Aschroft declares war...

[Ravenstorm]

On porn!

http://tinyurl.com/39mlq

Yes, we have nothing better to spend millions on than cracking down on pornography. It's not like we have a record deficit, a social security system that's collapsing or billions being spent on a war in a foreign country. We must STOP people from jerking off to lude and indecent pictures! Especially during an election year!

And isn't it convenient that the Patriot Act makes it so much easier now for the Justice Department to spy and seize records. But of course, they wouldn't dream on using those provisions against anyone who wasn't a legitimate terrorist suspect. Right?

Raven

[Tendarian]

WASHINGTON -- Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.

What a great job though.

I think its a bit silly as well to go off on porn. What boy hasnt looked at a playboy when they were young.

[Artha]

I never looked at a playboy.

Mostly because I have the internet.

[TheEschaton]

It's a good thing I have an active imagination.


-TheE-

[GSTamral]

A drug dealer who's car was illegally searched to find the drugs is still a drug dealer. And he isn't innocent either.

Is the invasion of privacy annoying? Yes. But damnit to hell whoever uses it as an excuse when guilty.

I've got nothing against pornography, so long as it always involved performers over the age of 18, and is not distributed to minors, but don't try and use this an excuse and extrapolate it to cover the trails of hardened criminals.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by GSTamral]

[TheEschaton]

Hello? Do you live in the United States?


A person is innocent til proven guilty. And while he's innocent - he can't be illegally searched and siezed.


Did you take Civics?


-TheE-

[peam]

He's conservative.

[Hulkein]

He's just saying, a drug dealer is a drug dealer, no matter if you get a break because of a loophole in seizure. Take a look at the cold blooded murderer known as OJ Simpson. He's a murderer.

[Vesi]

Ashcroft doesn't dance either. What's next? Ballet?

If everyone is over 18 and consenting... what is the big deal? I realize porn isn't everyone's cup of tea... but people aren't forced to look at it. They need to spend their time and money going after child pornographers or anyone that exploits children.

Ashcroft gets on my last nerve. As does the entire Bush administration. As does the conservative right. As does... oh forget it.

Vesi waiting for November

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, but if you break Simpson's rights, then you give what is called "discretion" to those who serve to put criminals behind bars.

And, in the legal sense, giving someone "discretion" to act as they will, is perhaps the biggest no-no you can do, because it CAN and WILL be abused.

So, we put up with the fuck ups, remind ourselves not to fuck up, and preserve the fucking principles this country is founded on.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

TheE, your same civics are the reason the Enron executives are getting away with costing their own employees billions of dollars with nothing more than a big hooplah that can only end in an acquittal because certain evidence cannot be used.

Your civics are the reason that organized crime can thrive as much as it does because networking helps cover up evidence.

Your civics are the reason that the Tyco executives are getting away with just under what the Enron executives did.

Your civics allow thousands of drug dealers to plead to lesser charges every year, even if they were dealing it to children.

There is a fine line between civil liberties, and abuse of law for profit. Just because you can cover up evidence doesnt mean you arent guilty. Just because you were illegally searched doesnt exonerate you from having committed the crime.

I believe that in a criminal trial, all evidence must be weighted, because it is a matter of whether the person is guilty or not. Not a matter of whether enough technicalities and civil liberties can be claimed broken by the defendant to prove that they were illegally convicted. The defendant isn't a victim.

A drug dealer is a drug dealer. Period. A murderer is a murderer. Period. To defend a drug dealer as some sort of victim of society who is being illegally targetted, to me, is morally wrong.

[Ambrosia]

If you give the Police an okay to search anyone and everyone for whatever they feel fit, people will be going to jail for crimes they didn't commit, just because some crooked cop was having a bad day.

[TheEschaton]

Boo fucking hoo, you're one step away from searching young black males cars for drugs because they fit a profile.


My friends and I had this argument once. My friend Jason said, "If a cop wanted to search your car, and you had absolutely done nothing wrong, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing, would you let him?"

Jason was of the mind that he would, since he has nothing to hide. My friend Chris and I said no way in hell, he'd be violating our rights to the 6th amendment, and that if he had absolutely no probable cause to search my car, then he's not fucking searching my car. Even if there IS nothing in it, and I've done nothing wrong.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

Boo fucking hoo?

more than 11,000 former Enron employees had their retirement savings obliterated because of the actions of a few people. Those few people will get away with it because not enough evidence could be gathered legally, and none of the board will take the stand.

I sincerely hope one day you feel their pain firsthand, and then I will see if you echo this same sentiment.

[GSTamral]

I'd rather side with the victims of the crime than the criminals themselves when it comes to proving guilt, but you apparently see things quite differently. Maybe thats why convicted felons are so liberal.

[Knights Templar]

First of all, I would like to say Ashcroft needs to be shot. Second, I hate government, third, fuck republicans. That is all.

Edited to add that YES I AM A CRIMINAL

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Knights Templar]

[Nakiro]

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and every thing in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscen ity," he said.

I can't guess what this guy spends all his time on the internet and at the movie rentals...

On an ironic note, his statement was published on the internet.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Nakiro]

[Warriorbird]

:chuckle: Things like this drive me further and further from ever voting Republican. Just plain foolish.

[crazymage]

sons of bitches...

[Wezas]

Now we go back to the whole "What is obscene?" issue.

Also, from what I've seen, unless I'm actually looking for porn online, or trying to access some kind of hacker site/casino site, I really don't see any porn pop-ups. So don't use the "kids see it when they get on the internet" excuse.

As for underage people being in porn, I'm of course totally against it. Ashcroft needs to realize though that legal age girls are now making themselves look underage to make that type of porn.

<watches CSI>

[Jazuela]

Heh - to some extent, I agree with Tamral. Go figure. But then I never did like the Libertarian viewpoint where even the sadistic serial torturer had rights to this that and the other thing.

If you are -caught- breaking the law (I'm not talking about evidence presented after the fact, I'm talking about being observed, by reliable witnesses, in the act of committing a crime) then "rights" should not be applied. Either go to jail, get castrated (in the case of rape/child molestation), or suffer the death penalty (in the case of murder, torture, or other assorted major crimes).

Enough with criminals demanding cable TV in their jail cells. Convicted criminals don't deserve rights, they don't deserve anything other than a mattress, enough nutrition and exercise to keep them healthy, a means to maintain personal hygeine, and a place to shit.

Conjugal visits? You shoulda thought about the affect your crime would have on your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend before you went out and did something stupid.

As for porn, meh. It's a stupid thing to punish people over, and outlawing it sends mixed signals to children who are starting to explore their sexuality. Like someone said, what young boy has -not- examined a Playboy magazine? I would NOT -encourage- this in children, but I'm not gonna promote anyone slapping Johnny's hand and telling him that touching his own penis is a bad thing. That just results in repressed sexuality, which is unhealthy. I am more for stricter parental controls over their children's access to porn, and open discussions between families on sexuality in general. Banning porn will only make it more intriguing to the curious. Kinda like the Prohibition, where the whisky flowed more heavily than ever before.

[Parkbandit]

They fucking touch my freedom of porno.. I'll turn Democrat.

I swear.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think as with all things, too much press blows things out of porportion.

[TheEschaton]

As for underage people being in porn, I'm of course totally against it. Ashcroft needs to realize though that legal age girls are now making themselves look underage to make that type of porn.

<watches CSI>

Law & Order: SVU had a similar episode.


As for rights, I don't like it either, Tamral, that felons have it easier. But it's the burden of proof, and it's right in the Constitution. It's not like you can just randomly throw away bits of the Constitution - otherwise, the anti-gun nuts will say, "Sixth Amendment's no good, why is the Second?" and so on and so forth.

It's all about the slippery slope. IE, not getting on it.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm all about vigilante justice TheE! Rape my sister, I get my gun, and kill you (under the cover of nightfall, with no witness's or evidence) and I get off on the many loopholes my 3M dollar lawyer can find.

But I'd rather the justice system actually worked the the son of a bitch got hung at a televised trial where they summarily found him guilty, and then administered justice (and sold tickets to recoup or fund the cost of the trial!).

Yeah! I'm all about justice. But sadly, I have to agree we must trust the justice system, fucked up as it is, else lose our rights as citizens to be presumed innocent while carrying a gun.

[TheEschaton]

Then I don't understand how we boast everywhere that we're the best country in the world - and yet covet the judicial system of the worst dictatorships in the world.


-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Heh, because there is so much more than the judicial system about America?

[TheEschaton]

But I think the judicial system is one of the best part, in spite of the fact that it still fucks up.

Hell, I'm going to law school, with that belief. ;)


-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My point isn't that its bad -- I personally think the principle of our justice system is great. I think we've built in too many loop holes, too many "this makes no sense" lawsuits (suing McDonalds for getting fat?), that it is bogged down and defeated by all the little shit that our liberties allow every not so moral person to take advantage of.

I mean really, when someone said, "Lets sue McDonalds! I'm so fat I can't get out of my chair!", someone else should have said "Shut the fuck up". Instead, they rally behind said idiot and it gets national press.

[TheEschaton]

Well, that's the civil part of the law system. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. I hate civil trials. As if money can solve people's pain. Those people should be bitchslapped with an uppercut from Tyson.


-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
He's just saying, a drug dealer is a drug dealer, no matter if you get a break because of a loophole in seizure. Take a look at the cold blooded murderer known as OJ Simpson. He's a murderer. If you accept that we cannot create a perfect system, then you have a choice. We can let some bad guys get away or we can punish some good guys erroneously. Obviously both are going to happen anyway, but which side would you rather have it weighted towards?
Originally posted by Tamral
I'd rather side with the victims of the crime than the criminals themselves when it comes to proving guiltOf course, because only criminals are ever accused of commiting crimes. /sarcasm
Originally posted by Jazuela
Convicted criminals don't deserve rightsJefferson would be proud. /more sarcasm

[Betheny]

Dude, they better not ban make your own porno.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Jazuela
Convicted criminals don't deserve rights

Jefferson would be proud. /more sarcasm

I imagine Jefferson never envisioned our legal system getting bogged down with these absolutely baseless and ridicules lawsuits that occur all the time.

Personally, I feel that the lawyer bringing a case to court should be able to determine if it has merit or not.. and if it does not, he/she shouldn't bring it to court. IF it is brought to court and found that it contains NO merit... then there should be some stiff financial penalties levied against the lawyer.

Hurt the lawyer where it hurts most and you will see some of these stupid cases being dropped.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I imagine Jefferson never envisioned our legal system getting bogged down with these absolutely baseless and ridicules lawsuits that occur all the time.

Personally, I feel that the lawyer bringing a case to court should be able to determine if it has merit or not.. and if it does not, he/she shouldn't bring it to court. IF it is brought to court and found that it contains NO merit... then there should be some stiff financial penalties levied against the lawyer.

Hurt the lawyer where it hurts most and you will see some of these stupid cases being dropped. Like theEschaton, I'm not terribly proud of the civil system. The criminal system, however, must retain the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

I think you underestimate the amount of lawsuits going on back in the day, though. From what I hear (from a terribly unreliable source), that's all farmers did in the winter.

[Hulkein]

How much exactly did they say they are going to spend on this? All I saw was 'millions.' Anyone notice an exact amount, or did they not list it? If it's like 8 million dollars, I don't see how this is even a story.

