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!

Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the excellent-use-of-resources dept.

Censorship 321

kotj.mf writes "The New York Times reports that the Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group, has yet to result a single prosecution for obscenity, despite having generated more than 67,000 citizen complaints. The group, better known for its campaign to have Cosmopolitan removed from supermarket checkout stands, is pushing the Justice Department to more aggressively pursue cases against what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.'"

cancel ×

321 comments

Federal Anti-Obscenity Program ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20194763)

Great idea, it is about time they did something about those religions spreading filth.

oh.. wait.

Re:Federal Anti-Obscenity Program ? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194781)

Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group
Read that over a few times. If it doesn't make your skin crawl, then you really need to read up on your Constitution and maybe a few articles by some Founding Fathers.

Re:Federal Anti-Obscenity Program ? (5, Insightful)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194835)

Have you been asleep for the last 6-1/2 years?

When the decider's attitude is that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper, why should something like this surprise anybody. Compared to his other desecrations of that document, this is nothing.

Pass the buck (5, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194901)

Look: the SOB said, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED THE FIRST TIME, "what this country needs is a little less free speech."

He said this. Openly, in response to attack ads against him. He told everyone where he stood before he even had the chance to govern.

And then these IDIOTS elected him.

Twice.

So whose fault is it that the Constitution is a forgotten document? Our schools are failing us - have been for years. And that ain't shrub's fault. I cannot stand the guy - I personally think he is a traitor to the US Constitution. But it's not like no one knew where he stood. The fact he could even have been elected is a sign of deeper illness in our nation, and we serve no good by blaming everything upon the latest symptom of this disease.

Re:Pass the buck (3, Insightful)

BunnehWyld (1091171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195247)

Look: the SOB said, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED THE FIRST TIME, "what this country needs is a little less free speech." He said this. Openly, in response to attack ads against him.
Not to sidetrack the already-sidetracked discussion, but you wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? See, I voted for him the first time. If I'd ever seen that, I wouldn't have. I'd like to know where I wasn't paying enough attention to, so I can do better research for the NEXT election.

Re:Pass the buck (5, Informative)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195473)

This wasn't exactly what he said, I think... One famous statement, however, was about the parody site www.gwbush.com, and was described by the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] as follows:

When asked at a news conference in May what he thought about the site, Bush let loose, saying it was produced by a "garbage man" and suggesting that "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a line Bush's online critics have vowed to never let the world forget.

Re:Pass the buck (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195571)

The actual line was "there ought to be limits to freedom" dated Monday, November 29, 1999 and found on page A2 of the print version.

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11 /29/002r-112999-idx.html [washingtonpost.com]

This was in response to a parody site Bush was trying to censer during his campaign.

Re:Pass the buck (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195763)

I wish I could find video of it. I only remember seeing it on tv. It was outside and a reporter asked him about it. Apparently this was a line he used more than once, yet I have never found video of it. I didnt hear it second hand - I saw him make the comment - but I have no idea where to find it.

Re:Pass the buck (2, Interesting)

Abjifyicious (696433) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195275)

And then these IDIOTS elected him.

Twice.

Except the first time he wasn't actually elected, and the second time he was "elected" via electronic voting machines. I don't think there's adequate evidence to call the majority of Americans idiots. We've just had the wool pulled over our eyes.

Twice.

Re:Pass the buck (5, Insightful)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195323)

oh, but there's enough evidence to call you spineless cowards for not doing anything about it.

Re:Pass the buck (1)

Thrip (994947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195487)

Except the first time he wasn't actually elected, and the second time he was "elected" via electronic voting machines. I don't think there's adequate evidence to call the majority of Americans idiots.
When you add the 35-40% of those eligible to vote who simply failed to show up (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti ng.html [census.gov] ), to the 30-35% who actually voted for Bush, I think we've established majority stupidity.

Re:Pass the buck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195601)

Except the first time he wasn't actually elected, and the second time he was "elected" via electronic voting machines. I don't think there's adequate evidence to call the majority of Americans idiots.

When you add the 35-40% of those eligible to vote who simply failed to show up (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti ng.html), to the 30-35% who actually voted for Bush, I think we've established majority stupidity.


And you think that showing up would have made a difference? Funny stuff. The only way to stop the evil known as capitalist "democracy" is to reduce voter turnout to a number so low that this sham of a democracy is exposed for what it really is.

The best vote is no vote. I feel pity for those who have bought into the propaganda that says your vote actually means something. It is a strange feeling, a mix of hilarity and tragedy.

