I was a retailer for many years of mainstream New York Times type bestsellers, so I have a few problems with any government efforts to rein in free speech.
Indeed the films at question with Extreme Associates are tasteless and gross, but all content is fictional in nature and meant to make the viewer laugh or gross them out. To imprison a couple in their 20's for 50 years and fine them millions of dollars for such nonsense is government overbearing to the worst degree. I thought it used to be Ronald Reagan who felt that government should get off of people's backs.
Your average New York Times type bestseller features sexually explicit language or imagery. Many motion pictures and television programs feature sexual suggestive situation or more overt situations. Extreme Associates are simply a company that markets tasteless films to entertain, gross out or get a laugh from their customers. There appears to be nothing remarkable in this.
The bill of rights clearly bans any federal efforts to rein in free speech. The wording couldn't be more clear. So in 1973 a split Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision decided that "local communities" could somehow rein in free speech they don't like. Yet there appears to be no sound legal basis for this either. Judge Gary Lancaster rightly recognized that this company took very reasonable steps to prevent minors from accessing their videos with a number of registration and credit card checks to be in place before any downloading or purchase could be made. Attorney General Gonzales and the Bush Administration simply don't want adults to make up their own mind what sort of entertainment or films they wish to view. This administration can't balance the federal budget. Made a anarchy mess of Iraq instead of bringing down Saddam Hussein in an ordely manner by bringing him to justice for crimes in the world court system. Is losing the trade situation with record high imports flowing billions from the American economy. Can't stop the flow of jobs to China, India and Mexico. And has proved itself inept in many other areas, but feels that it should be the judge of what free speech adults should be allowed to view?
You'd expect Attorney General Gonzales first action to be something related to American security or the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Instead it's attemptimg to imprison a couple in their twenties who make lousey trash films.
I trust the wisdom of the marketplace. And this company made a good faith effort to prevent children from accessing their bizarre materials.
If the government can ban absurd materials like this, then they can slowly move against more mainstream speech or against political speech they don't agree with. The Bill Of Rights was intended to protect minority unpopular speech like this. It wasn't until 1850 that a MA bookseller was arrested without any charge for selling a copy of the racy British novel, Fanny Hill. It was a ful year later that the legislature finally wrote a law to justify this arrest. This is absurd. And Mr. Gonzales is equally absurd. He simply doesn't believe in the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution. If a company such as Extreme Associates cannot carefully distribute materials to a few fans of their films to be viewed in the privacy of their own homes then the Bill Of Rights and Constitution mean nothing.
Further it seems like moral hypocrisy for Bush who has been reported to have been involved in a variety of moral faults such as heavy drinking, cocaine and marijuana use up to 1988 or even later as well as some interesting sexual conduct, and who helped produce a "slasher" horror film himself, "The Hitcher".
Extreme Associates simply offer entertainment choices. Mr. Bush engaged in some very destructive conduct that hurt himself and others. It's time for him to back off and leave Extreme Associates alone.
I wouldn't cross the street if their products were free. I'm not interested. But if some are willing to pay their own hard earned money to view such trash, then it's their money. Let them spend it as they want. Viewing a trashy film isn't comparable to Bush spending money on drugs or alcohol to hurt himself, his family and others. He should be smart enough to know the difference.
You don't have to go to them. They will bring their sewage to you and your children. They already are. You are so numb from the onslaught you don't even notice the worst of it. But society has become immeasurably coarser because they have license to coarsen it without challenge. You accept the coarse and foul as normal now. That's why you vainly imagine there to be no danger.
You know, I may disagree with you on Bush's other policy items, but I certainly agree that the obscenity issue is where President Bush's administration is crossing into unconstitutional issues. I know there are a lot of social conservatives on this board that think the Government should prosecute "obscene material," but they should really call themselves social liberals. A conservative is one who believes in a limited government. A liberal generally believes in an expanded government. Prosecuting obscenity is certainly an area that is the definition of big government. You may not like what is being said or done, but other people have rights also.
"Campaign finance reform" also restricts free speech and has lead to things such as this ridiculous Tom Delay investigation.
I want the government to reduce its reach both financially, and socially.