i heard a rumor that one big company is pulling their whole gay line - i will post more when i know. this really upset me.

[Link]

Although the Republicans have marginal control over the government, they don't have a strong enough hold to have much success at any sort of right-wing crusades. They have their hands full with defending their record on civil rights, pushing a tax cut, building up the military, and other more pressing agendas.

If anything, it's the local prosecutors or vice squads, who are trying to rid themselves of porn at the city and county level, that pose a greater threat. And the increased boldness by the adult industry in the past few years doesn't help. I don't think you have to be a Republican to find something morally objectionable about showing golden showers, fisting, or depictions of abuse. For example, George W. Bush didn't need to be in office for the LAPD to raid Seymore Butts.

I think a lot of people tend to try to blame politicians as pushing agendas and trying to fight porn, but I think a hard look has to be taken at the actions of some that are drawing the attention of those politicians or the constituents they draw opinion polls or campaign funds from. Politicians by their nature do whatever can garner them the most votes with the least amount of resistance. It's a whole lot easier to vilify porn with something like Slap Happy than a Vivid Video.

Saki

[Link]

but we want to implement this in an intelligent fashion. i don't want everyone to have to click on it every time they come to the site. at the same time we have to make sure that if people are coming to internal pages from say a search engine that they hit the warning page first.

just thought i'd warn you that a warning page is coming.

Saki

[Link]

If we really want to protect our rights to watch adult DVDs, then all we need to do is find a way to make them fire bullets. Sex is bad...but shooting shit is a right.

[Link]

Second, those who claim most prosecutions are from local agencies are correct. For years now, the porn companies have wanted the fed's to step in-in an effort to set a concrete standard of "obscene". The fed's have not obliged under Clinton and probably won't under Bush either. As it stands, if enough communities get together-they can bankrupt a company. (as well as tie up resources in court for years)

Third, I suspect that any federal prosecutions this time will be directed at the more "extreme" companies first. They don't have as many resources to fight with, they are going to be less likeable, and an easier win than a company forking over a few million to high priced attorney's. If this scenario played out, the fed's would then move on to the larger companies-this time with better precedents (and more federally appointed judges) backing them up. Remember, it's not about the end win as much as it is to nuisance them to death.

Fourth, for all the talk on some websites about no more inter-racial sex, no more _______, no more ______, etc, this was not from the government-it was from industry sources wanting to limit their liability. The best way to limit your liability is to stop producing stuff. The next best way is to limit what you make.

Personally, I don't care what kind of porn turns someone on as long as it doesn't include children or non consenting adults. I doubt very much that the Bush administration will have the political resources needed to fight on too many fronts at a time. (although, to be fair, many democrats seem more than happy to support anti porn initiatives-including a certain Senator from CT that almost won the VP spot)

[Link]