Want to invalidate the system and force conditions that will result in a much needed revolution? Don't vote. If nobody votes then the existing power elite can no longer hide behind their puppet government.

Think about it. You know I'm right.

Re:Pass the buck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195397)

So whose fault is it that the Constitution is a forgotten document? Our schools are failing us - have been for years. And that ain't shrub's fault.


Molly? Is that you? I thought you'd died!

Re:Pass the buck (1)

ferd_farkle (208662) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195531)

"
And then these IDIOTS elected him.

Twice."

Depressing. You have quoted me exactly. Only, I was saying it in 1972.

Re:Pass the buck (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195733)

It does seem like Republican presidents have a talent for fucking up the country, doesn't it?

(Let's see how many reaganites that pisses off...)

Re:Pass the buck (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195761)

It does seem like politicians have a talent for fucking up the country, doesn't it?
That looks better.

I'm registered as a Democrat, but I still try to be fair.

Re:Federal Anti-Obscenity Program ? (2, Insightful)

Skillet5151 (972916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195599)

Having read that over a few times, I see now that this is actually a campaign for pornography, which opposes the internet. Right?

Re:Federal Anti-Obscenity Program ? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195741)

Read that over a few times. If it doesn't make your skin crawl, then you really need to read up on your Constitution and maybe a few articles by some Founding Fathers.
Must you Americans run to your founding fathers for every little constitutional rights violation? Sheesh!

(I kid! I kid!)

You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vagina (3, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194865)

To all the religious nutjobs out there I have one thing to say:

You were shoved headfirst through someone's vagina. Why are you acting so dignified? (source: xkcd)

But seriously, think of it this way.

On TV, children will see many thousands of simulated murders long before they're old enough to buy porn. If they copy what they see on TV, it means death for someone and jail for the kids.

It is illegal for children to see even just one simulated sex act before they're of age. If they do manage to get their hands on some and copy what they see, the worst thing that can happen is that they pick up a couple STD's and have a kid.

Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20194983)

maybe all the christian mothers were too posh to push ;)

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag (2, Informative)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195171)

mim@moralityinmedia.org there, guys. Have fun :)

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag (2, Informative)

ricegf (1059658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195071)

@Cordath: "Now, which of these things" (TV violence or porn) "have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"

Well, both, actually. Violence on over-the-air TV has been a major target of religious organizations since the medium graduated from geekdom to mainstream.

People (religious or not) who are offended by violence, public displays of sexuality, and non-normative language have always attempted to drive such behavior out of the public eye and into "red light districts" and alternate media.

Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism. :-)

Anti-religious bigs & evangelism (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195529)

Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism.

It's not just the anti-religious bigots that want to outlaw public evanglism. Well, maybe not outlaw, but definately prevent them from harassing.

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195511)

Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.
They can use it to gain power, but that does not involve a personal buy-in.
The nature of deistic religion means that one is either a Fundamentalist or a hypocrite, and any squalling to the contrary may be regarded as a delusion or a lie.

"Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"

Controlling sex gives social control of the tribe. Encouraging violence towards opponents expands tribal power. Never forget that we are dealing with the belief systems of desert tribesmen, no matter what the modern veneer. Judge them by their works, be they Taliban or Talibaptist.

Nonsense! (1)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195567)

I, for one, was shoved ass-first through CowboyNeal's penis, insensitive clod!

Re:You were shoved headfirst through sombody's vag (3, Funny)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195757)

While I'm not a supporter of the anti-obscenity crowd, the difference is fairly clear. There is no natural, overwhelmingly powerful drive to murder every hot girl that will let you.

Federally Funded?? (5, Interesting)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194779)

Can someone explain how the federal government can fund a program whose sole purpose is clearly in violation of the first amendment?
The right-wing religious nuts can do whatever they want with their own money, but this seems like a phenomenal waste of my tax money.


Re:Federally Funded?? (5, Funny)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194797)

I just can't believe that there is a good paying job out surfing porn sites - and to think I have been doing it for free for years

Re:Federally Funded?? (1)

Dr. Cody (554864) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194859)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the Good Lord above for the Federal government's inadequacy in advancing its own agenda.

Re:Federally Funded?? (4, Insightful)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194875)

Hrm... can anybody find more information about this program, I'm thinking it's write my congress-critter time again, because this is crazy. a funding number, anything? /me goes to find an old American history textbook, photocopies the constitution, laminates it, and places it in a UV-Protected, inert atmosphere environment. Might just be the last copy we see.

