Is it possible the Free Speech Coalition's Supreme Court victory will turn out to be a really big gun in our current government's arsenal of anti-porn weapons? Have they given those who would ban pornography the single, greatest propaganda tool in the history of anti-porn sentiments? Has jimmyD turned his back on sophmoric comedic musings to address far more serious fare? (Ooops, sorry. A bit of introspection there.) But who gets the most mileage out of this decision? The porn biz? Or our benign protectors, the FSC?

Has anyone noticed any difference in the way you do business before and after this law was struck down? The (legal) porn biz is now nationally-known as those people who defended child pornographer's rights. The FSC is now nationally-known as a political-lobby and legal-powerhouse to be reckoned with: An organization with a successful Supreme Court ruling tucked in their belts! Do they fancy themselves the next ACLU? Do they hope to be the new darlings of the political left and various liberal groups while we, well, we become known as those sleazy protectors of those most despised of criminals: abusers and exploiters of children? And does it really matter if this perception is real or imaginary? If it becomes the general, national perception, it becomes, de facto, the truth.

I think I'm getting kinda worked up about this. I think maybe we need some real representation with these FSC people. I think we need to make sure everyone in the FSC has their heads screwed on right. I think we need a West Valley, Boston-style, Tea Party. I think we need to begin worrying about ourselves in a more pragmatic, realistic, what-might-be-the-downside-of-this, does-this-really-impact-my-business, kinda way. Who are we defending here? Skeeter Kerkove's right to shove 300 chopsticks up Bridgette's ass? (Geez, maybe I could have come up with a more tasteful example). Or are we defending a pedophile's right to jerk off to little girls and boys? (Thanks Skeeter, I'll probably never eat chinese food again without thinking of Bridgette's bung-hole.)

But maybe I'm wrong, completely out to lunch, and completely full of shit with this....well, this shit.

Actually, I hope I am.

Excerpt from CNN.COM/Law Center:

"The Free Speech Coalition is comprised primarily of a trade association of publishers of pornographic materials...

(jimmyd comment: That's us. That's all of us: the publishers of [legal] pornographic materials. Not a trade association of child porn publishers, but simply a trade association of pornographers.)

Ashcroft said he was disappointed by the court's decision. "This morning the United States Supreme Court made our ability to prosecute those who produce and possess child pornography immeasurably more difficult," Ashcroft said.

(jimmyd comment: That's because we, that is, the publishers of [legal] pornographic materials, made it more difficult. Why did we do that? Ask your average, middle-class Stepford-citizen, "I guess because you guys support child pornography." At least that's what I think they think.)

Ashcroft said the Justice Department would use every resource to prosecute child pornography cases and said child pornographers "will find little refuge in today's decision."

(jimmyd comment: I could be wrong--and I hope I am-- but it's possible we're the one's who end up finding little refuge in the decision, not the actual child pornographers. Why? Because there never was and there is not now any refuge for actual child pornographers, regardless of that law being struck down or not.)

He (Ashcroft) said he would work with Congress to pass new laws that would survive the court's scrutiny.

(jimmyd comment: It's a hazy image, but it looks like my crystal ball is trying to tell me these new laws might address more than actual child pornographers, who knows, they might even address the publishers of [currently legal] pornographic materials.)

"I believe today's opinion and the Constitution leave open legislative avenues to protect our children from harm and we will seek to develop the means to do so with legislative endeavor," Ashcroft said."


Greg Zeboray, well-known dashing and debonaire insurance guy servicing the porn biz, and one whom I've never seen wearing a typical insurance guy's ill-fitting, three-piece suit, wrote in and had this to say:

JimmyD:

Your article "The Feds are coming ..." is spot on, particularly your position on the Free Speech Coalition's Supreme Court victory. I have consistently maintained that the FSC's desire to fight that battle was poorly advised, and will cause the adult industry substantial harm. Particularly today, when child abductions, rapes, and subsequent murders are making all the headlines ... headlines which include the perpetrators use of child pornography.

There is no doubt in my mind that a smaller percentage of American's view porn then the FSC would like you to believe; I think most American's simply accept it's existence provided they are left alone. Will they continue to accept it's existence when the conservatives and religious right begin to promote (wrongly or not) that the adult industry fought for a bill "that made child pornography legal"?

As a devout Libertarian, it is my belief that the FSC is correct in their position on this law - I just think there are times when one must sacrifice a battle to win an entire war.

Besides, how did the previous law effect the adult industry? What change will it have on future product? It is my understanding that it will have none, so what was accomplished?

I think it's fair to ask, what are the Free Speech Coalition's real objectives? I for one, am concerned they are more motivated by becoming another ACLU, then they are by being the trade association and lobbyists for the adult industry. I'm even beginning to wonder if the only reason they still refer to themselves as the "adult industry trade association" is to insure continued financial support from the industry. It is because of these concerns that I gave up my membership at the end of 2001.

Thanks for the input, Greg. I gave up my membership too. Well, actually, I never had a membership. But I would have given it up if I had! At least I think I would have.






"