(no subject)

[rymenhild]

This is not a joke. In fact, it is a perfectly respectable Washington Post article linked by Slate.

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A21

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.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

These newspapers sound more and more like The Onion every day.

Comments

[gramarye1971]

I actually have a friend who is attempting to apply for one of those jobs. He's fresh out of law school, and apparently he's willing to do just about anything to pay the bills.

Then again, I also have a copy of an article he wrote for the Cardozo Women's Law Journal about the legality of filing a lawsuit against the producers of the 'Girls Gone Wild' videos, if you happen to be caught on film with your shirt off. It just arrived in the post today.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Well, is it legal?

[gramarye1971]

*kicks LJ for eating her first reply*

The answer seems to be no. You're in a public place where photographing people in action generally isn't illegal, and not too intoxicated to be considered incapable of giving consent. And since most of the footage is taken by third-party photographers, it's not easy to determine who has the final responsibility for the film being used.

If you're a minor, you might be able to sue for a small amount of money or the chance to get your likeness removed from promotional materials and from the videos. But most women who barter their image for a string of plastic beads aren't going to get a thing in a court of law.

[watersword]

*long pause*

Oh.

I can't cope with this. My brain can't cope with this.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Neither can mine.

I'm glad to know you're an ACLU staffer, though. We need as many of you as we can get in these times.

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

These newspapers sound more and more like The Onion every day.

Well put.

Not sure what else to say, though I would like to apply to fleurdelis28 for reassurance that anything a Porn Squad does will be taken to court for Constitutionality rulings.

[watersword]

Speaking as an ACLU staffer -- probably. Keep your fingers crossed.

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

*is probably relieved*

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

(And thank you. Didn't mean to leave that out of the last comment.)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Completely off topic: You do not follow ellen_kushner's journal, so you may have missed this.

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

I love it! I want one! (Er, In the copious amounts of free space....)

[windrunner1981.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, and this is the gentleman who very well might be the next Supreme Court nomination. *looks glum* I don't know much about First Amendment law, but I can't help thinking that the chances for a successful constitutional challenge would diminish significantly with him on the bench.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

That's the bit that concerns me most. The idea of a pro-censorship Supreme Court justice in the twenty-first century is more disturbing than I have words to express.

[windrunner1981.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I've heard some people say that compared to the other names being floated around, he's the best we can get.

I worked with a fairly conservative guy last summer, and we argued quite a bit about whether pornography should be cracked down upon harder. His view was that it was disgusting and should be strictly punished. He often said that the First Amendment was the most abused provision of the Constitution.

However, he didn't seem to mind making rather colorful comments that I'm sure a court would have found constituted sexual harassment. I guess the argument that free speech was also responsible speech did not apply to him personally. Grr.