Re:Federally Funded?? (4, Informative)

tji (74570) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194885)

Have you not been paying attention? Funding "faith based organizations" was the first thing Bush did after he got elected in 2000.

Congress initially denied funding, citing the separation of church and state, and Bush bypassed them via an "Executive Order".

Welcome to the theocracy.

I guess they see how well all those middle-eastern governments are working, and want to bring the same thing to the U.S.

A small solution (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195227)

Well, it is a couple of months until we hit the ballot boxes, but in the mean time, this is how I voiced my discontent:
  1. Go to the complaint submission [obscenitycrimes.org] site and submit a complaint.
  2. Put the url obscenitycrimes.org in the Report URL box.
  3. Under the "type of obscenity" check box, check "other" and place this text in the description box: "Obscene waste of my tax dollars and obscene violation of the first amendment
I know that it won't do anything, but it makes me feel a little better anyway.

Re:A small solution (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195265)

Done. Now if everyone would.

The results would be amusing. They're supposed to send you confirmation that it was submitted.

--
BMO

Re:A small solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195439)

I did it. Fuck the moral majority.

Re:A small solution (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195555)

Thanks for points one and two.

Re:A small solution (1)

Brad Eleven (165911) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195707)

WOW. The site is just unbelievable. It's beyond ironic that the image on every page is that of a middle-aged man behind bars, dramatically lit, with a pissed-off and indignant look in his eyes. I'm guessing that the designers of the site (what was that gig like??) intended to portray a pornographer.

It looks more to me like someone convicted of doing something that he believed was not illegal.

The only good thing I see about the clampdown is the renaissance that will follow--if humans survive it, that is.

Anti-obesity laws (3, Funny)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194795)

At first glance, my brain interpreted this headline as "Federal Anti-Obesity Program..." Whew! For a second there I thought that the government was going to come after us for eating too many twinkies during those late night coding sessions.

Re:Anti-obesity laws (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194871)

There should be a "Federal Anti-Obesity Program" because I find the sight of all that lard more offensive than anything else I've seen so far (goatse included).

So much idiocy, so little time... (4, Insightful)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194821)

The article is so full of I-want-to-bash-my-head-against-the-wall idiotic ideas that I really don't know where to start.
So I'll just pick one tiny quote:

Would-be complainants are also advised not to trawl for obscene Web sites, noting that "men are particularly vulnerable to pornographic addiction." Identifying Internet smut, the site advises, is best left to professional law enforcement personnel.
Who have to be blind, deaf eunuchs. Because that's the only way to be sure. Dammit, I have to add one thing:

Mr. Peters said he was confident that officials would eventually assume their responsibility and go after what he described as a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.
Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults??? How can you get any more puritan than that? Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT???
Ahemm... sorry, but the degree of mental retardation needed to keep such views in today's society keeps astounding me.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194851)

Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults???
Nothing. The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else. Fundamentalists (and generally religious people to a lesser degree) are contradicting themselves on so many levels that they were an AI, they'd have ended up with their circuitry in flames.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194869)

...and that's what I get for not previewing. s/expose/impose/. s/that they/that if they/

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194959)

taking the bible at face value... if a raging horde of people comes to my front door trying to kill me I'm allowed to push my "Virgin daughters" at them for them do what they want with, if they'll leave me alone?

Somehow, i don't think that would be acceptable these days.

or for starters, and one of my favorite come-backs against people who believe in "The Genesis Creation story" as holy writ This-is-what-really-happened-and-you're-going-to-h ell-for-doubting-it... "Which Genesis creation story.... Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?" go read them, it's rather amusing... they contradict each other.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (4, Funny)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195117)

not quite. i think it has to be a mob of angry men come to gang-bang your male guests. which sort of reminds me of a falcon film i saw while researching material for morality in media.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (2, Funny)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195785)

Whoa. Did you say virgin daughters???

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (2, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195817)

or for starters, and one of my favorite come-backs against people who believe in "The Genesis Creation story" as holy writ This-is-what-really-happened-and-you're-going-to-h ell-for-doubting-it... "Which Genesis creation story.... Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?" go read them, it's rather amusing... they contradict each other.
The two versions of the story of creation in Genesis aren't as contradictory as you seem to be implying. If you really want to nail the people that read the story literally, ask them how the world was created in six literal, 24-hour solar days when the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day.

Re: So much idiocy, so little time... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195717)

Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults???
Nothing. The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else.
I don't think the religious texts actually have anything to do with it. Controlling other people's sexual behavior just seems to be something a lot of people feel like they need to do, and religion provides them with a convenient "ultimate authority" for doing it.

Notice that it's not limited to a single religion.

Notice also that I said "other people's". If news stories are any indication, hypocricy is rampant among these types.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (2, Funny)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195069)

Please don't insult the "special" people like that.

Mr. Peters is far beyond that.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195189)

Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT???
Have you seen what the Parents Television Council (PTC) [wikipedia.org] has done with the FCC? They single handedly make up >90% of the complaints to the FCC... and the FCC responded with fines.

What the guys and gals at the Morality in Media group don't seem to get is that the Justice Dept is not the FCC. The DOJ doesn't file criminal charges based on the number of complaints.

But if you look at the PTC & FCC, you can easily understand where they got the idea from and why they thought would work.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195267)

Perhaps they should form their own state, I suggest in that in their declaration of independence they put the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the repression of other people's pursuit of Happiness."

Obviously there's some limitations like your right to punch ends at my nose, where you're infringing on others' rights. And I can think of a few edge cases where I'd put other concerns like polluting the environment, cruelty to animals and such things ahead of your right to pursue happiness, probably a few things that are highly self-destructive like heavy drugs too. But if there's no really compelling reason to prohibit it, everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness. I really wish that they'd put that somewhere in the constitution, even if nothing as a preamble. Certainly the 9th amendment is way too weak if that was the intended meaning.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195491)

If government was limited to protecting against actual coercion -- the logical opposite of voluntary association (consent) -- it would be a tiny fraction the size it is today, measured both in revenue and power over the people, and the business of government would be worth a tiny fraction of what it's worth today.

What's in that for government?

Make no mistake: the business of government is the most lucrative business in the world.

Re:So much idiocy, so little time... (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195693)

"Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults??? How can you get any more puritan than that? Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT??? Ahemm... sorry, but the degree of mental retardation needed to keep such views in today's society keeps astounding me."

The real problem is that so many people sit there and say, "They shouldn't be allowed to do $thing". Nobody ever sits there and says, "Dammit, I shouldn't be allowed to do this!"

How the hell... (2, Interesting)

Darundal (891860) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194829)

...did these people end up getting funding from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? They are a religious organization, and they are running a religious campaign under a general header of "anti-obscenity." How?

Re:How the hell... (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195349)

B...B...But 9/11!!! Terrorists! If you watch porn you are a terrorist, and you might as well have flown the planes into the WTC yourself!

</sarcasm>

If I didn't say it, someone in the Bush administration would have eventually to support anything that people don't agree with.

Re:How the hell... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195357)

Simple answer- Bush and the Republican Congress. These assclowns are part of the reason the American people ousted them. Next we have to keep more of them from getting in next election. The worst of the bunch is likely going to be Mitt Romney, thankfully people hate him not because he's Mormon but because he's Mitt Romney.

Re:How the hell... (1)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195595)

Bush's promotion of "faith based organizations" goes back to before his first term. Do none of you pay attention to your own government?

To quote the great Tom Lehrer (1, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194837)

"I do have a cause however: obscenity. I'm for it."

This sort of thing just makes religious conservatives seem like they want to make everyone else moral using force, when most evangelical Christians want to spread the Good News to the unfaithful and have them willingly become moral (by the conservative Christian definition).

Define Obscene (1)

4solarisinfo (941037) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194853)

Quite frankly I find the whole idea these people are out there wasting tax dollars obscene. Shall we all get together and file a complaint against THEM?

Re:Define Obscene (1)

QunaLop (861366) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194907)

If i payed American tax dollars, it would be at the top of my agenda.

Re:Define Obscene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195553)

Yes, lets. [slashdot.org]

heh heh heh (-1, Offtopic)

notnAP (846325) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194861)

you said "comes up limp."

Contemporary community standards (2, Interesting)

Arevazi (935715) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194867)

Obsenity is defined as something that "lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards"
67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand? I believe this website succeeds only in reporting material that is offensive to a small subset of the population, that try to force its beliefs on the rest of the country.

Re:Contemporary community standards (4, Insightful)

Alchemar (720449) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194987)

If it only offends a small subset of the community, who could it violate community standards? If that many people are looking at this stuff, then by definition it is no longer obsene.

Re:Contemporary community standards (2, Interesting)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195025)

Obsenity is defined as something that "lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards"

67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand?

I believe this website succeeds only in reporting material that is offensive to a small subset of the population, that try to force its beliefs on the rest of the country.
/me re-reads the parent.

You make a very good point. The internet, and specifically porn sites, are very capitalistic. Someone has to pay for the content. If we're using "Community standard" the community who's standards that we use should be the community where the "Product" is found.

This is where is gets fun. So far the courts have used the physical location of where the material was accessed as the community. I think that that view is fundamentally flawed. The community they should be considering is the "internet at large". The fact that there have been 67,000 complaints would tend to indicate that there is a fair amount of material, and hence a fair amount of demand.

That fair amount of demand, to my eyes, would indicate that the internet community's standards would include the "objectionable material"

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if that would hold up in court, but hey... it's worth a try.

I'm also reminded of a Salman Rishdie quote: "It is very, very easy not to be offended by a book. You just have to shut it." The same would hold true of websites, If you don't like it... don't go there. Many porn sites will put "Teaser, erotic" material on the front page to get to you pay, and then have the "Hard Core" stuff be restricted to paying members only.

Pornographic spam is another matter. The big difference is that it is being sent to you, not you going out to get it.

USA & Australia (5, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#20194965)

Long back, people from England emigrated to Australia &
the USA. All the convicts were sent to Australia. All the
religious kooks were sent to the USA.

Most Australians are thankful for this luck of fate.

Re:USA & Australia (2, Funny)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195187)

Well, it does explain John Howard.

Re:USA & Australia (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195417)

My understanding is that Australians are largely descended from the guards, not the convict population as such. But that's just what I read somewhere on the Web.

But yeah, a lot of the original colonists came here to escape religious persecution. Not that they were necessarily any more kooky than the people in the countries from which they were fleeing: they were just different brands of kooks. As history clearly tells us, religious kooks are not tolerant of those with different dogmatic views of the world, and will spontaneously self-ignite if placed in close proximity to each other.

If you want to get rid of porn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20194985)

Get rid of the 1st amendment.

MIM founded by a man who said... (2, Interesting)

rainlord (773007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195003)

"Addiction is an ugly word, but it is a reality. And what are the results of TV addiction? Deterioration. Deterioration of family togetherness, closeness. Deterioration of mind and spirit. We've lost the art of family conversation. We don't read. Our children are not stimulated to read. They are missing the great treasures, the literature of the ages. But the worst result of the addiction is a lack of interest in God and the Scriptures. Divine love as well as human love is leaving the home of the family addicted to television."
-- Father Morton A. Hill, S.J., founder of Morality in Media
(Twin Circle, 1981)

So unless you're interested in God and the Scriptures they will probably be against whatever TV has to offer - regardless of the type of the show.

Quote can be found here: http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?mediaIssu es/supmktmags.htm/ [moralityinmedia.org] - on a page that describes what to do on "Turn off TV day" (which they have set to be Valentines day), and one of the suggestions next to "take a stroll in the park" and "help out at a soupkitchen", is "And, most appropriately, take time to write to the broadcasters and advertisers to let them know how you feel about offensive programming."

Frightening on many levels, one being that the government gave them money for it.

Re:MIM founded by a man who said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195203)

as much as I dislike the basis in religous moral superiority for the suggestions,

what is wrong with suggesting we turn off the TV for the day,
communicating with your familly and friends without needing a 'show' to talk about
and community volunteering?

where I differ - is perhaps you don't need a religion to talk about either

probably a *good* suggestion, no?

ps: captcha: radical

Re:MIM founded by a man who said... (1)

dm0527 (975468) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195431)

"Addiction is an ugly word, but it is a reality. And what are the results of TV addiction? Deterioration. Deterioration of family togetherness, closeness. Deterioration of mind and spirit. We've lost the art of family conversation. We don't read. Our children are not stimulated to read. They are missing the great treasures, the literature of the ages. But the worst result of the addiction is a lack of interest in God and the Scriptures. Divine love as well as human love is leaving the home of the family addicted to television." -- Father Morton A. Hill, S.J., founder of Morality in Media (Twin Circle, 1981)

Frightening on many levels, one being that the government gave them money for it.
Aside from government funding (which is a glaring offense), what level is that quote frightening on? Is it the idea of turning off the TV and reading ("great treasures, the literature of the ages")? Family togetherness? Family conversation? Stimulating our children to read? Divine love? Human love?

Man...those are some frightening ideas...let's burn that guy at the stake...

Consentual sex is a problem now?? (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195047)

What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?

It's the non-consentual sex they should be worried about.

Re:Consentual sex is a problem now?? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195169)

It's the non-consentual sex they should be worried about.

      Come on. Everyone knows that if you yell "surprise!" just before, then it's ok.

Re:Consentual sex is a problem now?? (1)

Cap'nPedro (987782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195237)

And sex with children.

Rookie mistake, you forgot to thinkofthechildren.

Re:Consentual sex is a problem now?? (2, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195495)

What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?

Not enough of it?

On /. we worry about non-consentual abstinence. (4, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195537)

I think we deserve a goverment grant to fight this non-consentual abstinence among the community! At the minimum community service sentences to those who continue this harmfull practice against innocent slashdotters!

Although I am willing to settle for that list of porn sites. Could they rank them so I don't waste too much time to get too the good stuff?

Re:Consentual sex is a problem now?? (1)

thePsychologist (1062886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195605)

UnFoRtUnAtElY, for these people, everything is wrong. They equate sexual pleasure with immorality, with obvious Christian roots. In the article about Cosmopolitan, they refer to it (and possibly other magazines) as "gauntlet of smut". To everyone who doesn't know what that means: p-o-r-n (notice that that word also means "A smudge made by soot, smoke, or dirt" (dictionary.com).

Cosmopolitan by the way is not porn. It does give sexual positions [1] and sometimes uses words like "bitch", but that's common slang anyways, and kids are going to be exposed to the idea of a "bitch" no matter what. Sex advice is not pornography.

It's exactly their kind of thinking and influence that's responsible for hundreds of sexual problems in this country: people thinking that sex is bad and dirty. Even if you are enlightened about sex, you might still have remnants of this brainwashing in you.

By removing Cosmopolitan, or any other magazine or source in the media that tries to suppress sexual ideas is one of the worst kinds of censorship, because it's not just censorship of information; it is censorship of information pertaining to the natural feelings of one's own body.

Why are they doing this? For the children? please! Sexual education of the kind that celebrates how good it feels is only beneficial (obviously, it's about our bodies, and how we feel the need to connect). Obviously kids will already start learning about sex themselves, there's no stopping that. Why? because it's natural. And, if you think your kid is too young, that's what YOU are there for, as a PARENT.

Sexual awareness of your own body is a wonderful experience, and a calming experience, and promotes the mental well being of the citizens. Too much well-being is bad for those in control, because the better someone feels, the more likely they are to help other people, and thus create an opposition to power. It's a well known phenomenon in psychology: the feel good, do good phenomenon. If you feel really good, you're much more likely to do something good. Power leads to corruption, which is antithetical to doing something good. This is partly the reason for sexual repression.

Remember in 1984? The guy gets together with the girl and one of the first things they do is go make love.

Why do individuals participate in this "morality campaign"? First reason, they're brainwashed by their own society. Second, some of them are actually turned on by reading about sex all day. Someone up there ^^ make a +5 funny remark about that, but it's true, everyone has those feelings, and of course reading about it all day is their way to get off.

[1] If you want a really great sex book, read "Guide to Getting it on!" by Paul Joannides.

Re:Consentual sex is a problem now?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195619)

The problem? There's no money to be made on respecting and honoring human rights. Centralized power can only limit -- never increase -- an individual's natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom and self-ownership.

No, the money is made on eliminating the natural rights of the individual, starting of course with the right to choose for yourself how, when, and where to spend your honestly-aquired earnings.

If citizens could actually choose for themselves how much to give to government, and specify exactly what funds to contribute to, what would the result be? Of course, government would be a tiny fraction the size it is today, measured both in revenue and power over the people. D'oh!

If you're in the business of government, that's the last thing you want.

Root Causes. (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195081)

Puritanism (v.): The overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.
Really, just because they feel guilty over any pleasure (because we were bad and got kicked out of the garden of eden so we don't deserve them in the eyes of god or something like that) doesn't mean that every pleasure should be struck from acceptable social behavior especially when they really are a vocal minority.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one (1)

Elsapotk421 (1097205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195087)

That found the title to be a bit amusing.

Since MoM dislike consenting adults... (1)

STDK (1084535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195177)

I can't help wonder what kind of porn the 67000 people are surfing for.

I hate "..sexual material involving consenting adults.'" Now, if only the internet would be be filled with for "sexual material involving none-consenting adults.'"

STDK

Re:Since MoM dislike consenting adults... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195277)

Now, if only the internet would be be filled with for "sexual material involving none-consenting adults."
 
I prefer porn made by Barely-consenting Adults.

