PDA

View Full Version : Bush, his constituents, and the adult industry



Djoser
11-06-2004, 05:11 AM
We have seen a lot of debate concerning Bush and his likely effect upon the adult industry, including stripclubs.

It should be obvious that GWB is not going to be personally raiding and locking the doors of your favorite work/hangout place.

It is my contention that by his choice of Cabinet members and Supreme Court nominees, his direction of the Cabinet, and--perhaps most frightening--his moral leadership and symbolic value to those who will follow his lead as expressed in speech, statements of policy, and directives to his subordinates, he--and his constituents--represent a very real and dangerous threat to the future of the adult industry.

It is also my contention that the only reason he, Ashcroft, and others in his administration have not heretofore done more damage, is the vigilance and outspoken opposition of those who recognize the danger and will not blithely dismiss it as being of little consequence. And of course the distraction of the War on Iraq, which as we can clearly see is going to be with us for quite some time--though it will be seen that direct action was taken in the months just after we had invaded (of course it might be presumed that Bush, et al, considered that they had little more to worry about at this point--August 2003).


"LOS ANGELES -- A North Hollywood wholesaler of adult films has been charged by the Justice Department with violating federal obscenity laws. This charge is the first of what is expected to be a large number of cases against purveyors of pornography, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Extreme Associates and its executives, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, of Northridge, were indicted by the federal grand jury on 10 counts. The indictment is reported to have caused alarm among adult entertainment companies in the San Fernando Valley, which is considered the capital of the nation's multibillion-dollar pornography industry.

Attorney General John Ashcroft promised upon taking office that he would crack down on the distributors of adult entertainment material such as movies, magazines and Web sites.

The "indictment marks an important step in the Department of Justice's strategy for attacking the proliferation of adult obscenity," Ashcroft said Thursday.

The department will "continue to focus our efforts on targeted obscenity prosecutions that will deter others from producing and distributing obscene material," Ashcroft said."

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2392401/detail.html


Here we have both direct legal action, and a public statement of intent to continue and increase the effort--the idea of which has been dismissed with great contempt elsewhere on this Forum.

Why didn't Ashcroft, who was specifically chosen by Bush for a goddamned good reason, succeed to a greater extent? Certainly not because he didn't want to finish the fucking job...

Djoser
11-06-2004, 05:23 AM
Furthermore, there are others who agree with me concerning the danger we face, like certain noteable industry leaders.

These people are probably in a much better position to appreciate the danger than someone who insults the intelligence of anyone who mentions the possibility, while enjoying lap dances and viewing internet pornography.


"Adult Video News, the adult industry's trade magazine -- which has labeled Attorney General John Ashcroft as "the American Taliban" -- also has come out forcefully against President Bush. In an op-ed piece earlier this year, AVN told its readers "that President Bush is a fundamentalist Christian, arguably as radical in his beliefs as al Qaida is in theirs, and as such has a seriously unhealthy view of human sexuality."

In the op-ed, AVN criticized Bush for his statement calling for a fight to protect "our children and families for a safe and decent society." The AVN article further encouraged porn industry producers, distributors, talent, retailers, trade groups, attorneys, media and consumers, telling them they should "actively ... open their checkbooks to elect a Democrat to the White House."

In pockets around the country, strip club owners are venturing into the political debate as well. Strip club owner Jim Halbach, discussing a possible Bush election victory, says, "I'm actually fighting for my survival -- that's the way I am looking at it" (USA Today). And CBS News reports that Michael Ocello, president of the Association of Club Executives -- which includes adult businesses -- said his group believes the president's brand of conservatism is bad for the strip club business....

...Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, says...

"Evidently the porn industry is afraid that the president is going to...uphold obscenity standards..."We think this is good for America. They think it is bad to enforce laws that are already on the books."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/292004b.asp

This is a quotation from a "Christian News Source".

Chicken Little, my ass...

stant
11-06-2004, 06:54 AM
...

Extreme Associates and its executives, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, of Northridge, were indicted by the federal grand jury on 10 counts. ...
In all fairness, these guys are to say the least pushing the envelope. Even the Frontline producers of a documentary about porn couldn't stomach their methods which appear to involve actual violence and pain not agreed upon prior to filming:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/view/

Casual Observer
11-06-2004, 07:09 AM
^ Stant beat me to it.

