http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Looks like they are at the **** witch hunt again.

Morons.

describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

I wonder what their other "top priorities" are?

ah, just need to read a little further *blush*

Public corruption, officially, is fourth on the FBI's priority list, after protecting the United States from terrorist attack, foreign espionage and cyber-based attacks. Just below those priorities are civil rights, organized crime, white-collar crime and "significant violent crime." The guidance from headquarters does not mention where ****ography fits in.

The quotes from the various anonymous agents are pretty funny!

Pretty pathetic =-(

"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with ****ography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make **** a multibillion-dollar industry.

If they're going after the three forms listed, then this is something I would support. Bestiallity is already illegal here. And if someone gets a hard on watching chicks taking a piss, getting beat on, or doing their business on someone; then that person should seek professional help.

Bestiallity I could agree with well enough. It's illegal here in the states, and in many/most countries. However, overall, I think it's a real waste. Whatever my personal feelings on the matters are (no particular interest for what it matters), if both parties are consenting to it, I don't think it warrents FBI intervention. We have better things we could be using even a single FBI agent on, let alone a minimum of 10 of them.

I was just reading "The Law (http://www.barefootsworld.net/the_law.html)" yesterday.

When I think, "surely, enough people are keeping a check that these things do not happen here", someone finds that it may indeed be happening here.

The law cannot dictate morality, but they keep trying to.

This seems very much like a gesture intended to play to certain people in order to boost Gonzales' stock with them. Possibly for a run at the Supreme Court. Then again, this could be a genuine attempt to go after ****. If so, I would like to see them concentrate on child ****ography and sexual predators who troll the internet looking to chat up impressionable boys and girls.

SNORT! This strikes me as very funny.

"Popular acceptance of hard-core ****ography has come a long way, with some of its stars becoming mainstream celebrities and their products -- once confined to seedy shops and theaters -- being "purveyed" by upscale hotels and most home cable and satellite television systems. Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains."

And this is just stupid:

"The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of ****ography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults."

Hey Bush, I got an idea where you can cut some funding...

Wait... isn't Marriott the Mormon guy?
http://marriott.com/corporateinfo/culture/heritageJWillardMarriott.mi

If they're going after the three forms listed, then this is something I would support. Bestiallity is already illegal here. And if someone gets a hard on watching chicks taking a piss, getting beat on, or doing their business on someone; then that person should seek professional help.

And who do you think you are that the rest of America should be forced to abide by your standards of obscenity?

It is a very very small step to simply add, for instance, gay or lesbian ****agraphy (I can see it now, "Acceptable **** is defined as being between a man and a woman").

If its consentual adults involved, and adults are consenting to purchasing/viewing it, what right has the Government to interfere?

I'd agree that the government would be best served trying to keep ****ography away from kids or stop exploitation within the **** industry.

On the other hand there are some best things kept illegal, even between adults. Snuff movies are the best example. Government does have a right to interfere in the distribution of material that promotes and glorifies horrific crimes. Some people would say that bestiality and necrophilia are horrific crimes too.

As I see it, asking FBI agents to crack down on **** is like asking them to empty the ocean with teaspoons.

For one thing, the FBI can't do a damn thing about foreign websites, so all the **** people have to do is buy foriegn hosted domains, and they're out of harm's way.

For another, I'm not sure I trust FBI agents to do this. I can hear it now: "Wait wait, lemme get this straight, I'm going to get paid 8 hours a day to sit and look at ****?! Where do I sign up?!" I know a few people for whom this would be a dream job. I doubt that these people would be actually going after anyone. And if the agents aren't in this category, who are they going to get? I doubt there are very many ultra-religious, never looked a **** a day in their life, agents who are tech savy enough to find the stuff they're after, let alone be qualified to distinguish between "acceptable ****" and "obscene ****".

I agree with Iagoe, they'd be doing better to go after the creeps who surf the net preying on juveniles, like this site (http://www.perverted-justice.com/) does. (Text based, so work safe, but not for the weak of heart)

I'd agree that the government would be best served trying to keep ****ography away from kids or stop exploitation within the **** industry.

On the other hand there are some best things kept illegal, even between adults. Snuff movies are the best example. Government does have a right to interfere in the distribution of material that promotes and glorifies horrific crimes. Some people would say that bestiality and necrophilia are horrific crimes too.