Re:Since MoM dislike consenting adults... (1)

STDK (1084535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195401)

From The classical Bash.org:
"Is raping a hooker shoplifting?" (and as Nilson would argue, a victimless crime (shoplifting is a victimless crime. like punching someone in the dark)
Or
"Rape is so stigmatic. I prefere the more political correct term Suprise sex"

If you don't like it, don't look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195225)

If these people don't like porn then why are they so aware of the amount of it out there - they are obviously seeking it out! Makes me wonder if they are also mail overing hard core porn DVDs so that they can be outraged by those also (or at least outraged that other people are having more uninhibited sex than they are).

Folks - if you don't like porn, then don't look at it.

Or maybe we should just ban your religion since some of us are fed up at they way it's ruining the country (trying to put fairy tales on the school science curriculum, control what other people may enjoy, etc).

Re:If you don't like it, don't look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195753)

> Folks - if you don't like porn, then don't look at it.

They're not concerned about whether they like it themselves; they're concerned about other people liking it.

Of course, that only emphasizes the point that the real problem is not obscenity, it's busybodies.

Every country has their idiots apparently (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195271)

Get a load of that - they are complaining about sexual material involving CONSENTING adults. So, 2 or more people have chosen to do something with their own FREE WILL, and done it, and they are allowing others to watch it by their FREE WILL.

Therefore the what this group is for is an assault against free will.

Re:Every country has their idiots apparently (2, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195423)

Well, as far as I know, almost all parts of the US have laws against consenting adults having sex in private. I believe that only some parts of Nevada legally allow consenting adults to have sex if money openly exchanged.

Re:Every country has their idiots apparently (1)

dm0527 (975468) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195465)

Well, as far as I know, almost all parts of the US have laws against consenting adults having sex in private.
Huh? So..."consenting adults" can't have sex in private because "almost all parts of the US have laws against [it]"? Does that mean I have to start dragging my wife out onto the lawn when I'm feeling a bit frisky? Maybe the book section at Wal-Mart...I have been meaning to pick up that new reference book...

Re:Every country has their idiots apparently (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195533)

These people are priests. Maybe the emphasis should be like this:
sexual material involving consenting ADULTS

"A Prime Threat To Society"? (2, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195273)

Dumb-ass, morally righteous Christian assholes.

gay and transgendered kids are thown out ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20195285)

on the streets, and end up prostituting themselves to survive, and these same groups are mum, or even encourage parents to get rid of their gay or transgendred child. Fucking hypocrites these self proclaimed "morality" groups are! >:(

Are they serious? Yes, I guess they are ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195295)

... what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.

What? Really, I mean ... what? That particular horse left the barn decades ago, and it's not coming back.

These people need to laid, and stop trying to force their pattern for living on everyone else.

Federally funded? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195353)

The whole "federally funded" part is what's scary.

Why should these organizations be federally funded? I thought our constitution is clear on this.

Just like Bush wants to *deny* federal funding to stem cell research, obviously on religious grounds. But at least this is a grey area; federally funding religious organizations trying to ban "obscene" content is so wrong.

Oh, I just figured it out. It's so wrong that it overflowed the wrongness int and became right. Sigh.

Federal Anti-Obesity Program Comes Up Limp? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195403)

Damn, misread the title. Although, maybe if I got enough people to petition, I could get one of those. But then all /. users would become expatriots of the United States, and I don't think Canada wants them either....

something very wrong with this logic (1)

splatter (39844) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195459)

[I]n the Classifieds section, ... The latter ad points readers to a website where they can receive, without proof of age, access to "Adult Sex Ed" materials."

        When a retired law enforcement agent, now a consultant for MIM, went to this website and clicked the word "Cunnilingus," he observed. . . a photo that "depicted a naked female lying on her back with her right leg lifted near her right breast as a male engaged in oral/vaginal sex upon her genitals"... Some may call that "Adult Sex Ed," but we call it "pornography." That's pornography made available at the family supermarket.

It is an uphill battle (2, Interesting)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195483)

I hope respectable people behind this campaign will find ways to push forward their noble agenda.

My porn collection... (4, Funny)

zugurudumba (1009301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195543)

... they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

who are these people? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195579)

we know they're not the wasps descended from the original puritans. Those wasps love their booze and raunchy sex.

we know they're not traditional catholics. They can be forgiven for cornholing that lady they barely knew.

we know they're not the black folks. They can just sing out the sin in church.

nope, none of those regular religious folks are responsible for this.