I saw that documentary. It was disturbing, and I have a lot of room for non-traditional porn.

DJoser and I will just have to disagree, since I simply don't see any nationwide crackdown of the adult industry at large happening at the behest of DOJ and the AG. Sure, they're going after obvious targets that are pressing their luck with established obscenity statutes but the industry as a whole is too big and too careful to fall into the extreme category which is arguably obscene in many respects.

That said, AVN and the industry leaders are doing what they believe to be a preemptive strike; by rallying troops to the cause before they actually need them. It's still crying wolf, but it's not unlike what other major industries do collectively when they're trying to get free lobbying from their community or clientle.

Djoser
11-06-2004, 09:57 AM
Well, I cannot abide the idea of women being subjected to violence for any reason whatsoever, even with their possible misguided consent. I haven't seen the documentary yet, but now i am honor bound to do so.

Perhaps Extreme associates were actually getting what they deserved.

What scares me is the rhetoric employed by Ashcroft, and the notion of a "strategy for attacking the proliferation of adult obscenity", or the idea that the DOJ was planning to "continue to focus our efforts on targeted obscenity prosecutions that will deter others from producing and distributing obscene material."

There is no distinction made, within the body of the DOJ rhetoric under Ashcroft's guidance, between violent or child pornography--which no one would defend--and the consensual sexual practices which the vast majority of the adult industry utilizes and espouses. Instead the notion of people giving each other sensual pleasure is lumped in with the psychopathic and disgustingly deviant practices of kiddie porn producers. And the goal is to stop anyone else from producing anything involving sexual activity whatsoever.

This is tantamount to a declaration of war on the adult industry, and as someone who is involved with that industry, I don't think preparing to defend my business aggressively is out of line. Bush chose Ashcroft and kept him; I have no great faith that his successor will be any more inclined to toleration, and for all we know, they might well be worse.

MisfitBunnie
11-06-2004, 10:44 AM
You know who is feeling the crackdown on the sex industry? US, us women in it! One of the reasons I left dancing was because of how strict the laws have become for entertainers. The pastie/liquid latex thing, lots of nude clubs being turned into bikini bars, no grinding, when giving lapdances you must stand a certain distance from the customer, no flashing the cookie, ect. It is things like this that make working in this industry even more difficult because everyday you are just waiting to get taken away in handcuffs for providing harmless entertainment. I've seen girls taken away in cuffs for not having pasties on...PASTIES!

I don't think most customers understand that us girls walk on eggshells everyday and that the crackdown is worse than you think.

Tigerlilly
11-06-2004, 04:39 PM
The Fundys just use adult entertainment as a tool-it inspires fear in some people(voters) and therefor that fear makes them easier to manipulate.

Thats all there is to it really.

For people in the adult industry though, its the equivalent to being the target in a witchhunt

Deogol
11-06-2004, 05:32 PM
^ Stant beat me to it.

I saw that documentary. It was disturbing, and I have a lot of room for non-traditional porn.



Guess you won't be going to to often eh? Very non-traditional I would say...

Casual Observer
11-06-2004, 07:27 PM
The Fundys just use adult entertainment as a tool-it inspires fear in some people(voters) and therefor that fear makes them easier to manipulate.

Thats all there is to it really.

The adult industry just uses Christian fundamentalism as a tool-it inspires fear in some people (voters) and therefore that fear makes them easier to manipulate.

Thats all there is to it really.


How about that?

;)

Tigerlilly
11-06-2004, 08:34 PM
The adult industry just uses Christian fundamentalism as a tool-it inspires fear in some people (voters) and therefore that fear makes them easier to manipulate.


Thats all there is to it really.


How about that?

;)Hows that ?

Well to be honest.... It doesn't make a lick of sense , but then again it appears it was meant to be obnoxious-- not to make sense.

So-- whatever

Sigh

Casual Observer
11-06-2004, 10:52 PM
^ It makes total sense.

If you need to rally outside support to your industry, you engage in rampant demogoguery, and tell your clientle that you're constantly under assault by said demons.

