Tag Archives: child pornography

There goes the men’s vote

Rick Santorum (centre) attends a prayer service at the Path of the Cross church in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this week

AFP photo

While as president of the United States the “Christo”fascist Prick Santorum would be dangerous, Gallup’s daily tracking polls show that the wingnut doesn’t have even the support of a full one-third of the Repugnican Tea Party — thank God. (Prick is shown above “praying” in Puerto Rico, which he says should embrace English, despite the fact that the nation has been Spanish-speaking since shortly after Christopher Columbus claimed it for the Spanish crown way back in 1493…) [This reminds me of that wonderful saying of anthropologist Wade Davis: “The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.”])    

The more papal pronouncements that “Christo”fascist Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Prick Santorum makes, the more obvious it is why he lost his last election — re-election to the U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania — by a whopping 18 percent.

Santorum’s latest crusade for the Vatican is his promise that as president, he would instruct his attorney general — remember former wingnut Attorney General John Ashcroft putting giant drapes in front of a U.S. Justice Department statue with (gasp!) a bared boob? — to prosecute those accused of distributing pornographic material that the Santorum administration (shudder) deems “obscene.”

Wow. It was one thing, I suppose, for Santorum to pick on women, opposing not just abortion but even birth control, but now he is threatening millions and millions of American men that he will cut off their steady supply of “obscene” pornography.

“Obscene” pornography — and I’m not sure what counts as “obscene” to Prick Santorum; would Playboy be “obscene”? (It very apparently would be to John Ashcroft, the kind of attorney general that Santorum would pick) — “can be very damaging,” Santorum has decreed papally.

Emissions from fossil fuels are far more damaging than is pornography — I mean, no more Homo sapiens and pornography certainly will be a moot point — and alcohol and tobacco products demonstrably are “very damaging,” as are sugary and fatty foods, but Santorum has yet to tackle any of those evils.

Corporations, which put obscene profiteering way above people and the planet and which crush the human spirit like something out of “The Matrix,” are “very damaging,” as is permanent bogus warfare for the war profiteering of the military-industrial complex (indeed, military overspending perhaps is the No. 1 factor in the collapse of the American empire). Is Prick Santorum going to take on the sacred cows that are the corporations and the military-industrial complex?

And how about guns — aren’t guns more dangerous than is pornography? Don’t guns kill far more people than does porn? Is Prick Santorum, who is so fucking eager to protect us all from ourselves, going to take on the gun lobby? 

In the same year (1973) that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue of abortion in Roe vs. Wade, in Miller vs. California the court decided the issue of “obscenity” with what came to be called “the Miller test,” which essentially leaves it to the states or other locales to determine what is and what is not “obscene.” (And obviously, what is widely considered to be “obscene” in Salt Lake City, for instance, and what is considered to be “obscene” in such places as New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco are very different.)

The Miller ruling fairly explicitly prohibits the federal government from imposing a nationally uniform standard on “obscenity,” yet this is exactly what Prick Santorum promises to do as president.

Apparently, all that “the Miller test” allows in all 50 states is mere nudity (without sexual activity, presumably — and I suppose that masturbation would be sexual activity, and perhaps even an erection is indicative of sexual activity) and, according to Wikipedia’s entry on “obscenity,” “male-to-female vaginal-only penetration that does not show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as ‘soft-core’ pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.” (So, if Prick Santorum’s crusade against porn were taken to its extreme, apparently Playboy would be allowed, but not much else. [And indeed, Playboy is pretty tame by today’s standards of porn, probably so that it can be distributed in all 50 states without Miller-related local interference.])

In my book, Miller vs. California is woefully outdated — indeed, the availability of wonderfully raunchy Internet porn in all 50 states, which probably could not have been foreseen in 1973, pretty much makes Miller moot — and thus deeply flawed. In my book, the First Amendment covers all forms of sexually oriented expression with the exception of such things as child pornography and other forms of sexually oriented activity in which the participants are not consenting but are forced. (It is legally recognized that minors, because of their young age, cannot consent, and that certain intellectually incompetent individuals cannot consent, either.) Other than that, willing, consenting participants who are of age should be able to have just about whatever they want to do sexually be visually recorded if they so wish.

I probably digress a little, but I know that millions and millions of men — and, of course, plenty of liberated women — of all sexual orientations are with me when we say collectively to Prick Santorum: You will have to pry our “obscene” porn from our cold, dead fingers.

This “freedom” that the wingnuts bloviate about so much, yet so many of them want to impose their own backasswards religious and “moral” beliefs on the rest of us just like the theofascists of the Taliban wish to impose their own backasswards “moral” code and religious beliefs upon other people. That’s not fucking “freedom.” That’s theofascism. That’s why I call these far-right-wing traitors “Christo”fascists (with the quotation marks because the one thing they most definitely are not is Christian.)

