Let me be the judge of my own good

Denver Post ^ | 09/22/2005 | David Harsanyi

[aynrandy]

If the War on Pornography is as successful as the War on Drugs, we can look forward to the DVD "Booty & the Beast" being sold on street corners instead of out-of-the-way sex shops.

Prohibition doesn't work. Unfortunately, that never stops us from trying.

On July 29, Denver's FBI field office, along with the 56 others around the nation, received a message calling for recruits interested in working with a new anti-obscenity squad.

The initiative, as reported in The Washington Post, was "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller.

Applicants for a new elite porn squad were cautioned, however, that they'll need some moral fortitude to deal with material that tends to be offensive to local juries.

You know what's more offensive than pornography? Blue-nosed bureaucrat crusaders limiting personal freedoms.

Unquestionably, pornography has no redeeming qualities. And certainly, there's nothing inherently heroic or patriotic about protecting it. But when government gets in the business of deciding what sorts of activities consensual adults engage in, we should take notice.

For social conservatives, the new War on Porn is a welcome development. Not only is smut on the radar again, but it's alleviated some of their skepticism about Attorney General Gonzales. The Family Research Council even declared that it has "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

When I spoke to Focus on the Family spokeswoman Carrie Gordon Earll, I asked her if they agreed.

"We concur with the message being conveyed by those other groups, yes," she explained. "This is exactly what federal government does. They have a responsibility to prosecute and it's positive: It shows the Justice Department is going to actively and aggressively prosecute obscenity."

Prosecute whom? Earll agrees there is a distinction between obscenity and pornography: "Community standards, the way things are depicted and the absence of artistic merit, as the Supreme Court ruling says, all play a role."

Perhaps we could use Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's 1964 "I know it when I see it" definition of pornography? Though Earll does admit "it is a tad subjective."

And by "subjective," does she really mean Focus on the Family would like to see a ban on all pornography?

"Obviously legally

we are bound to abide by court ruling," Earll explains. "But our general message is that pornography is bad for families, sexually addictive, it objectifies women and children and commercializes the holy union between a man and woman." It's a good message. But what about personal freedoms? The freedom to sully the holy union? The freedom to be a shut-in or a pervert?

"If anything, the danger is that this type of material is marketed to everyone. ... The pendulum right now is so far towards the personal freedom side, that laws are not being prosecuted."

Should activities harmful to society be enough of a reason to ban or prosecute? If so, we'd have to ban tequila, potato chips and Ben Affleck movies.

More important, how reasonable is it to allocate resources to fighting adult porn when we have terrorists, child pornographers and assorted other villains out to clearly harm society?

"It's very important," answers Earll. "The disintegration of our culture can come from an al-Qaeda, but it can also come from pornographers destroying your children through the Internet."

Wow. I never thought of it that way.

"All we're doing is saying we want to have a voice for the higher good," Earll says.

The "higher good" is a tricky notion. For environmentalists, for instance, the higher good entails me driving a toy car that plugs into my wall socket. For others, the higher good can mean banning people from smoking a cigar on their own property.

And while I may even agree that some of those things are for the higher good, I'd much rather decide that for myself.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

[mlc9852]

"But when government gets in the business of deciding what sorts of activities consensual adults engage in, we should take notice."

We have drug laws, prostitution laws, laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, all of which the government decides. How can rational, caring adults defend pornography?

[DTogo]

Aren't there more serious issues and actual CRIMES being committed in the U.S. that the FBI should spend its time and resources going after??

Sheesh!

[mike182d]

Blue-nosed bureaucrat crusaders limiting personal freedoms.

First, freedom isn't the ability to do whatever you want, its the ability to do what is right.

i.e. the Government telling me I cannot get married is an offense against human liberties but the the government telling me not to shoot myself in the stomach is not.

Second, pornography is far more destructive to society as it destroys the human family and it is far more widespread than any single illegal narcotic.

Third, this isn't an assault against pornography in general - or "legitimate" pornography - this is an assault against particularly obscene pornography such as beastiality, things involving human feces, et cetera. If the authority is suggesting that allowing such practices is good for a society, then I am highly suspect of his definition of "good."

[Enterprise]

Or how about a porn/war flick - "Heroism beyond the call of booty."

[mike182d]

How can rational, caring adults defend pornography?

Easy. Its the same way liberals try to legitmize being potheads:

1. The Government has better things to monitor 2. Too many people do it, so its a waste of time to stop 3. I do it, so it should be legal ...and the list goes on.

You'll find every argument for pornography is of the same vain.

[steve-b]

On July 29, Denver's FBI field office, along with the 56 others around the nation, received a message calling for recruits interested in working with a new anti-obscenity squad.
The initiative, as reported in The Washington Post, was "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller.

If Dubya had any sense, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller wouldn't be admitted to meetings until they had each written "THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR. DEFEATING THE ENEMY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RIDING MY HOBBY HORSE." one thousand times.

[steve-b]

Aren't there more serious issues and actual CRIMES being committed in the U.S. that the FBI should spend its time and resources going after??

Yeah, I vaguely recall hearing about some little thing or other that they might want to get around to looking into, if it ever gets anywhere near the top of their priorities list....

[Gardener]

"This is exactly what federal government does. They have a responsibility to prosecute and it's positive: It shows the Justice Department is going to actively and aggressively prosecute obscenity." But is it exactly what the FEDERAL government SHOULD be doing?

[Lejes Rimul]

Yeah, and if you don't like slavery, don't own any slaves.

[steve-b]

The Government has better things to monitor

Gee, ya think?

[DTogo]

If Dubya had any sense, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller wouldn't be admitted to meetings until they had each written "THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR. DEFEATING THE ENEMY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RIDING MY HOBBY HORSE." one thousand times.

Are we at war? When was it declared? Who is the enemy? What are our leaders encouraging the country to do to mobilize for victory?

[Osage Orange]

IMO, spot on.

[mike182d]

Gee, ya think?

So, you're suggesting the government should drop everything else that it is monitoring: drugs, copyright infringement, rapists, pedophiles, et cetera, to chase after one man?

You don't fight a war by sending everything you have at one front.

[pageonetoo]

...Should activities harmful to society be enough of a reason to ban or prosecute? If so, we'd have to ban tequila, potato chips and Ben Affleck movies....

The "higher good" is a tricky notion. For environmentalists, for instance, the higher good entails me driving a toy car that plugs into my wall socket. For others, the higher good can mean banning people from smoking a cigar on their own property...

First, freedom isn't the ability to do whatever you want, its the ability to do what is right...-Mike

Mike, freedom allows the murder of innocent babies, every day. Freedom allows faggots to dance in the streets, half haked. Freedom allows Cindy Sheehan to stand at the Presidents gate. Freedom is what we fight/fought and give/gave our lives for...

The problem always starts with who decides what is "right"!

We watched as a storm overcame one city, and now possibly another. There was nothing to do but watch. The storms power was overwhelming to every one of man's preparations, and lack of preparations. More than a thousand souls were lost, that we already know of.

But, we also saw good men and women come to the aid of their neighbors, thousands of miles from home. People are living in their own house, with strangers. Others moved out, and gave their homes to strangers.

These people serving strangers have one thing in common. They are Americans, first, and most of them are Christians. They came to do their duty, just as soldiers. They came to do their duty, as God's Army.

Drugs and alcohol, pornography and sex, are only symptoms. They are just symptoms. The illness, the killer, is deeper than that! We are in a battle for eternity. It is just one day closer to the beginning of the end!

[NYFriend]

I disagree. By some interpretations, the Biblical freedom (free will) is the option of doing good (it presupposes that people would otherwise only do evil).

Constitution freedom permits people to do what they want (good or bad) as long as it doesn't harm another against their will. For example, attacking someone on the street is out, boxing is OK (and so is dueling for that matter). I have no dog in this pornography fight, but it isn't the government's job to decide what I should be free to do. If I am not hurting others against their will, the government should leave me alone.

[Gabz]

And while I may even agree that some of those things are for the higher good, I'd much rather decide that for myself.

Sums it all up quite nicely.

[mike182d]

"THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR. DEFEATING THE ENEMY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RIDING MY HOBBY HORSE."

Actually, if you wanted to be more accurate, you should have it read:

"The United States is at war. Defeating the enemy is more important than curbing rape, spousal abuse, the disintegration of the human family, and the destruction of children's lives."

For what its worth, Ted Bundy specifically mentioned pornography as the fuel that led to his murderous rampage. It started with soft-core, then to hard-core, then to the wierd and demented stuff that the Government is now trying to forbid.

All and all, I do not see how this action by the Feds is a bad thing. If you can demonstrate how the funds and resources alloted to this new department significantly impedes our ability to fight the War on Terror, I will give more credit to this argument. Otherwise, it is just empty rhetoric.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You'll find every argument for pornography is of the same vain.

OK, let's ban porn. Now what? It'll just go underground and become more seedier than it already is. Child porn will proliferate - if legal porn is banned, might as well exploit children, right?

Give me a break. The porn industry is self-regulated and they follow all U.S. Federal laws. I've always said that those who rail against porn likely have a few rags stashed in their glove compartment or frequently visit adult bookstores.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

this is an assault against particularly obscene pornography such as beastiality, things involving human feces, et cetera.

Already banned by mainstream porn industries without the help of busybody bureaucrats.