. That stuff happens, even at work. People have sent me NSFW things before without warning that I've opened up and -quickly- closed.

Also, since when is a row of girls wearing swimsuits (maybe a few are topless) 'porn'?

Give the dude a break.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...