It's the snake bite christians. The people that believe if they pray enough to god, that the copperhead they're passing around their "church" won't kill them.
This type of "christianity" has been slowly spreading throughout the bible belt and into our metro areas. They are now mega churches.
They preach old testament garbage and slap the name jesus on top. They are not christians at all.
They are ignoring the teachings of jesus on a whole. Blessed are the poor and the sick. These people are elitist scumbags.

This morality in media organization wouldn't know morality if they stepped in it. They only know how to discriminate and persecute. They are filled with fear and hatred.
Any man who exerts his will on others is not fit to be called a man. For he is the one crippled by fear. He is the one who needs guidance the most.

This means that 99% of these christian preachers are just complete frauds. They only preach because they're trying to hide their own skeletons.

Re:who are these people? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195759)

Damn, where are my mod points when I need them?

      You, sir, are 100% correct. I should know, I was married to one. WAS being the key term here.

      These evangelical Christians are so full of greed, hate and envy, it used to make me sick to even talk to them. Despite being an atheist, I kept remembering that passage in the New Testament that says something like "you can tell a tree by the kind of fruit it produces"...

      Live, and let live. Internet porn can only do something to you if you go looking for it. And the most it will do is help relieve some tension. Now of course if you're so fucked in the head that you think you're going to go to "Hell" forever if you so much as touch your genitals, then YOU are the one who deserves to be locked up.

hmmm (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195709)

I seem to remember a small government lobbying group having the power to tell the country what to do in the 1920's on moral grounds. (prohibition) We see how that worked-out. Organized crime made a decent living off of it. The point is: it's never a good idea to give "moral" lobbying groups any power. It's a Pandora's Box.

Federally funded Evil and Damned Mythology Groups (3, Insightful)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 6 years ago | (#20195771)

Dogma Idiot Priority (DIP) "Morality in Media, a conservative religious group" seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to the pedophiles on the internet and in public. Hell, it looks like they should start by trying to close down places of dancing and mixed sex social environments/events.

DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to semi-illiteracy, oppressed dogma believing, poor/diseased health street urchins, and exploitable cheap labor for US & EU citizens of recognizable value. If you don't have what it takes to instill irrational fear into poorly educated people and/or at least an ability to legally extort from the poor and middle class citizens to make a living; well then, you need to be more subservient to the people that are of value to the new world order.

DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat abortionist, freewill, free-speech, human-rights ... while assenting by silence (obscene lip-service [AKA: virtual BJ]) genocide, famine, child pornography, spouse abuse, slavery, criminal wars, pollution, corruption in government ... for their personal (not godly) interest on earth.

Oh; NOW I SEE, all pseudo-religious/mythology groups are like BinLaden's terrorist groups with cruelty, suffering, injustice, evil ... as their most trusted and important tools for their common good and the oppression of humanity.

I have always said; "I would respect mythology/religion groups/members more than null/zero... if they would (legally binding) sign/line up to adopt and raise as their own, all abandoned children on the street and in all orphanages globally (young and old, healthy and sick, Moslem or Jew, ...) providing the care of a family and good educations for all." Opposing abortion is 180degrees out from taking responsibility for the children alive today.

For ("the prime threats" to US, EU, ... societies) Christian popes/bishops, Baptist ministers, Hebrew Rabies, Islam Imams, and/or any other pseudo-religious/political person to pontificate/fatwa about the wrongs of abortions and the evils of other nations/religions, and then not actively support and enforce laws in their/other nations around the world to end starvation, slavery, pollution, genocide ... is the greatest EVIL INCARNATE against children (born and aborted) and humanity, for all THEIR EVILS, DAMN THEM TO HELL!

MF/FF/Gay/Incest/Donkey, though morally questionable/objectionable for many adults, ain't the problem. All of today's religious & political intercourse for exploiting and oppressing public security and welfare is the real obscenity and pornography promoted by religion and governments globally.

Almost all religious leaders, politicians, and their families are more ugly and repugnant than Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar ... to me, because they preach then breach the public's, Citizens', Humanity's trust. Then by inaction/proxy cause the same amount of suffering, cruelty, death, and mass-murder as any Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon ... mass-murders and traitors.

I do not write this way to flame/troll/offend, but to intensely express what I see (objectively or subjectively, you choose) as the facts, which strongly indicate the origins of great crimes against humanity. Everything I write like this is "Open Content".

FINAL WORD: GO TO HELL ALL YOU EVIL LYING OFFSPRING OF DEMONIC BITCHES!
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...