It is very simple, ridiculously simple: If you oppose abortion, then do not have an abortion. If you oppose contraception, then do not use contraception (although those who contribute to overpopulation are major fucking assholes). If you oppose same-sex marriage, then do not marry someone of your own sex. If you oppose pornography, then do not consume pornography.

As I pointed out, Americans’ freedom allows them — us — to possess and/or to consume or use even things that demonstrably, and not even arguably, are harmful to us, such as firearms, cigarettes, booze, certain prescription drugs that easily are abused, and junk food.

Our personal “salvation” is our own to work out as individuals — it’s not the job of Prick Santorum, acting as the puppet of Pope Palpatine, to “save” us against our will.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s not kiddie porn when the kids do it

Suddenly, “sexting” is our nation’s largest “criminal” problem. No, better to go after the corrupt judges and the other white-collar criminals who are bankrupting our nation morally as well as financially and leave the kids the fuck alone.

So there is a trend now of charging minors with kiddie porn crimes when they post to the Internet or otherwise electronically post or exchange sexually explicit images of themselves (“sexting,” this is called).

This is bullshit.

Kiddie-porn laws were meant to protect minors from predatory adultsnot to prosecute kids who engage in sexually oriented behavior with other kids.

When I was a kid (I am 41, a member of Gen X), things like “playing doctor” were considered a normal part of growing up.

Today, overzealous assbites in the “criminal” “justice” system want to prosecute minors for behavior that used to be considered a normal part of growing up.

Gee, maybe it’s because we have a “criminal” “justice” industry that, just like the military industrial complex, has gotten waaaaay out of control.

Think I’m full of shit?

A 14-year-old girl in New Jersey has been charged with the possession of and the distribution of child porn for having posted to MySpace sexually explicit images of herself. A conviction could mean that she is branded a sex offender for life.

There’s big money in convicting minors of crimes — two corrupt judges in Pennsylvania recently pleaded guilty for having taken $2.6 million in payoffs to sentence juveniles to the private juvenile detention centers that were giving them their payola. (These privately owned detention centers should be shut down as soon as possible and those who bribed the judges need to be imprisoned for their felonious behavior, and detention centers should not be privatized — but that’s another blog post for another time.)

When I used to work at the California Youth Authority, processing paperwork for incoming youthful inmates, I saw many inmates (“wards,” they euphemistically were called) whose intake files indicated that they were being locked up for sexual behavior with other minors that, in my day, would have been considered rather normal sex play between or among minors.

It’s not about justice anymore (if it ever was about justice); now, it’s about making big money by locking up people (even minors), with even judges being on the take. (Really, what have the baby boomers who run the nation touched that they haven’t corrupted?)

I admire these teenagers who are fighting back against a “criminal” “justice” system that is out of fucking control (from The Associated Press):

Scranton, Pa. – One of three teens suing a Pennsylvania prosecutor says she does not want to be bullied by the district attorney, who threatened to charge the girls over racy cell-phone pictures.

Fifteen-year-old Marissa Miller said after a federal court hearing [yesterday] that she did nothing wrong when a friend took a picture of her and another girl in their bras.

Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick has threatened to file child pornography or open lewdness charges against the two girls unless they participate in an after-school program.

A girl photographed topless in a separate setting is also suing. The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking a temporary restraining order on their behalf.

The judge has not ruled on the request. Skumanick says he won’t take action until after the ruling.

Gee, is the district attorney getting payola from privately owned after-school programs? You have to wonder, don’t you? (And, as a Salon.com feminist columnist points out, an image of a young woman in a bra constitutes child porn? What about young women’s clothing catalogs? Those are now kiddie-porn magazines?)

If I were the parent of a teen, no, I would not be thrilled if he or she posted sexually explicit images of him- or herself to the Internet or otherwise exchanged such images electronically.

However, if I were a parent of a minor who was charged criminally or threatened with criminal charges for such behavior, I would be absofuckinglutely livid.

Child-porn and sex-with-minors laws were (and are) meant to protect minors from predatory adults.

Just because the worthless baby boomers are in charge of the nation and the boomers didn’t have certain technology when they were teens doesn’t mean that the sexual behavior of today’s teens is any worse than was the sexual behavior of the boomers when they were teens.

People who are ignorant of today’s technology get blinded by their technological ignorance and are unable and/or unwilling to see the underlying principles. The technology that they don’t understand renders them utterly unable to reason (not that their faculty of reason ever was sound in the first place).

The boomers would have been into “sexting” too had the technology been available to them. Duh.

And those (mostly baby boomers, very apparently) who illegally profit from abusing the “criminal” “justice” system — such as the corrupt baby-boomer judges (gee, that sounds redundant) in Pennsylvania who made millions — need to experience the “criminal” “justice” system themselves. They need to spend many years inside of  a prison cell (a prison cell that is not privately owned).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized