Bush team uses skin game to attack porn

[MisterMark]

Bid to end protected speech via regulatory enforcement skirts the Constitution to foster political, moral agenda

BY PATRICK MOORE

July 5, 2005

John Ashcroft may have departed from the Department of Justice, but under the direction of his successor, Alberto Gonzales, his morality crusade continues.

Under the guise of regulatory powers, the department is planning a punitive and ideologically motivated assault on the adult entertainment industry. A legal challenge last month delayed the onset, but Justice is hoping later this year to begin enforcing a host of regulations so onerous that they may represent the end of pornography as a viable business in America.

Regardless of one's feelings about adult entertainment, the situation is a disturbing illustration of a larger trend in the Bush administration: the use of regulatory powers to advance a conservative moral agenda.

More: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opm...0,3645822.story

 

[jonb]

For all of Bush's AIDS money, Blair sends more. Bush's is tied up in administrative costs, of course.

As far as this case goes, I don't understand why they said 'skin game'. Is that a game like Custer's Revenge? If you've ever masturbated to a porn game, I feel nothing but pity for you.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 6 2005, 06:28 PM
For all of Bush's AIDS money, Blair sends more. Bush's is tied up in administrative costs, of course.

[post=327168]Quoted post[/post]​

Hey, wouldn't want to cut into the Bush Crime Families profit margins, now would we? And anyway, those "evildoers" are waaaayyyyy over there. What's that got to do with us? Fuck 'em. They deserve to die. :grr:

 

[dolf250]

There is one interesting part of the article which I don’t quite understand. The article says “AIDS is another example. For several years now, researchers applying for National Institutes of Health grants to study AIDS have been told to remove references to gay men, even though they continue to represent the majority of cases here in the United States.”

It would seem to me as though the Bush administration would want the references to stay. It would help their cause to be able to show the public that AIDS is more common to gay men and they could then give all sorts of health reasons why being gay is “bad.” I just can’t figure out why they would want the references removed.

 

[madame_zora]

"The suppression of the porn industry may not stir patriotic outrage in most Americans, but the manipulation of regulatory powers to support a moral agenda should."



You see, this is a carefully constructed machine being assembled right before our very eyes. I've been saying it all along, they'll legislate every freedom we have away by using unpopular topics like faggots getting married, women murdering babies for fun and profit, pornographers who are most likely child abusers as well. Once all the unpopualr topics are done and we HAVE no more civil liberties, we will have no freedom and any kind and maybe even fundie churches will come under big brother's eye...

Why are people too fucking stupid to understand that protecting EVERYONE'S rights protects YOUR rights?

 

[Pye]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 7 2005, 03:42 AM
"The suppression of the porn industry may not stir patriotic outrage in most Americans, but the manipulation of regulatory powers to support a moral agenda should."



You see, this is a carefully constructed machine being assembled right before our very eyes. I've been saying it all along, they'll legislate every freedom we have away by using unpopular topics like faggots getting married, women murdering babies for fun and profit, pornographers who are most likely child abusers as well. Once all the unpopualr topics are done and we HAVE no more civil liberties, we will have no freedom and any kind and maybe even fundie churches will come under big brother's eye...

Why are people too fucking stupid to understand that protecting EVERYONE'S rights protects YOUR rights?

[post=327268]Quoted post[/post]​

well said-- when will people stop looking at the "doesn't affect me ..yet" and figure that there is a need to stand up now?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 7 2005, 03:42 AM
Why are people too fucking stupid to understand that protecting EVERYONE'S rights protects YOUR rights?

[post=327268]Quoted post[/post]​

Sweet Jana, is this a rhetorical question? Remember doing Venn diagrams in 3rd grade math to learn the relationship between sets, subsets, and supersets? The overlapping circles? For most of the people in "circle A", they prefer all rights/privileges/power/money to go into circle A, will almost tolerate some rights/priveleges falling in the overlap, but are willing to kill if they see any money/power go into the overlap, or any rights/priveleges go into circle B.

They forget that overlap belongs to BOTH circle A AND circle B - which the intelligent among us know to be the most beneficial.

But then again, the "circle A only" type people really don't give a flying fuck about "most beneficial", they only care about "beneficial for me."

 

[madame_zora]

While all you say is true, DCDEEP, it is clear to me that our esteemed government doesn't give a rat-fuck about circle A or B, they just want absolute power. While circle B sees this as a threat, circle A only sees that it hasn't affected them yet. By the time it does, and THEY get mad, it will be far too late to "just go back to the way things were".

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 7 2005, 11:20 AM
While all you say is true, DCDEEP, it is clear to me that our esteemed government doesn't give a rat-fuck about circle A or B, they just want absolute power. While circle B sees this as a threat, circle A only sees that it hasn't affected them yet. By the time it does, and THEY get mad, it will be far too late to "just go back to the way things were".

[post=327344]Quoted post[/post]​

YEP! But really, that is exactly what I meant in the last sentence of my post. They do not care what is beneficial for the health of our nation, they only want ALL the power, money, and rights to benefit themselves.

 

[Freddie53]

There is something real sinister in all this. The first two paragraphs lead up to a very important and dangerous concept that all should know about.

There is another basic right that is being "squashed" in all this. And that is freedom of the press. When the Constitution was written with the Bill of Rights, the press was a simple operation. It was nothing like the multimillion dollar nation wide or wordl wide production. So we have forgotten what "freedom of the press" meant. It covered the freedom to put things in writing and graphics and distribute either free or or payment. That basic right is still enshrined in the Constitution.

And in blows the Internet. And suddenly Freddie53 is a worldwide columnist commenting on worldwide news. Jana and Jacinto are the other two who regularly write in a columnist style you would find in the newspaper. And we three usually agree on most issues. So now we have the LPSG magazine.

So it isn't about just about porn. It is about the freedom of running a newspaper from you own computer at home. The problem is most Americans equate freedom of the press only to the big newspapers with full time reporters. They don't look at other media as freedom of the press. I believe it is. It is still words and graphics. There was no moving pictures when the Constitution was written. I believe "still or moving pictures" comes under the umbrella of freedom of the press.

The Constitution never mentions professional reporters. It says freedom of the press. Press mean reproduce words or graphics and distrubute. And it doesn't say what kind of technology. Everything here can be printed on paper.

So others see the horror of losing freedom of speach. Yes that is a major concern. But so is the losing of freedom of the press.

When BOTH freedoms are lost, then there is no freedom at all.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jul 7 2005, 12:05 PM
There is something real sinister in all this. The first two paragraphs lead up to a very important and dangerous concept that all should know about.

There is another basic right that is being "squashed" in all this. And that is freedom of the press. When the Constitution was written with the Bill of Rights, the press was a simple operation. It was nothing like the multimillion dollar nation wide or wordl wide production. So we have forgotten what "freedom of the press" meant. It covered the freedom to put things in writing and graphics and distribute either free or or payment. That basic right is still enshrined in the Constitution.

And in blows the Internet. And suddenly Freddie53 is a worldwide columnist commenting on worldwide news. Jana and Jacinto are the other two who regularly write in a columnist style you would find in the newspaper. And we three usually agree on most issues. So now we have the LPSG magazine.

So it isn't about just about porn. It is about the freedom of running a newspaper from you own computer at home. The problem is most Americans equate freedom of the press only to the big newspapers with full time reporters. They don't look at other media as freedom of the press. I believe it is. It is still words and graphics. There was no moving pictures when the Constitution was written. I believe "still or moving pictures" comes under the umbrella of freedom of the press.

The Constitution never mentions professional reporters. It says freedom of the press. Press mean reproduce words or graphics and distrubute. And it doesn't say what kind of technology. Everything here can be printed on paper.

So others see the horror of losing freedom of speach. Yes that is a major concern. But so is the losing of freedom of the press.

When BOTH freedoms are lost, then there is no freedom at all.

[post=327356]Quoted post[/post]​

LOL Freddie, the only thing I can think of to figure this out is that when the fundies see the phrase "freedom of the press," they imagine some poor fellow in a chinese laundry, and they cannot understand why the government would want to tell him how to iron a shirt.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP+Jul 7 2005, 11:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DC_DEEP &#064; Jul 7 2005, 11:58 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@Jul 7 2005, 12:05 PM
There is something real sinister in all this. The first two paragraphs lead up to a very important and dangerous concept that all should know about.

There is another basic right that is being "squashed" in all this. And that is freedom of the press. When the Constitution was written with the Bill of Rights, the press was a simple operation. It was nothing like the multimillion dollar nation wide or wordl wide production. So we have forgotten what "freedom of the press" meant. It covered the freedom to put things in writing and graphics and distribute either free or or payment. That basic right is still enshrined in the Constitution.

And in blows the Internet. And suddenly Freddie53 is a worldwide columnist commenting on worldwide news. Jana and Jacinto are the other two who regularly write in a columnist style you would find in the newspaper. And we three usually agree on most issues. So now we have the LPSG magazine.

So it isn&#39;t about just about porn. It is about the freedom of running a newspaper from you own computer at home. The problem is most Americans equate freedom of the press only to the big newspapers with full time reporters. They don&#39;t look at other media as freedom of the press. I believe it is. It is still words and graphics.
So others see the horror of losing freedom of speach. Yes that is a major concern. But so is the losing of freedom of the press.

When BOTH freedoms are lost, then there is no freedom at all.

[post=327356]Quoted post[/post]​

LOL Freddie, the only thing I can think of to figure this out is that when the fundies see the phrase "freedom of the press," they imagine some poor fellow in a chinese laundry, and they cannot understand why the government would want to tell him how to iron a shirt.

[post=327376]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
DC, It is my turn to nearly fall out of my chair when I read this post following reading your post using those silly little birds who put their heads in the sand to compare fundie thinking about sex.

I am sure you are right. The fundies think that freedom of the press means you can own and operate a laundry service. But then what can you expect from silly little birds who keep their heads in the sand.