It was merely an illustration that the same tactics used by your dreaded fundamentalist demons are the same used by the adult industry regardless of the reality of the legal environment.

Djoser
11-07-2004, 06:00 AM
It was merely an illustration that the same tactics used by your dreaded fundamentalist demons are the same used by the adult industry regardless of the reality of the legal environment.

Good point, CO, sort of...

But who started it?

The adult industry doesn't give a flying fuck about whether, how often, with whom, or in what position the Fundamentalists pray--or even if they videotape it...

Whereas the Fundamentalists are willing to start and finish this War on Pornography in an obsessive desire to make sure that noone ever fucks, much less how often, with whom, or in what position--unless it's the way Jesus intended for it to happen. And you damned well better not make any videotapes of it...

On the one hand you have an Attorney General, chosen by Bush for a good reason--in his mind, I suppose--who states that "upon taking office that he would crack down on the distributors of adult entertainment material such as movies, magazines and Web sites.", and that the DOJ will "continue to focus our efforts on targeted obscenity prosecutions that will deter others from producing and distributing obscene material..."

On the other hand you have Michael Ocello, president of the Association of Club Executives -- which includes adult businesses -- saying his group believes the president's brand of conservatism is bad for the strip club business...

Who is being more extreme?

You call the efforts of people--who seek only to safeguard their freedom to continue to get lapdances and look at adult websites--"rampant demogoguery"??!!

People who are frightened by Ashcroft, the man who chose him, and those who are praying that Pornographers (like Pryce, for instance, or anyone who posts a picture of their breasts in the Gallery) should not only burn in hell, but go to jail on this Earth.

It is a serious error to keep scoffing at the efforts of those who would label you a criminal.

Much less accuse those who merely wish to be left alone--and aren't willing to take your word that there is nothing to fear--of being no better than freaks like Ashcroft.

doc-catfish
11-07-2004, 08:58 AM
If you really think about it, puritans and pornographers will never rid the world of one another. Each is too good for the others business. It's was never the fault of the bluenoses that the Playboy clubs are no longer with us.

I remember seeing Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell appear together on an episode of Larry King some years back, and thought how ironic it was that they were presented as adversaries. In the grand scheme of things, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Djoser
11-07-2004, 09:42 AM
I remember seeing Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell appear together on an episode of Larry King some years back, and thought how ironic it was that they were presented as adversaries. In the grand scheme of things, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Maybe so, but I can't imagine considering someone who believes I should be put in jail for what I'm doing a compatriot.

Even if it is not quite so extreme as that, there is still a big difference in toleration levels.

Fundamentalists can pray until they are blue in the face, and no one in the adult industry will care, or try to stop them, or say they are corrupting the children of people who might want to watch a sex video now and then.

Fundamentalists want to impose their way of life upon others, and limit the free expression of sexuality.

Not very similar, in my book. There could be some sick symbiosis in effect, but the adult entertainent industry would do just fine without the efforts of twits like Falwell or Ashcroft.

Jay Zeno
11-07-2004, 11:03 AM
Some might say that a teacher who allows a child to pray in school should be punished. Some might say that a pornographer who puts his wholesome ejaculation closeups in a child-accessible place should be punished. I don't necessarily agree with either of those, depending on the circumstances, but some might say that there's some equivalence in thought control measures either way.

There's efforts in public schools, the effect of which is to not let kids understand that religious beliefs exist. There's efforts in public schools, the effect of which is to not let kids understand that sexual relations exist. Or scientific principles. Whoever used the word "demagoguery" in another thread had it right, and there's no end to it with any number of people who hold strong beliefs.

Casual Observer
11-07-2004, 11:08 AM
It is a serious error to keep scoffing at the efforts of those who would label you a criminal.

Dude, I do not disagree that Wildmon and his ilk are loons of the first order, but they're mostly preaching to their own choir. Much as they don't like it, obscenity laws that they rave about actually protect most of the adult industry, as the law is written, when the law is followed.

There is no national drive to purge adult content from our society, save specific elements like extreme/gonzo porn and perhaps so scatological material. There's a reason porn is a $10 billion business. That said, the adult industry has a lot of lawyers that know their way around Community Standards clauses.

So I'm all for these folks voicing their concerns--on either side--but it's hard to take them seriously when the government has so much more on its hands.

stant
11-07-2004, 02:44 PM
The Fundys just use adult entertainment as a tool-it inspires fear in some people(voters) and therefor that fear makes them easier to manipulate.

Thats all there is to it really.

For people in the adult industry though, its the equivalent to being the target in a witchhunt
Honestly, Tiger, you should watch the Frontline documentary. There is a line.

Tigerlilly
11-07-2004, 03:42 PM
Some might say that a teacher who allows a child to pray in school should be punished. .In theory, I disagree with that idea.

IMO- a teacher should be punished if they try to force or insist students pray.

There is no foul- again imo - to allow a child to pray - unless it is prohibits others or the child themselves from learning.

Most religous prayer requirements can be carried out quietly with a little organization so ... the basic principle I subscribe to in religion( as well as many other things) is

CHOICE


Honestly, Tiger, you should watch the Frontline documentary. There is a line.do tell me more :)

Deogol
11-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Dude, I do not disagree that Wildmon and his ilk are loons of the first order, but they're mostly preaching to their own choir. Much as they don't like it, obscenity laws that they rave about actually protect most of the adult industry, as the law is written, when the law is followed.

There is no national drive to purge adult content from our society, save specific elements like extreme/gonzo porn and perhaps so scatological material. There's a reason porn is a $10 billion business. That said, the adult industry has a lot of lawyers that know their way around Community Standards clauses.

So I'm all for these folks voicing their concerns--on either side--but it's hard to take them seriously when the government has so much more on its hands.

Usually I agree with you, but someone pointed out how Texas is trying to define a family as only those with a married woman and man. Using the world "couples" is to open to their thinking - in that it might be homo's at worst, and simply living in sin at best. Oh my!

This is a very simple thing and even that is being put to scrutiny.

Djoser
11-07-2004, 07:00 PM
There is no national drive to purge adult content from our society, save specific elements like extreme/gonzo porn and perhaps so scatological material...

...it's hard to take them seriously when the government has so much more on its hands.


NEW YORK (9 October 2003) – Robert W. Peters, President of Morality in Media, made the following statement in support of House Concurrent Resolution 298, introduced today by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma) and 36 co-sponsors, which “expresses the sense of Congress that Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States”:

“Americans concerned about the proliferation of obscenity, especially on the Internet, were heartened by news in August and September that Federal prosecutors in Pittsburgh and San Antonio had indicted two large-scale commercial distributors of hardcore pornography. The war against obscenity, however, has just begun, and obscenity defenders are already working hard to promote obscenity as something as acceptable as apple pie or, failing that, as something that must be tolerated if we are to preserve our cherished American way of life.

"Passage of House Concurrent Resolution 298 will help dispel the false notion that the explosion of obscenity is proof that this vile material does not violate contemporary community standards of decency...

“Passage of the Resolution will help dispel the false notion that obscenity is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect obscene materials--the United States Supreme Court has declared that a matter of settled law. And the Founding Fathers of our nation never intended the First Amendment to protect obscenity.

“Passage will help dispel the false notion that U.S. Attorneys who vigorously enforce obscenity laws are diverting valuable resources away from the war against terrorism. In the first place, if the laws are vigorously enforced, the resulting fines and forfeitures will pay for the efforts. In the second place, if we are to preserve Western Civilization, we must fight not only for our national security but also for our right to live and raise children in a safe and decent society.”

Djoser
11-07-2004, 07:08 PM
The text (see below) is the same as the text of House Concurrent Resolution 445, introduced last summer in the 107th Congress with 17 original co-sponsors. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime in the 107th Congress, introduced the earlier H. Con. Res. 445 and will introduce the new resolution.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted obscenity cases, will introduce the same Concurrent Resolution in the Senate. In March, Senator Sessions was also able to add the following language in the Senate budget bill for fiscal year 2004.

“It is the sense of the Senate that of the funds appropriated in Function 750 of the Budget Resolution for the Department of Justice, there will be provided adequate funding in the relevant appropriating committee in Fiscal Year 2004 for the purpose of vigorously enforcing the Federal obscenity laws throughout the United States.”

The Concurrent Resolution

Expressing the sense of Congress supporting vigorous enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws.

Whereas the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) held that obscene material is `unprotected by the first amendment' (413 U.S. at 23) and that obscenity laws can be enforced against `hard core' pornography' (413 U.S. at 28);

Whereas the Miller Court stated that `to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.' (413 U.S. at 34);

Whereas the Supreme Court in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) recognized that there are legitimate governmental interests at stake in stemming the tide of obscene materials, which include--

(1) protecting `the quality of life and total community environment' (413 U.S. at 58);

(2) protecting `public safety' (413 U.S. at 58);

(3) maintaining `a decent society' (413 U.S. at 59-60);

(4) protecting `the social interest in order and morality' (413 U.S. at 61); and

(5) protecting `family life' (413 U.S. at 63);

Whereas Congress, in an effort to protect these same legitimate governmental interests, enacted legislation in 1988 to strengthen federal obscenity laws and in 1996 to clarify that use of an interactive computer service to transport obscene materials in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited;

Whereas the 1986 Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography found that `increasingly, the most prevalent forms of pornography' fit the description of `sexually violent material' (p. 323) and that `an enormous amount of the most sexually explicit material available' can be categorized as `degrading' to people, `most often women' (p. 331);

Casual Observer
11-07-2004, 07:37 PM
DJ, again, I have no problem with enforcement of obscenity statutes; they exist for a reason.

Surely, without argument, there are those that want them more broadly applied. But history and legal precedence is not on their side.

Djoser
11-07-2004, 08:20 PM
DJ, again, I have no problem with enforcement of obscenity statutes; they exist for a reason.

Surely, without argument, there are those that want them more broadly applied. But history and legal precedence is not on their side.

The statutes in place in many areas of the country which define lapdancing as prostitution exist for a reason as well. Dancers have even been arrested for accepting tips. You may not perceive a threat to the stripclub industry, but there are many of us in the business who certainly do. Do not make the mistake of insulting my intelligence because I am concerned about the future of my livelihood.

I am not so sanguine as you concerning the questionable benefits of legal precedence, and history is replete with examples of moral zealots imposing rigid constraints upon those who would preserve their freedom of expression--particularly where sexuality is concerned.

Lilith
11-07-2004, 11:31 PM
From where I'm sitting, the actual text is not much more that uppity terminology for, "Hey, we've had these laws on the books for at least eight years now. Maybe we might wanna look into them further?" Solid pork, if you ask me; a group of Pubbies slapped something bland as milk toast together that SOUNDED good, waved it around and then forgot it once they had their political capital in the bank. Someone else wants to wave that flag again, and since it's far too much bother to write a whole new proposal, decided to recycle a perfectly serviceable one from last year. It'll likely get bandied about in someone's local paper like mad for a couple of weeks and then be allowed to die a quiet death on the floor.

Or you could look at it this way. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that Dems actually believe that "moral values" nonsense from the exit polls and try to look more like Republicans for a while. Let's say that this gets off the floor and gets voted on. And then what? It's nothing but a funding measure reminding Congress of laws already on the books, not a measure proposing new laws. Not good politics. Voters have been proven to care about porn, but not that much and not enough to finance a witch hunt. I can see the campaign ads now. "With a huge national deficit, an ongoing war, education in the toilet and the job outlook bleak, what was my opponent doing as a Senator? THIS is what he was accomplishing! THIS was his priority! He voted to send your tax dollars, not to vets or schools, but to the panty police!"

Nah. Joe "I Vote" Schmoe wants to read about bills like this in the morning paper, but they don't actually want the fallout of enforcement; the expense, the lawsuits, the extra police, the investigations, the big scandals. The Senate knows this. Why else do you think they are just now getting around to looking twice at laws and precedence judgements that have been around from eight to eighteen years?

Djoser
11-08-2004, 06:26 AM
11/12/2003

"WASHINGTON - In our latest episode of continuing adventures with the USA Patriot Act, FBI agents say they've used the new anti- terrorism law to prosecute a political bribery case centered on the owner of some Las Vegas strip clubs. What do topless dancers in Vegas have to do with terrorism, you may ask? Nothing, everyone agrees, unless perhaps you count the violence that some of the ladies inflict on the wallets of their clientele.

Nevertheless, the FBI now confirms local Las Vegas newspaper reports that the agency used the Patriot Act's provisions to subpoena financial information about four local politicians and one local businessman, Michael D. Galardi, the owner of the Jaguars strip club in Las Vegas and Cheetahs clubs in Las Vegas and San Diego.

The Patriot Act, passed in the panicky weeks after 9/11, allows the government to peek into the personal affairs of many people, not just suspected terrorists. The law's powers only begin with suspected terrorists. We have yet to learn how far it extends.

That's the part that Attorney General John Ashcroft does not talk about much as he tours the country touting the powers the Patriot Act has given the federal government to fight terrorism.

"We have used these tools to save innocent American lives," Mr. Ashcroft told a convention of law officers at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas in August. "We have used these tools to provide the security that ensures liberty."

He neglected to mention how, even as he spoke, Las Vegas FBI agents were using those "tools" to go after a strip club owner and the politicians he allegedly paid off..."


http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3775&fcategory_desc=Big+Brother

Daddyforhire
11-08-2004, 06:52 AM
I don't think the Bush Administration represents any threats to the legitimate adult industry. The kiddie porn industry should be quaking in its boots, and rightfully so. As far as I'm considered, throw them under the jail. Passing new federal legislation aimed at exotic dancers? I just don't see it happening. There are far too many more important issues than whether or not Tigerlilly is shaking her adorable rear in joe paycheck's face for a little harmless entertainment. Or if Tera Patrick is showing here skills on DVD. Just my $.02

Dan

Deogol
11-08-2004, 07:21 AM
(sigh)

SonicBones
11-08-2004, 08:12 AM
The Fundys just use adult entertainment as a tool-it inspires fear in some people(voters) and therefor that fear makes them easier to manipulate.

Thats all there is to it really. Perfect, couldn't of made it more clear or comprehensive.;) Also "Any" administration will/would use these same tactics.

Tigerlilly
11-08-2004, 12:22 PM
Re: enforcing laws already on the books.

Sounds good except alot of laws are either

a) outdated or just plain dumb like the law in Romboch, Virginia, where it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with the lights on.

or

b) created and enacted as part of a political campaign - such as the 6 foot law in Tampa created by Bob Buckhorn as a precursor to his ( failed) run for the Mayors office

Djoser
11-08-2004, 01:35 PM
"Bob Peters, president of the organization Morality in Media (MIM), has undertaken the task of researching the presidential candidates to determine where each stands on the issue of indecency. He says he was inspired in part by an ad, from which he learned that "the so-called adult entertainment industry is supporting the Kerry campaign, and trying to get their customers to go out and vote for Kerry."

Intrigued by this information, Peters searched John Kerry's website for a position paper or statement relating to decency standards. He notes, "There weren't any documents with the word obscenity in them. One document included the word pornography, but it happened to be a document that was blasting President Bush because he had appointed a judge to the federal courts who was against pornography."

On the other hand, President George W. Bush's campaign has been fairly vocal on the issue, Peters points out. On Bush's website, he says he found several papers that detail a strong anti-pornography platform. And although he admits Bush's record on obscenity law enforcement has been mixed, the head of MIM notes that the past two years have seen numerous prosecutions throughout the U.S. against commercial distributors of hard-core porn, and many sources report that several more obscenity investigations are under way...

In his commentary, Peters said he wonders whether Kerry, if elected would "continue the progress (however slow) that has been made in the war against obscenity" or would instead "fulfill the expectations of the pornography industry that seems convinced that he, like Bill Clinton, will be soft on obscenity?"

It appears Kerry has chosen not to take a strong stance against the porn industry or obscenity in the media and entertainment, and MIM's president suspects Kerry's move to distance himself from the issue may in some ways be paying off for the Democratic candidate."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/122004e.asp

SonicBones
11-08-2004, 02:18 PM
I'm far too cynical of "All" politicians.I wish this wasn't the case.But none the less... They piss me >:(ff