Isn't that why we fought the War on Terror in the first place? So that some government could tell us how to behave in private, based on a code of morals that we did not personally choose?

You didn't read the article carefully enough ... or you're innumerate. The "crack down" calls for

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.

Yes, that's a big 8 agents. What a great big waste of resources. Yessiree, just imagine, if we don't divert these agents we might let thousands of potential terrorists pass unscreened. We may miss those 8 (!) agents dearly. After all, what percentage of the FBI's resources do you imagine that is ... (oops) it's almost not measureable.

Hmm, the real mystery is not why they are doing this but why people feel it necessary to comment.

The relevant issue is not the number of agents but what those agents will be engaged in. If they announced a crackdown on those who produced religious tracts and assigned 8 agents to the job, I doubt you'd be so sarcastic about it only being 8 agents, you'd be angry at the fact that the FBI is doing something they have no business doing, policing the production, distribution and consumption of material made by consenting adults for consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. There is no "mystery" here and no one ever claimed there was. They're doing it because it scores points with a bunch of moral busybodies who just can't stop themselves from interfering in the private lives of other people.

I think the entire Left Behind series is a bunch of ridiculous trash. You know how I express that? I don't buy the books and read them. But there are tens of millions of Americans who apparently like that ridiculous trash and they buy it up by the bucketful. I have no right to stop them from doing so, nor would it ever occur to me that I should try. And if the government attempted to prevent them from doing so, I'd be on the front lines fighting to stop that intrusion into their rightful liberty. Obviously, you think that you have the right to decide what you want to read or watch, but others do not if their choices offend you.

Ed,

I think it might be useful to actually consider the laws which they are enforcing in their quest to attack adult consensual porn. I'm no lawyer and am not very familiar, but my hope would be that the FBI might be tasked to make sure such stuff remains private and sheilded from the eyes of those who either wish their children exposed to such or don't wish to live a life without having it thrust on them (and not focused on the objections you raised).

Although, I'm not sure what Federal jurisdiction would give the FBI a mandate (and which laws) to attack such (might it be those addressing inter-state commerce?). And if the FBI is instead going after the issues you raise, I'd join your objections for the same reasons ... but instead of fingering the FBI for the blame, I'd think you'd be better off bitching at Congress ... who authored those laws being enforced.

And given the quote provided, "I guess this means we've won the WoT" means that the number is relevant. 8 agents is not exactly "a crack down" or a diverting of "resources for espionage". Hence, my remarks vis a vis innumeracy. It's a (small) drop in the bucket.

Mark Olson wrote:

I'm no lawyer and am not very familiar, but my hope would be that the FBI might be tasked to make sure such stuff remains private and sheilded from the eyes of those who either wish their children exposed to such or don't wish to live a life without having it thrust on them (and not focused on the objections you raised).

Unfortunately, that hope will go unrewarded. Of the 40 cases that the DOJ has brought against pornographers since Bush took office, not one of them had anything to do with exposure to children. I'm all for taking additional steps to insure that children are not exposed to pornography, especially on the internet where it is far too easy to find hardcore porn without having to show a credit card number or proof of adulthood. But that is not the focus of the DOJ's crackdown, they are only going after pornography made by adults for adults and sold at adult book stores or through the mail.

Looks to me like another Chapter in the conservative War on Sex. After all, people might use the pornography to masturbate. And that's the sin of Onan -- or something. (Although, I think Onan actually let his seed spill on the belly of a whore.)

The furor over abortion makes a lot more sense from some parts of the debate when viewed as an attempt to escape pregnancy, God's punishment for having sex; particularly it makes sense if the anti-abortion advocate in question is also against use of birth control and education concerning birth control.

Government small enough to fit into your bedroom.

Ed,
Don't be so coy, in those 40 cases presumably the DOJ (and new the FBI team of 8 agents) are not going after zoning violations. What federal statute is being violated? My guess is that the FBI isn't going to be going after zone law violations or after people just "because". A law has to be broken. What law are the defendants being charged with breaking?

My prior statement I think holds, that it's not the DOJ or FBI but Congress you need to go after with your criticism.

There is nothing coy about this, and it has virtually nothing to do with Congress or any statute. The standards and extent of obscenity law has been almost entirely determined by the courts, not by Congress. It isn't a question of either applying the law or not applying the law, because the standards are entirely subjective. The courts have attempted to carve out a niche of material that is unprotected by the first amendment but has never come up with anything the least bit objective, finally leaving it up to "community standards" - without bothering to define what that means. The result is an entirely subjective set of laws that doesn't allow someone to know what is illegal and what is not. In short, the courts have created precisely the sort of vague law that they would otherwise have struck down if Congress had written it, precisely because it was so vague that it could not serve as a guide for what is and isn't illegal.

How does one determine what the "community standard" is? Do we just leave it to a jury to decide what they think it is? Surveys show that an enormous percentage of Americans in all communities consume pornography in one form or another. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and it isn't just one guy renting all those tapes. But the "community standards" criteria never seems to include that, it only requires that 12 people on a jury find it icky.

The government typically loses prosecutions for obscenity at the appellate level for precisely this reason. Indeed, the first major prosecution by the DOJ in recent years was overturned this year (and irony of ironies, the couple - a man and a woman - on trial in that case each faced 50 years in prison; a conviction for actually raping someone would have been a 20 year sentence). The Clinton administration pretty much got the Federal government out of the business of prosecuting for adult pornography, but the Bush administration has revived such suits despite the fact that the courts rarely allow them to win.

Although, I think Onan actually let his seed spill on the belly of a whore.

Actually, Onan refused to impregnate his late brother's wife. I think it is Levitical Law that if a man's married elder brother dies without progeny, the younger brother is obliged to impregnate his late brother's wife. The method Onan used was letting his semen spill on the ground instead of in his brother's wife. So really, the "Sin of Onan" has nothing to do with masturbation, cuzz he was doin' his bro's wife.

Just for clarity's sake, Clayton Cramer points out what exactly they were confiscating.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_09_18_archive.html#112723049126380186

It seems to me that when porn becomes a snuff film (referencing the described movie which shows rape and murder of three women), its pretty reasonable to arrest someone for that.

I'm also really skeptical about the idea of a former schoolteacher selling porn that simulates sex with school-age girls. Somehow I think there might be more to that than just some movies.

Matthew, the link does not refer to any instance of a snuff film. Snuff films show the actual death of someone, not the fictional depiction of one. 'Silence of the Lambs' is not a snuff film for instance. I didn't see any verification or claim in the link that the women you refer to were actually being killed or raped.

Although it's over 10 years old, here's a link with some info on supposed snuff films:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_258.html

I think the author on the link is trying to suggest that these prosecutions are okay because the things he lists are what he terms 'hard-core'. Of course it wasn't that long ago that anything but the missionary position was 'hard-core'...

I can't define "abuse of federal power", but I know it when I see it.