Beta
×

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!

FBI Agents Put New Focus on Deviant Porn

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the how-do-you-explain-that-at-thanksgiving dept.

The Internet 1003

ErikPeterson wrote to mention an Ars Technica article discussing the FBI's new emphasis on online pornography. From the article: "Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults."

cancel ×

1003 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's deviant? (5, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639637)

Girl on girl? Black on white? The butt? Golden showers? DVDA?

Since deviance is obviously in the eye off the beholder, I suggest the FBI should begin by carefully cataloguing each type of porn, and then publishing a free,
up-to-date directory of all these deviant sites, so that we can add it to our firewalls depending on personal preference.

Re:What's deviant? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639678)

Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government.

Re:What's deviant? (4, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639813)

So it’s only illegal if you pull out?

Sooo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639830)

Vaginal cumshots are still legal then? We're all saved!

Re:What's deviant? (1)

displaced80 (660282) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639680)

Indeed.

And conversely, wouldn't it be much safer for us potential consumers of smut to have access to the official Government Sanctioned list of Non-Deviant Pornography?

'Cos... y'know... I wouldn't want to break the law by viewing anything 'deviant'.

*sigh*

Re:What's deviant? (5, Funny)

kentrel (526003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639683)

" JAY

Alright--first, I'll want to tongue your bung while you juggle my balls in one hand and play with my asshole with the other. But don't stick you finger in. Then. I'll wanna pinky you and put it in your friend's brown, while Silent Bob spanks into a Dixie cup. After that, I'll wanna smell your titties, for a while, and you can pull my nutsack up over my dick, so it looks like a Bullfrog. Then I want you to flick at my nuts while your friend spanks me into the same Dixie cup Silent Bob jizzed in. Then we throw the Dixie cup out. " - maybe that is...

Re:What's deviant? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639818)

Haha, now Slashdot is illegal in America.

Glad I live in the EU.

Re:What's deviant? (4, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639693)

From TFA: "The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

Re:What's deviant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639722)

Shit Mark, guess you're going to have to take your webcam down.

Contradictory. (4, Insightful)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639768)

If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value...

According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

In Kansas maybe this two staements would jive, but take a walk through Folsom Street fair in SF and tell me "sadistic and masochistic behavior" between consenting adults isn't within community standards.

I thought foolishly that this shit would stop when Ashcroft left office. I guess not.

Re:Contradictory. (3, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639835)

Good point. And if "community standards" are going to be the dividing line ... get your damn straights out of our sight!! ;)

The current political ideal seems to be modeled on that old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden."

Re:What's deviant? (5, Insightful)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639827)

If content or expression is well within accepted community standards

Which community?

Orlando?
San Fransisco?
Fargo?
Salt Lake City?

Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?

Of course, we can just go back to importing Scanadinavian porn, just like our fathers did back in the 60's.

Re:What's deviant? (2, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639886)

"Or are they going to enforce this based on hundreds of local community standards?" - Yes (as a result of the Miller test, they already do) This is why porn companies avoid Utah like the plague

Re:What's deviant? (5, Funny)

kotj.mf (645325) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639711)

From TFA:
According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

Not much of a clue, but still.

I suppose I can understand an anti-bestiality crackdown. But where's the harm in watching a grown man eat poop?

Re:What's deviant? (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639820)

I suppose I can understand an anti-bestiality crackdown.

Thing is, bestiality porn and bestiality acts aren't illegal everywhere in the country.

This task force is almost certain to exist for the sole purpose of slandering people who the government doesn't like. They may never score a conviction, but they'll be more than happy to publicize how John Doe likes diaper porn or Susie Q does it with dogs. So much for constitutional protections of due process.

Re:What's deviant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639826)

But where's the harm in watching a grown man eat poop?

Ummmmm...

Re:What's deviant? (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639844)

But where's the harm in watching a grown man eat poop?

I guess it's kinda like the harm in clicking on a goatsecx link.