All of those are crimes because of other laws, not because there are some people who are sexually aroused by them (i.e. murder, animal abuse and disrespectful treatment of dead)

If you want to crack down on everything that some people might find arousing you probably are best off to shut down television, movies and printing presses because you can bet that there is absolutely nothing that not somebody somewhere will find arousing. Legislating morality is an excercise in futility, and is a step towards totaliarism.


Eri

Legislating morality is an excercise in futility, and is a step towards totaliarism.


Refusing moral responsibility is a step towards anarchy.

Aidon,

I was defending the article, and stating my opinion of people that like those forms of ****agraphy. While it could be considered a freedom of speech issue, there are other laws already in place making these forms of adult content as illegal. What the government is doing is really dedicating a task force to enforce laws already in place.

Bestiallity I could agree with well enough. It's illegal here in the states, and in many/most countries.
Sadly, it's not illegal everywhere in the US. There was a case in Washington State recently (Wash. lawmakers to weigh bestiality ban after man dies from sex with horse (http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0722/bestiality_ctv.html)) which has sparked a bill to make bestiality illegal.

Some people would say that bestiality and necrophilia are horrific crimes too.

If there were only a victim.

You can not really have a crime without a victim.

Legislating morality is an excercise in futility, and is a step towards totaliarism.

Refusing moral responsibility is a step towards anarchy.

Touche :)

However, I would rather live in a slightly anarchistic country than in a slightly totalitarian. Not to mention that it is difficult to argue about whose morals are more right than others


Eri

It's sort of funny that when I first heard this, I joked that they should call it the "War on ****" to make it sound more serious, and now they actually are. :rolleyes:

If there were only a victim.

You can not really have a crime without a victim.

Animals can't be victims of crimes?

Canta is going to start up a center for sexually abused sheep...give them all counselling.

Perhaps instead of a having a war on **** and a war on terrorism, they could just get **** to fight terrorism. It would sell tickets anyway.

Touche :)

However, I would rather live in a slightly anarchistic country than in a slightly totalitarian. Not to mention that it is difficult to argue about whose morals are more right than othersMe too! But isn't our responsibility more to TEACH morality and legislate other issues? It's certainly a lot easier to set a strong moral base than to incarcerate everyone who walks the face of the earth. Legislating morality is the cowardly way out. Those who legislate don't have to enforce. They leave that for others yet the legislators' constituents see that they have "done something about a problem". It's a classic political "buck passing".

I have always hated the idea of legislating morality to the Nth degree. I see people who want to do that as those who wish to foist their own beliefs on others without having to do the work of persuasion. While I agree that there are SOME laws (ie crimes against others and society in general) as necessary evils, when the government starts getting into the home, family and bedroom for no other reason than to be there, things have gotten out of hand.

Perhaps instead of a having a war on **** and a war on terrorism, they could just get **** to fight terrorism. It would sell tickets anyway.

LOL! Celebrity death match: Linda Lovelace vs. Osama Bin Laden!

It seems like if the sex to an animal is hurtful to the animal, then it would be covered under existing animal abuse laws. I'm not a big fan of enacting laws because someone thinks an activity is "unnatural". Covering yourself in mayo and making a slip n' slide out of your hallway is a bit unnatural for me, but I don't think it should be illegal. It seems to me that beastiality laws and wars on **** are an attempt by politicians to make it seems like they are doing something.

As for the man who died from having his horse ride him, I'd like to ask that if he was riding the horse normally, fell off and died, would anyone say we should outlaw horse riding?

... Covering yourself in mayo and making a slip n' slide out of your hallway is a bit unnatural for me, but I don't think it should be illegal.Um..... regular or Mayo Lite?

LOL! That's just too funny. Iagoe... I hope you're playing devil's advocate!

Every attempt to cover myself in mayo would be thwarted by our dogs. ;-)

mind meet gutter.

Now get out.

LOL Aidon!

Do I detect a blush on the cheeks of Jinjre's avatar? Methinks, yes! :D

Jinjre would try to make an aioli out of you!

Do I detect a blush on the cheeks of Jinjre's avatar? Methinks, yes!

I dunno about blushing. If Iagoe was to cover himself in mayo (lite or full bore) I think I would be gasping for air from laughing so hard. I'd probably hurt myself in the process, but I highly doubt I'd blush. Unless pointing and grabbing the camera count ;)