http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

Feds Stepping Up Obscenity Prosecutions
- By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, May 4, 2005


(05-04) 12:23 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --


Thomas Lambert made no attempt to hide the kind of videos he peddled from his Montana home — hard-core sex tapes involving bestiality, sadomasochism and simulated rape.


The 65-year-old former schoolteacher had little reason to believe he could get in trouble. He was selling tapes to adults who wanted them and there had not been a federal obscenity prosecution in Montana in at least 16 years, according to his lawyer, Mark Errebo.


But Lambert and co-defendant Sanford Wasserman were charged last spring with violating federal obscenity statutes. In pleading guilty, they joined a growing number of purveyors of pornography whom the Bush administration has pursued.


Since 2001, 40 people and businesses have been convicted and 20 additional indictments are pending, said Andrew Oosterbaan, chief of the Justice Department's child exploitation and obscenity section. By comparison, there were four such prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration, he said.


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, like his immediate predecessor, John Ashcroft, has pledged to make obscenity prosecutions a priority. The department is expected to announce soon the creation of a special unit within its criminal division to focus on adult obscenity cases.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The guy they used as an example in the beginning was a dumbass and his lawyer obviously wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but there is definately a movement in the area.

I have absolutely no problems with the Attorney General stepping up prosecutions of companies promoting beasty, kiddie or rape porn personally.

Prosecute all those fuckers who have that type of content on their sites and send em to rot in jail.

Of course, your average Attorney General and/or Prosecuting Attorney will share your definition of what is extreme, right?

:rolleyes:

Of course, your average Attorney General and/or Prosecuting Attorney will share your definition of what is extreme, right?

:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
So you dont beleive that kiddy porn, beastiliaty and rape sites are 'extreme'?

Um... okay then :huh:

Doesn't bother me either as long as it stays on that focus. I just worry that they'll step into other areas that are much more "mainstream" for the porn world.

Doesn't bother me either as long as it stays on that focus. I just worry that they'll step into other areas that are much more "mainstream" for the porn world. [/b][/quote]
Yep.

Its about time we ditched the scum in the biz.

Well, PD is right in the sense I don't trust a prosecutors judgement on obscenity. I mean take things like gang bangs, DP, bukakke, facials, or double anal for example. Don't bother me in the least but I can easily see some prosecutor trying to make that obscene.

So you dont beleive that kiddy porn, beastiliaty and rape sites are 'extreme'?

Um... okay then :huh: [/b][/quote]
i do, i just dont want the government passing judgement on anything that is of personal opinion. slippery slope, et.al.

Where did I say I don't think it's extreme?

I don't trust the political process - and most Attorneys-General and Prosecuting Attorneys are either electe officials or political appointees - in the current environment to limit themselves to what we think is extreme.

Let's face it ... many of these folks are either idealogically driven themselves, or are appealing to a base constituency that would label extreme things that your average person wouldn't.

So spare me the happy-crappy about "oh, they're only going after the bad guys." To many of the people this is good news too, People fucking magizine is probably also extreme.

PD,

I understand what you are saying completely and dont get me wrong, i think this administration is higher than a crack head 99.99% of the time but, in the article posted above, it would seem like they actually ARE prosecuting the extreme sites at the present time.

Yes we need to be on the lookout for when they start using that 'obscene' word on more mainstream content but right now, they are doing the right thing for once ;)

PD,

I understand what you are saying completely and dont get me wrong, i think this administration is higher than a crack head 99.99% of the time but, in the article posted above, it would seem like they actually ARE prosecuting the extreme sites at the present time.

Yes we need to be on the lookout for when they start using that 'obscene' word on more mainstream content but right now, they are doing the right thing for once ;) [/b][/quote]
in prosecutorial government, "doing the right thing" is a euphamism for "setting the plate for further attacks on freedom of speech". the US government hates freedom of speech, in case you havent noticed:)

in prosecutorial government, "doing the right thing" is a euphamism for "setting the plate for further attacks on freedom of speech". the US government hates freedom of speech, in case you havent noticed:) [/b][/quote]
Nah..

They only hate it when its AGAINST their morals ;)

Nah..

They only hate it when its AGAINST their morals ;) [/b][/quote]
I've heard of morals but hear they are very expensive .

;-)))

PD,

I understand what you are saying completely and dont get me wrong, i think this administration is higher than a crack head 99.99% of the time but, in the article posted above, it would seem like they actually ARE prosecuting the extreme sites at the present time.

Yes we need to be on the lookout for when they start using that 'obscene' word on more mainstream content but right now, they are doing the right thing for once ;) [/b][/quote]
I wouldn't worry about it, Jacob - they are only taking the Communists. The rest of it is just talk, mark my words.

I've heard of morals but hear they are very expensive .

;-))) [/b][/quote]
Ive heard that to Nick.... Its what governments are elected on ;)

Ive heard that to Nick.... Its what governments are elected on ;) [/b][/quote]
No , Gov'ts are elected on the illusion of morals , and the hypocricy of the candidates.

No , Gov'ts are elected on the illusion of morals , and the hypocricy of the candidates. [/b][/quote]
:pearl: