It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Bush Declares War on Porn

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:27 PM
The FBI' s top man and the Attorney General have made it their "top priority" to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography.
The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

More proof that religion is deep within the government.

Personally, I don't think the government needs to get involved in issues like this. Like the article said it depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults, so why should they care?

What's next...burning books?

Related News Links:

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:30 PM
No this is good.

Think about it...

War on Drugs = More Drugs on the streets.
War on Terror = More terrorist attacks. [Increase since 2001]
War on Porn = More free porn on the internet?

Thank you G.W.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:37 PM
From what I gather here their not talking to Child Pornography but your standard adult variety. That's a bit odd 'cause what charges can be be brought against something I think the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on in the plus?

Or am I missing something. Dunno, there must be something going on here that is outside the scope of Adult to Adult -- Adult porn?


EDIT: the usual terrible spelling

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Dallas]

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:40 PM
I want that job..... Think about it. looking at porn on the job and getting paid (well) to do it. A man's dream LOL

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:43 PM
well said Odium...

I guess someone in the whitehouse, just invested in a skin magazine...
better watch out for those skyrocketing profits...

I am a little curious though...
how are 8 guys supposed to do anything other than lipservice towards the largest cottage industry in the world?

I mean, no offense, but 8 guys going after a few million pornographers?
reaks of under staffing and simple lip service for all that money the christian coalition gave...
hope they got there money worth...

By the way... Can anyone tell me what the biblical chapter against a single man looking at pictures of naked people is at... I had trouble finding it...

I did find the chapter that said I could buy my neighbors daughter and make her my "slave" though... maybe that would be more fun, and take less time than downloads... (sarcastic)

I hope this is a moral effort, and not a religious one... it will stink and make anything that touches it stink also...

Does anyone remember in the early 80's when the catholic church was discovered to be the owner of a porn magazine publication sold in europe?

[edit on 23-9-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:48 PM
okay the fact that they are targeting "normal" adult porn sounds more like a way for them to infiltrate and possibly set up their own company. The CIA in the past has owned brothels and other business so why can't the FBI covertly get into porn. It's big business and we could certainly use the cash. perhaps they'll do propaganda porn.

My questions for the FBI are the following:

1) Are agents provided their own lotion or do they have to bring some from home.

2) If through doing "Research" for the task force the agent comes down with a severe case of...ahem...carple tunnel syndrome, would that be covered under workmans comp.

3) If the agent purchases an adult film entitled "workmans comp" for "research" and gets a receipt will he/she be reimbursed.

I'm sure there are more questions I'm overlooking.


posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:54 PM
I couldn't think of a worse hell to have to live through, than to be forced to pore through the manure pile of smut that has pervaded our western cultures (not just America).

Reigning in America will be tough enough, but, how does the FBI hope to stop the flow of international smut?

I'm questioning the rationale of assigning resources to this at such a time. Clicking on the links provided gives plenty of ammunition to the notion that it's not the right time for this, considering the War on Terror, Homeland Security, Patriot Acts I and II on top of the mayhem which the hurricane season is causing.

Is it, as someone suggested in the second blog link, an attempt to garner support for lagging popularity?

I'm not so sure about the reasons behind this, but I will say that the industry needs reins applied to it.

IMO, it is getting out of hand when it's openly available on cable TV.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by masqua]

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:04 PM

perhaps they'll do propaganda porn.

Very funny.

Manufacturers and purveyors, eh? What is illegal about adult-adult porn? The issue that bothers me is that this may be an intrusion into the internet. Once that door has been breached, look out.

It seems a simple solution would be to move everything offshore.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:06 PM
I guess the Fed is not securing enough revenues from the porno industry, so it is time to legislate more control and gain some funding.

Online porn tax
Proposed bill targets underage viewers

A proposed bill in Washington could make it harder for under-age kids to view adult websites by adding a 25 percent tax. Supporters hope it will deter underage viewers as well as add additional security to pornographic websites.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's never really about ethics or morality and as Bubba would say, "It's the economy stupid."

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:10 PM

What's next...burning books?

What library in America doesn't ban books?

This is the same as burning books!

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:13 PM
I would like to get involved on one side of this war but I am still on the fence as to which side that is. I shall be forced to go on a fact finding mission and do some extensive research before deciding which stance to take (missionary or...)

it never ceases to amaze me. there are so many problems in the world and this is something they decide is essential?

the only thing dumber than these types of administrative decisions are the people who think this moronic administration is capable of something as diabolical and ingenius as the wtc conspiracies.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:15 PM
*gets on soapbox*

do you think the "actresses" live long productive lives ? Yes, consenting adults consume the "product" , but its very harmful imo.

yes, I have a 5 year old daughter, and would love to see some sort of effort to reduce the access to these sites. I don't care what the political agenda is, I would like to see strict enforcement of age certification for access to the sites, and monitoring of the content to restrict under age "actresses", and any violent depictions.

I know you can't ever get rid of it, and I'm not saying it should be eradicated from existence, just keep little eyes away, and kep the content within reason

*gets off soapbox*

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:18 PM
As "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is now saving us from free and legal commerce and constitutionally protected free speech, can we pleeeeeeeeeeeeease take this torture lover off the short list to replace Sandra D.

Really. This is getting absurd.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:29 PM
sounds like one of the "good ole boys" just got his dream job funded.

Since it would take an act of congress to make porn illegal, I cant see how the "war on porn" would have any effect except spending tax dollars to fund some Bush insiders dream job.

I can see it now, Knock Knock, (Vivid staff) yes, may I help you. Yeah I am agent Dick Roberts from the FBI Porn Task Force. (Vivid staff) umm okay... (FBI guy) Let me see your operation and your records, whoops I see you are filiming, I will need to ummm "interview" this girl here to make sure she is in age compliance...... ( a few short moments pass).... yupe all good, have a great day.

Classic, another waste of overspending tax money with no result or positive gain...

Yeah 3 more years...... Please

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:32 PM
This is a top priority? shouldn't the FBI stick to making sure another terrorist attack doesn't happen or maybe find the guy whole we started a war over? I must be crazy

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:34 PM

yes, I have a 5 year old daughter, and would love to see some sort of effort to reduce the access to these sites.

syrinx high priest

Keep your kid off the 'Net. Recent studies have shown that children under the age of 12 should have limited 'screen' exposure or risk developing ADD.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:37 PM
As far as keeping pornography away from children I agree 100% with Syrinx. As far as Syrinx's statement about keeping it reasonable goes, What is reasonable? This is all going to come back to one little seemingly simple question. What is pornography? I remember in school they used to lock up the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, while leaving Cosmopolitan, Madamoselle and other magazines of that type on the shelf. The only reference that I can find for the definition of pornography is something violating community standards. Define community? I can guarentee that if you take a poll around the churches you will get one definition and if you take another poll at say a football game you will get a totally different one. In my opinion this is not a job for the Federal government. The other thing is 8 agents? The FBI isn't taking it too seriously either.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by JIMC5499]

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:45 PM
Here is a crazy idea!

Maybe the FBI is afraid that "terrorists" are going to buy pornographic sites and put hidden messages into the videos on them and brainwash the public!!!

Or they just want an excuse to take away freedom of expression.

Or maybe they just want to keep it away from minors!

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:47 PM
This has got to be a distraction from a real issue.
What could they be masking...

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:57 PM

That is exactly what it comes to mind they either are not getting enough revenues from the porn industry, or they want to take over the industry, or the Republican party is not getting enough donations from the porn industry.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in