http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901570_pf.html

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A21



The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, 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.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

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

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

A few of the printable samples:

"Things I Don't Want On My Résumé, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Federal obscenity prosecutions, which have been out of style since Attorney General Edwin Meese III in the Reagan administration made pornography a signature issue in the 1980s, do "encounter many legal issues, including First Amendment claims," the FBI headquarters memo noted.

Applicants for the porn squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards -- along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit -- define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.

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

Popular acceptance of hard-core pornography 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.

But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. The bureau decided to create a dedicated squad only in the Washington Field Office. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said. "Field offices should not, however, divert resources from higher priority matters, such as public corruption."

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 pornography fits in.

"The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's top priority remains fighting the war on terrorism," said Justice Department press secretary Brian Roehrkasse. "However, it is not our sole priority. In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity."

At the FBI's field office, spokeswoman Debra Weierman expressed disappointment that some of her colleagues find grist for humor in the new campaign. "The adult obscenity squad . . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress," she said. "The personnel assigned to this initiative take the responsibility of this assignment very seriously and are dedicated to the success of this program."

Sounds like Jaaaman's dream job, blow the dust off the resume dude

That is what I was thinking when I found the article

A war against porn? sounds useless...

There is no way to stop it, it would be much like prohabition, a complete waist of money and a total failure.

yup.

Speaking of war against porn have you guys the 500+ website China shut down? (sorry to rehash an old topic).

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051231-5873.html

I never thought I would say this, but communism does have it's advantages haha.

The dillehma in the United States is this. Porn is protected under 1st amendment and freedom of speech clause, which I don't have a problem with and I am sure of lot you don't either , but let's do the "liberal" thing and tax the porn companies at 30 - 35% (I am just brain-storming here), I know the Libertarians will get on my case about this, but why not? it's a $10 billion dollar a year industry. We can then take the money and lobby it towards a non-profit organization that advocates safe-sex and make it tax deductable (we would need a catch phrase or marketing buzzword that teens would find amusing). Neoconservatives wouldn't agree anyway "abstinence" works for them all of the time.

Porn makes anything look "glamorous" I have news for you. Tell me something though without it how would little "Becky" being sweet little angel she is pay the college tuition for two semesters, if she had no one helping her out for college or couldn't find a well paying job? that's what happens when you have fiscal and economic responsibilities placed upon you in these rough times. If you could make $800 dollars a day how would you feel?

The idea of putting a working legal definition on obscenity has already run into more than a few problems. If this FBI attack on pornography is serious, we are going to get more and more obscenity cases for the courts to deal with, which is just ridiculous anyway. This is not an opinion that the Court holds, but in my studies on the First Amendment, I would have to conclude that any regulation of "obscene" material is by nature a "content discrimination". Or in other words, the material in question is only being called illegal because of it's content. What language in the First Amendment permits content discrimination? Furthermore, the Supreme Court has used the idea of content discrimination to adjudicate in other First Amendment cases dealing with Free Exercise of religion. What the Attorney General is doing here is brown-nosing for Bush and the right wing Christian groups and it is absolutely ridiculous.

Well call me a Libertarian Neoconservative, but I disagree completely. I mean, I rarely think that we should be taxing one type company more than another, this is true. But if we're going to tax a company more, let's tax them to help fix a problem they actually cause.

You might be able to see where I'm going with this: I really find it difficult to believe that pornography causes people to engage in unsafe sex. I mean, think about it. Imagine how likely you are to have unsafe sex. Then go look at pronography for a month. Then imagine how likely you are to have safe sex. Anyone who thinks he's become unable to control his sexual urges because he's looked at porn is deceiving himself; people do not lose their sense of reason or rationality by looking at porn.

In fact, I can't think of any logical negative effects of porn. I would treat the industry as I treat any other. I can hardly even imagine how society became so scared of it in the first place.

Oh I certainly can....

I don't . I have seen "quite a few porn" sites in my day and very few of the dudes who run those wear a "rubber" when they are doing their business.

No, but it could very well fuel both creative and obscene ideas in their little minds due to their uncontrollable desires. We have 15 year old girls wearing "booty shorts", I am sure that is the cause of other factors, but you get my drift.