Talk:FBI recruits for "War on Porn"

Guys, can someone please find another source to incorporate more information (and fact-check the other info in this article)? --Mrmiscellanious 10:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'ved added more sources, it was fairly trivial to just pick them up on google. But they are all inferior to the Washington Post article, as they are just advocasy groups websites. The Washington Post article has created a major stir in the blog-o-sphear, but none are currently worth linking to. If you want, we could leave the article in develop until Monday morning, by that time a really good blog entry should have surfaced.

As for other info, I'm not seeing anything particularly unsupported or controversial in this article. Yes, Rupert Murdock does make money selling hard-core porn. Yes, hard-core porn has become more accepted in the U.S., partly due to its increased availability. etc. That comment about the FBI's history with stolen cars is generally accetped among historians who have looked at the FBI, and is clearly marked as historical. When Hoover focused resources on stolen cars, he did it explicitly to boost the agencies image because he knew stolen cars were generally found. Such gamesmanship is usually not quite so intentional, but it survives anyway and should be commented upon. Clearly tracking down a websites owner is far easier than even finding a stolen car. And the FBI's memo basically said to only go after stuff when juries might convict. What do you want to bet that a bestiality site in NYC will go unprosicuted while some tame S&M site in Colarado gets taken down?

Anyway, I have this feeling that your just making up this rule about one source articles, and if your not it is a very bad rule. What is true is that a one source article should have a reputable source IF it is to treat any statments made by that source as fact. For example, the Washington Post is not going to lie about congress passing legislation for move 10 agents to working on adult pornography.

So upon a second reading, I see that I've really not given free speach advocates any time at all. Your suggestion that I find sources partly helps by providing a link to that gay newws site. I'll add balance it by adding some freedom of speach quotes later. - Nyarlathotep 11:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to get the facts straight with just ONE article, as many times journalists make errors in accuracy. So I don't see how it would be a "very bad rule".  The Washington Post is always under fire for being biased or not having factual accuracy, so in this case it is imperative to find another source and fact check - do not just assume they have done their job, because it rarely is the case.  Remember, we report about FACTS - not necessarily about other people's opinions on the matter.  It's best that those facts are represented among different sources to indicate they are true. --Mrmiscellanious 10:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Law
I'm curious as to the law behind this. Is it a crime to distribute adult pornography to adults if it contains, say, urination or SM? (A federal crime? A state crime in which states?) I also understand that "normal" pornography (say, heterosexual vaginal sex) is not criminalized. What are the criteria for judging what's appropriate or inappropriate porn? Does it leave much to the appreciation of the court?

All this would make the story much more interesting, especially with respect to people who don't know the intricacies of US law (i.e. the vast majority of non-US readers, and probably also a great many in the US). Submarine 07:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)