[Wezas]

Ashcroft got the message. Recently, he hired Bruce Taylor, probably the most aggressive antiporn advocate in the United States, to jump-start the effort. Taylor, 53, started out as a porn prosecutor for the state of Ohio, then joined the Justice Department. He left to start his own antiporn group, the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va., and now is special counsel to Christopher Wray, the assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

Get the fuck out of my city, porn-hating freak!

[Ravenstorm]

The civil system in this country is ridiculous. I think it's in England that the loser of a civil suit has to pay for all court costs? That would be great to have here if filing a frivolous lawsuit ended up having a penalty. I like Parkbandit's suggestion too.

Raven

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The civil system in this country is ridiculous. I think it's in England that the loser of a civil suit has to pay for all court costs? That would be great to have here if filing a frivolous lawsuit ended up having a penalty. I like Parkbandit's suggestion too.

Raven

While it sounds good on paper i dont like it. What if im poor as hell and some rich bastard hits me while driving drunk. The rich guy can hire the best lawyers there are and possibly get away with it. While i if im lucky i can get some crappy ass ambulance chaser. Then to add insult to injury i have to pay the court costs as well?

[TheEschaton]

I don't think suing because you got hit by a car would be considered a "frivoulous lawsuit".

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

I think it's in England that the loser of a civil suit has to pay for all court costs?

This is what i was referring to.

[TheEschaton]

Civil suits are much harder to lose, though. I think in Civil suits, it's guilty until proven innocent, or is it that the requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt" is thrown out. Something like that.


-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Ravenstorm, can you find out the exact amount they're spending on this? The article was pretty vague.. only mentioning the amount of spending once in the title, and all that said was 'millions.'

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Hulkein]

[Tendarian]

Yeah i think i heard that too. You just have to prove it more likely to have happened your way then their way. Maybe the answer is to make civil suits have the same standards as criminal suits.

[Ravenstorm]

If I'm correct, the standard of guilt in a criminal case is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

The standard of guilt in a civil case is 'a likely preponderance of the evidence'.

Or something like that. And I can't find a real figure beyond 'millions'. But exactly how much money we're wasting is kind of irrelevant. We can use it for MUCH better things. And the time wasted by the courts to try these cases and appeals. And the man hours of FBI and CIA operatives who could be doing something slightly more useful like... I don't know, tracking down terrorists maybe?

Raven

[Hulkein]

It's not really irrelevent at all.. The government already is paying money towards this obviously, if these porn watcher jobs exist. If the porn industry is expanding at like 400% a year, and administration puts forth say three million dollars more, or a 10% increase (all random numbers for example), it's just the natural growth of a certain sector of government.

Edited to add- Now I'm not saying this is the case, but if it is something similar to this then it seems to be a pretty stupid thing to get angry about. Weird that the article didn't mention the number.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Maimara
Dude, they better not ban make your own porno.
Word.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Great, I argue that Stern has the right to stay on the air and practically everyone is against me. But take away your precious porno, and the world is about to end!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Great, I argue that Stern has the right to stay on the air and practically everyone is against me. But take away your precious porno, and the world is about to end!

There is a difference.

I have kids and I don't want them subjected to pornography. I can put NetNanny on their computer and password protect mine so they cannot access it. I can stop them from watching Cinamax on cable by putting a block on it.

Tell me how I am supposed to stop them from listening to a radio station when they walk out of the house with a walkman.

I like Howard Stern... I like Bubba the Love Sponge. I enjoyed their humor and content. I didn't think it was appropriate for my young children to listen to though.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

I have kids and I don't want them subjected to pornography. I can put NetNanny on their computer and password protect mine so they cannot access it. I can stop them from watching Cinamax on cable by putting a block on it.

Tell me how I am supposed to stop them from listening to a radio station when they walk out of the house with a walkman.

I like Howard Stern... I like Bubba the Love Sponge. I enjoyed their humor and content. I didn't think it was appropriate for my young children to listen to though.

I really don't want to argue about this for a third time, but I just...can't...resist. I just feel like there are just as many steps you can take to prevent them from listening to Stern. No one is saying children should be listening, obviously. I don't know how old your children are, but I doubt the first thing they're going to want to tune into when they go to school with a walkman is talk radio -- unless of course they're 12 or 13, in which case I think the children in school will be just as foul-mouthed as Stern by that point.

On a side note, if you can't stop your child from listening to Stern on a walkman, how do you expect them to not see porn when they're at a friend's house?

On a side, side note -- all the parents who I argue with on this issue always bring up the fact that their kids can listen to him with a walkman while they're on the bus to school. I think it'd be an interesting experiment to randomly listen to 15 minutes of his show around school bus time and report all the "indecency" that we hear.

[Hulkein]

<<On a side note, if you can't stop your child from listening to Stern on a walkman, how do you expect them to not see porn when they're at a friend's house?>>

By allowing the government do what this article is about.


Heh, obviously I don't believe that, but one could argue that this is a reason they're cracking down on the porn.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I can put NetNanny on their computer and password protect mine so they cannot access it. Uhm, not that I would know from personal experience or anything, but it's pretty easy to get around things like NetNanny, Cyber Patrol, etc. So I wouldn't put all your eggs in that basket, so to speak.

[Tsa`ah]

That's pretty easy Park, stop them and look at what station they are listening to.

I find it silly that parents are only willing to intervene so far into their child's life.

The only people that have the right to pull Stern from the air are the people that employ him and the people that participate in his syndication.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Artha]

Uhm, not that I would know from personal experience or anything, but it's pretty easy to get around things like NetNanny, Cyber Patrol, etc. So I wouldn't put all your eggs in that basket, so to speak.

Damn right. Hell, if they go to babelfish and do website translations, they can probably get by with that. Or anonymous proxies, maybe. Hell, I'm sure there's a crack for it somewhere out there.

[Ravenstorm]

Since I didn't want to hijack the 'good vibrations' thread and it sort of applies to here too...


Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Galleazzo

10) John Ashcroft may be the supreme dickhead of the 21st century so far, but he's gotta go to his grave knowing he was in a Senate race and lost to a dead man. I take comfort in that.

:smilegrin:

So much for being positive. If you believe John Ashcroft to be the biggest 'dickhead' of the 21st century... then you obviously don't get out much.

Personally, I think there are MUCH bigger 'dickheads' out there.. Bin Laden and Saddam come to mind real quick.

I don't really argue that point. But. You knew there had to be a but right?

Ashcroft is more dangerous than bin Laden. Fundamentalist Muslims? All they can do is kill Americans. Fundamentalist Christians? They can destroy America. All extremists are dangerous but it's the ones in our country working to change it into their vision of The Truth that poses the largest threat.

Give me a lunatic with a gun any day if it means avoiding someone sworn to 'save me for my own good' whether I want to be 'saved' or not.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Artha
Damn right. Hell, if they go to babelfish and do website translations, they can probably get by with that.While that would get past the keyword check, Cyber Patrol at least also has a list of sites that are simply inaccessible.
Or anonymous proxies, maybe.Dunno what those are.
Hell, I'm sure there's a crack for it somewhere out there. It's funny, they usually stop you from looking for them. :D I.e. throwing "Cyber patrol hack" in on google will bring up the cool yellow shield.

It's a bit simpler than all that, actually. Not that I would know firsthand, of course. :whistle: Cyber Patrol and it's ilk are, after all, programs that must be started by the computer.

[DeV]

I have heard of some internet program you can download that changes your proxy or IP every set number of minutes or seconds that you enter. I wonder if a program such as that could bypass the porn nannies, and cyber patrol programs...

[Galleazzo]

Ashcroft is more dangerous than bin Laden. Fundamentalist Muslims? All they can do is kill Americans. Fundamentalist Christians? They can destroy America. All extremists are dangerous but it's the ones in our country working to change it into their vision of The Truth that poses the largest threat. Preach it, man. That's the best quote I've seen all year.