Go get'em FBI!! And don't forget to burn the negatives!!

Re:What's deviant? (1)

snilloc (470200) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639845)

In college, a friend of mine showed me a clip of two chicks eating poop. I hadn't laughed so hard in a long while.

As far as community standards, even ultra-liberal (even pro-fetish) sex advice columnist Dan Savage thinks that poop-eating is out of bounds.

Re:What's deviant? (0, Troll)

benzapp (464105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639733)

Since deviance is obviously in the eye off the beholder

No kidding. All values are arbitrary. Does a Wolf respect the rights of its prey? Does it ask permission before it tries to penetrate a female? You wouldn't have made such an obviously pointless remark if we were talking about ritual murder or snuff films. This is true even though its obvious the biggest threat to this planet is an overabundance of humans who lack any sort of natural predators.

In our hedonistic society, the only rule is if it causes pain, its bad. This of course, has never completely been rectified with people who actually enjoy pain as a part of their sexual experiences. Hedonism has certainly gotten us to accept damn near every sexual pervisity known to man, but S&M still occupies a true subculture status.

Much of what is depicted in S&M related pornography is illegal in certain jurisdictions, and qualifies as battery or worse. So, that is what the FBI is investigating.

Me, personally, I look forward to the day when dualing is considered a legitimate form of dispute resolution. That way, instead of arguing with tools like yourself, I can just shoot you in the face. I mean, if we are going to call for abandoning any and all values, I personally choose natural law over this hedonistic nonsense.

Re:What's deviant? (1)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639877)

Me, personally, I look forward to the day when dualing is considered a legitimate form of dispute resolution. That way, instead of arguing with tools like yourself, I can just shoot you in the face.

Zell Miller reads /.!? Who'd have guessed?

I don't know. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639735)

I really don't know what deviant porn is. Could someone maybe post some links so that I could see what they mean? Just trying to understand..

Re:What's deviant? (1)

metternich (888601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639740)

Supreme Court ruled that pornography can be banned only if it has no artistic merit or is "utterly without redeeming social importance." So in other words, bad porn is illegal but good porn is okay.

Simple. (1)

MacGabhain (198888) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639785)

It's whatever Gonzalez and Mueller don't happen to get off on. So pretty much anything other than gay bondage porn is being targetted.

deviant? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639803)

When I saw the words "deviant porn", these comes to mind

1. giant tentacle monster raping 7 year old girls
2. 5+ men raping bubukka-ing little preschool girl
3. fluid ejection that equals to the $200+ watergun in my backyard

Oh, you mean it's not anime? Geez man, I don't know. Hanime looks pretty deviant to me if you are not interested in tentacle monster....

Re:What's deviant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639846)

When the feds are bored and horney, this is bound to happen. Ya'd think they could find something useful to do.

Re:What's deviant? (0, Flamebait)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639864)

Furries ... hopefully they'll go after the furries!!

fristy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639641)

posty!

Interesting. (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639647)

Isn't this the sort of thing the Taliban did - only to a more restrictive degree?

I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.

Re:Interesting. (4, Insightful)

mtrisk (770081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639704)

RAmen to that, brother. I guess that whole emphasis on fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe was just for show - the real battle is the battle of the sexual deviants!

Either that, or the Justice Department has a new plan to protect the Homeland: by turning the U.S. into a socially suffocating clone of an Islamic Republic, Bin Laden won't have any reason to attack us at all! Three cheers for their heroic insight!

Re:Interesting. (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639712)

I guess since we've won the "war on terror"

We have? I thought the allure of the "war on terror" was that it was a "war" that could never end. Well then.. um.. Mission Acomplished!

we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.

Funny. I was under the impression that the "war on terror" and "the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties" were one in the same. After all, the terrorists might be sneaking communications imbeded into the background of jpg pictures of 90 year old women getting pooped on by robots.

Re:Interesting. (5, Informative)

Homology (639438) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639749)

I guess since we've won the "war on terror", it's we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.

The war on free speech is ongoing, as can be seen in U.S.BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING COUNTRY [zmag.org] :

The internationally renowned correspodent for The Independent -- the great British journalist Robert Fisk -- has been banned from entering the United States. Fisk has been covering war zones for decades, but is above all known for his incisive reporting from the Middle East for more than 20 years. His critical coverage of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation that has followed it, has repeatedly exposed U.S. and British government disinformation campaigns. He also has exposed how the bulk of the press reports from Iraq have been "hotel journalism" -- a phrase Fisk coined.

Re:Interesting. (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639762)

A slippery slop argument is be definition in valid.
"They arrest criminals, Isn't that what the Taliban did - only to a more restrictive degree?"
"They eat soup just like the Nazi's did!"

Thinks like bestiality and some SM porn are considered illegal.

I have to wonder one thing. Isn't it possible that SM really is abuse? I mean just because a person agrees to it does that stop it from being abusive? If so then a lot of battered spouses are not abused? The do not press charges and stay with the person battering them. Could it be that someone that likes being whipped has mental issues and their consent it not valid?

More like what Democrats do to nativity scenes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639822)

Or crosses, or copies of the 10 commandments that might get posted in government buildings.

Re:More like what Democrats do to nativity scenes (1)

Medgur (172679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639862)

He wasn't being partisan. As an obvious example, Democrats voted heavily in favour of the Patriot act too.

Why can't someone lament the failings of government without automatic assumptions of partisanship?

And, frankly, if you want a Christian Government, instead of bitching about those trying to make clear the seperation of church and state, why not push for a core constitutional change that strictly proclaims your country the United States of Christian America? Stop bickering and pretending to compromise, push for what you /really/ want already!

I for one... (5, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639648)

welcome our Puritanical overlords.

Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.

Re:I for one... (1)

technolalia (806467) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639876)

Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.

The 18th century? I for one welcome our sadistic overlords! [wikipedia.org]

Goodbye 1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639654)

Thanks to the "strict constructionists" (except when it comes to speech they don't like) that the conveservatives champion as "defenders of the constitution" on the supreme court (past, present, and future), expect more rulings that defend this sort of attack on our basic freedoms.

Re:Goodbye 1st Amendment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639713)

Come on, what does strict constructionism have anything to do with it? In fact, I would say that a strict constructionist would be less likely to do something like this, because they would see that the literal words of the constitution protect against this, regardless of how they feel. That and strict constructionist is a term used for judges, and this is the Department of Justice, which are prosecutors.

Face it, by strict constructionist, you meant Republican. And by Republican you meant religious zealot. Stop lumping them all together.

Re:Goodbye 1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639728)

I put quotes around it for a reason. That means its not to be taken literally.

Re:Goodbye 1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639746)

Also note that I was talking about supreme court justices, so I dont know what your point was with that either.

It's a Communist witch hunt! (0, Offtopic)

miroth (611718) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639664)

From Mueller: Deviant sexual acts can be used as blackmail by the Ruskies when they recruit Americans to spy for them.

We must win the Cold War!

Wont someone think of the Children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639667)

They'll lose tons of potential customers!

Great (5, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639672)

I would say "Fuck you" to everyone that voted for Bush, but I don't want to go to jail for being "obscene".

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639765)

In all honesty, its comments like this that have relegated the Democratic party to semi permanent minority staus.

Needed for homeland security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639673)

Remember, the money made from Porn and Proprietary Software Sales could both be used to fund terrorism; so it's important that we crack down on both of those evils in society.

Deviant Porn? (4, Interesting)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639675)

Well that’s a relief. Everything else I had read on this matter over the past week indicated that they would be stepping up investigation and prosecution of mainstream pornography.

I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?

This oughta be interesting.

Easy (5, Funny)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639676)

It should be trivial to mobilize ~98% of the slashdot crowd (who would be personally affected by this) to start a DDOS attack against the FBI servers. If only there was a direct link in TFS...

my tapes (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639679)

That does it then. With this news, and the fact that it didn't rank in the top 50 Sci-Fi shows, I'm going to have to dump my Manimal [epguides.com] tapes.

Oh no, not miscigination (4, Interesting)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639682)

Back in the 70's "Black man on white woman" porno was considered obscine.

I have no idea why people want to get all up in other people's grill about pornography. But I don't understand the War on Drugs either, so perhaps I'm just crazy. What with my "utilitarian ethics" and everything.

Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639736)

Back in the 70's "Black man on white woman" porno was considered obscine.

I'm pretty sure "black man on white woman" porn is obscene *today* as well. I have no problems with heterosexual consensual sex between members of the same race, but black men having sex with white women is just disgusting.

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639761)

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe the answer to problems is to allocate money to government programs. Republicans believe the answer is to declare war on it and allocate the money to specific military-industrial contractors.

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (0)

Musteval (817324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639780)

Well, some of them can lead to the abuse of the participants - if you were a horse, YOU wouldn't want to be in bestiality porn, would you? And other than that, at least from a utilitarian viewpoint ... um, people who look at porn aren't contributing to society? Or something?

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639856)

I really dont think the horse gives a shit.

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (1)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639861)

if you were a horse, YOU wouldn't want to be in bestiality porn, would you?

I'd rather be the horse than the woman... :)

Re:Oh no, not miscigination (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639787)

Seriously though, under what logical ethical theory should pornographers be punished?

I believe the theory is known as the "WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" WAPTOC greater theory of social conformity, where by society is deemed to be best lead towards at state where no child can ever encounter an object or idea which may cause them to ask a question that in any way makes their guardians uncomfortable. This theory has the added benefit that when children reach adulthood they will be uncomfortable asking questions of their new "guardian", i.e. the state.

WAPTOC theory also enables both males AND females to remain completely ignorent for the maximum possible time of any details regarding their icky reproductive anatomies, enabling even minimally trained medical professionals to charge exorbident fees for "expertise" otherwise rudimentary knowladge.

Priorities.... (5, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639687)

Is'a always amazing to me to see what priorities the government has about crime. Let me first start off by saying that things like child pornography are truly terrible, and should be investigated and prosecuted.

However, the article also mentions things like urinating and defecating on people, which while I think it is disgusting, is really not hurting anyone, with the possible exception of spreading disease.

It is intersting that they can show the body of a dead hooker on tv, but then thex pixellate the nipple when the camera goes there.

This is a country where graphic depictions of violence is not only allowed, but glorified, but gets in an uproar over a boob at a half time commercial.

We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful.

Re:Priorities.... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639764)

"We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful."

Yes, but there are elections coming up. The current administration can't let Hillary get all the press for thinking of the children, can they?

This isn't a troll, I'm just postulating that the War on Obscenity is escalating...

Our government doesn't exist to benefit the people; it exists to perpetuate itself. What matters to most politicians, at the end of the day, is whether they, and/or their friends, get elected. It doesn't matter if the people are benefited, it only matters that they think they have.

Re:Priorities.... (3, Insightful)

Medgur (172679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639808)

Considering what a huge segment of the market cumshots, BDSM, humiliation, public nudity, and other "deviant" pornography make up I think it's fairly obvious that the American consumers are going to look elsewhere for the product. As such, they'll probably replace all physical porn purchasing with online porn, if they haven't already, from other countries. At the very least this crackdown is only going to hurt the multi-billion dollar American porn industry.

Midget Porn? (5, Insightful)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639696)


Is Midget Porn deviant?

Yes?

What if you are a Midget?

Can a midget watch "large people" porn?

I am scared of deviant midgets I guess...

Re:Midget Porn? (1)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639784)

But....if they ban midget porn...the terrorists have already won! :O

Nothing Better To Do? (4, Insightful)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639699)

Let's see... We have the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. The FBI should have plenty to keep them busy with those first two things. Nope, they want to start a War on Porn.

Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic.

Re:Nothing Better To Do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639774)

Let's see... We have the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs.

So, how is it going so far, in both cases?

Amendment I (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639702)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of "no law" is so hard to understand? By the way, its OK to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when its on fire.

FBI? (1)

SkOink (212592) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639703)

I am federal FBI inspector and I will have to see some of this so-call "Deviant Porn" for Thorough Inspection.

This is good news (0, Redundant)

kst (168867) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639707)

If the FBI has time to spend on this, it's obvious that the War on Terror has been won. Because otherwise, this just wouldn't make any sense at all.

What a waste of my tax dollars. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639710)

People are going to get their porn regardless.

Why not use some of those valuable FBI resources to expose terrorist sleeper cels or something?

Why do they do such wasteful and meaningless things when peoples lives are on the line?

Finally! (3, Funny)

Spetiam (671180) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639716)

Heh, with any luck, they'll go after the goatse posters here.

You Fail It. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639717)

and shouting that Paper towels, ink s4lashes aCross These early

This is F'd up, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639721)

Getting paid to surf for porn sounds like a great job!

It's right up there with getting paid to play video games.

Connection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639724)

Can somebody explain how this connects to September 11 and Terrorism? I want to be reassured that this latest government attack on personal liberty is justified...

Re:Connection? (2, Funny)

Musteval (817324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639801)

Well, you will remember that the terrorists learned all of their flying and hijacking and so on techniques from bestiality porn sites. Now that they'll be closed down, everyone is safer. And remember - we're defending liberty!

Great (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639726)

Although this is hardly a surprise, it is still upsetting to see so much time and money utterly wasted on trying to restrict the activities of consenting adults. Land of the free indeed.

I think (4, Funny)

TCM (130219) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639734)

I think that by deviant they mean this [bash.org] . The FBI agent with the nick BritneySpears14 must have been truly shocked.

Furries (5, Funny)

kahei (466208) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639737)


I am horrified and depressed by this anti-free-speech initiative, UNLESS 'deviant' means 'furry', in which case I am right behind these brave defenders of the constitution.

'Cause there's nothing worse than googling for 'round, firm, tanned buttocks' or whatever, and on the page of images that you get there's a picture of a poorly-drawn cartoon fox spanking a goth rabbit.

Not that I ever google for terms like that, obviously. That'd be utterly pathetic.

Now if you'll excuse me...

How to define deviant porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639738)

Same as all "prurient material" -- I'll know it when I see it.

Well? Where can I see it? Post your favorite deviant porn links here!

(By the way, captcha "corpse [slashdot.org] "....)

Republican here, Bush SUCKS (4, Interesting)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639742)

I am a consercative who happens to side with the republican party more than the others, but I am so pissed at Bush that I cannot see some times: What happened to freedom? What happened to the first ammendment?

Porn isnt evil, music, movies and games are not evil, the real evil is done by the prudish thought police, How long till the feds go to the beaches of Fla or SoCal and hand out baggy t-shirts to the bathing suit clad women there?

BTW could we find Bil Ladin faster if his nude pics were on the web somewhere?

Fantastic! (5, Insightful)

Helpadingoatemybaby (629248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639744)

I am so happy to see that the government is cracking down on the real threats to this nation! Far too long we have put up with pornographers and their damaging effects which could even possibly culminate in losses of life! I can't imagine anything more threatening to this nation than a 17 year old boy wanking violently in his room while looking at deviant nakedness, except possibly naughty words on television, which causes wanking, which causes taking the Lord's name in vain ("Oh god!"). This is a cycle dammit!

If we don't stand up together and fight against this very real threat to the impurity of our nations willies the terrorists will have won! You don't see them wanking off in their spare time! No! They are taking up hobbies, such as flying!

Everybody, I want you to stand up with me now, yes, even those with your spigots in your palms, stand up right now and put your hand on your heart. Now join me in a small prayer to save this nation from all its threats, one of the top of which is hurricane, war causing, terrorism supporting out of control yogurt squeezing. Let us begin:

Oh God!

After all (1)

Borf (18392) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639759)

Porn is a sanctified act between a man and a woman.

Or somesuch I'm sure...

Congress is not empowered to regulate porn (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639776)

This should be enforced by the individual States, who can decide how far they want to go, based on their constituents' beliefs.

violent porn (1)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639777)

I think they're talking more about porn where violence, rape, coercion is depicted, even if fictional. I'm all for cracking down on suck things.

So much for drugs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639778)

Too bad their not going after drugs, considering they are actually harmful to your body.

Hey, Aren't You All Happy? (3, Insightful)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639782)

I guess this means the war on terror is over, we've caught Osama bin Forgotten, and we are 100% disaster proof at this point. Hey, these jerkoffs keep telling me to look at the good side of things. I'm just doing that...

Oh, does this mean we get to search the computers of all these sexually repressed people? In Virginia, sex outside of marriage, not in dark, not vaginal, or not in the missionary position is considered deviant. That makes almost all porn "deviant."

What's illegal? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639789)

From TFA:
So what constitutes criminal obscenity, and how does that relate to our first amendment rights? Under current American law, the Miller test is the means by which the courts determine if content is obscene and consequently not eligible for first amendment protection. The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards.
Is it OK for the law to be that subjective? Which community? You can probably legally sign up for cable channels and magazines which are obscene to some American communities.

Pat Robertson! (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639865)

I'm still waiting for a "V-Chip" that will allow me to block anything with Pat Robertson. That is the kind of deviant obscenity I want to protect my children from!

(No smiley, 'cause I ain't jokin'!)

Ok ok ok.... (1)

caffiend666 (598633) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639794)

How long until the FBI's porn collection rivals the vaticans? How long until the CIA is complaining the FBI doesn't share 'information'? People who think smut has no place in culture have never discovered the joy of stick figure drawings and finger puppets! So, can we now play spot the spook at hentai fest every year? All they really have to do is bring back Janet Reno and start putting ads in huslter saying "She's watching you!" Don't even have to be pornographic....

What the hell is this? (1)

chriswaclawik (859112) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639797)

Why weren't any samples provided for us?

To be more or less specific of what they want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639798)

According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

So much for triumph over the Communications Decency Act. Sigh... http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/ [epic.org]

The place of government (1)

H_Fisher (808597) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639807)

What kind of ridiculousness is this?

It is NOT the place of the FBI to investigate such things. Even if you happen to believe that adult-focused pornography of any type is "wrong" - even if you don't happen to agree that pornography should be viewed as "free speech" - this is not a matter for the Federal government to legislate or investigate. States and municipalities, not the Federal government, ought to be the ones entrusted with such decisions IF they are to be made at all.

Next election, please help vote these Patriot Act-slinging, big-government loving pols out of power. We need less of them.

History repeats (1)

Anna Merikin (529843) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639812)

In the sixties, there was another such push to make "deviant" sexual literature (sic) illegal -- notably the Tropic of Cancer and Lenny Bruce cases.

There was one organization whose methods approached those spoken of in TFA -- and it was headed up by one Charles Keating, who proposed that his ethical standards were so high they should become law.

Yes, the same Charles Keating convicted of felonies around the Lincoln Savings and Loan bailout/debacle.

Beware those who want to control your lives.

Literally "Female Body Inspectors" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639821)

And maybe a few from the HBI*, too.

* - Horse Body Inspector :-)

Nooooo! (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639824)

They'll have to pry my ball-gagging bukkake drinking scat eating tentacle stuffing donkey balling hamster fisting urine drinking gymnastic hermaphroditic obese space alien porn form my cold dead hands!!

Yeah but at least we got freedom right? (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639831)

sing it: "Land of the freeeeee, And the hooooome of theeeee braaaaaaave........."

Really, it's a shame... (1)

Xaroth (67516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639833)

It's a crying shame they won't be able to find anyone to do that job. If only there were a large repository of internet-pornography viewing people somewhere that could be readily tapped...

A Definition (4, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639834)

Sexual Deviant: one so insecure and repressed about their own sexuality that they must impose their twisted views on others.

What's more perverse: having a woman shit in your mouth or dedicating your life to seeking out women shitting in mens' mouths (something you would could never come across by accident) just so you can tell them not to do it?

Well ain't that fan-fucking-tastic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639841)

Our government decides to surf porn to crack down and they get to use a Pete Townsend "we were doing research and investigtation on these websites!" argument.

Ain't that swell!?

The internet... (1)

sourcery (87455) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639847)

...where men are men, women are men, and little girls and boys are FBI agents.

WAR ON KLEENEX (1)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639850)

It has become obvious that the real enemy in this battle isnt the preveors of the porno, but in stead, the vendors of kleenex and other tissue-like products, without their aid and help, this could not happen, any friend of the porn is our enemy -- therefor today I declair a War On Kleenex - as phase one, the entire whitehouse staff, as well as the staffs of both houses have been issued pocket hankercheifs, I recomend this approche to all americans if we are to win this war!

--GWB--

http://www.nowthatsfuckedup.com/ (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13639852)


does this [nowthatsfuckedup.com] count as deviant ?

[WARNING, not for the faint of stomach]

more fun to be had at at http://www.nowthatsfuckedup.com/ [nowthatsfuckedup.com]

consenting adults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639873)

...it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults.
Freedom goodbye, snif...

BDSM Illegal Now? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13639884)

The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." (Emphasis mine)

To the government, does this mean that 'masochist behaviour' is somehow illegal? I'm a masochist - middle-of-the-road extreme, yes, but still a masochist. I like that stuff. It gets me off. and (cluestick!) it doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. I can see the point of cracking down on rape porn, child porn and other things where non-consenting people get hurt, but please, cracking down on BDSM? This takes things too far.

Precisely what are the government looking to achieve? Are they really trying to dictate to me that the only thing that I should enjoy sexually is straight-up missionary-position boringness, with the lights off and my eyes squeezed shut? This messing with what I can and can't enjoy in the privacy of my own home with other consenting adults is getting too much to bear - I'm fine with them fining people or shutting people down for not warning people what they're getting into with some sort of entrance page, or for not informing people that all acts carried out within the content on a given page are performed by consenting adults, but criminal charges? That's rediculous - what would be wrong with a simple disclaimer at the top of every page featuring 'deviant' content saying something like...
DISCLAIMER: All acts portrayed in the media content below are performed by consenting individuals over the age of 18 at time of filming. These acts should not be performed unless you know what you are doing, and should not be performed alone.
That ought to be the limit of the content distributor's liability - that way if little Johnny hangs himself trying sexual axphyxiation, he was at least *told* not to - if that sort of warning can keep shows like Jackass on the air while teaching kids how to set themselves on fire or jump into raw sewage - stuff which kids are likely to see as cool and try - then it ought to be enough to keep content on the net (or on the shelves of dedicated shops, etc) of stuff which, as well as being less likely to be seen as 'cool' like something like Jackass by little Johnny, is also probably no more dangerous.

As for the others - bestiality, yes, this is wrong and should be banned - animals can't consent, obviously. I've no qualms with them banning this, as I'm not a fan of animal cruelty in any form... as for urination and defacation, we're back to the 'consenting adults' thing - who am I (or anyone else) to tell people that want to piss on each other for sexual pleasure that they can't do it, or go looking for it? I'm sorry to keep picking on Jackass, but again, if they can get away with jumping into sewage, sitting in moving portaloos filled with excrement and tipping piss all over themselves, all with just a 5-second disclaimer, why can't 'deviant pornography' that does pretty much the same things get away with it too? Where is the line? This entire exercise is an utterly rediculous attempt at thought-policing.

(Posted as Anonymous Coward to protect the guilty)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>