So the FBI, apparently with nothing better to do than look at dirty pictures on the internets, has decided to start cracking down on porn.

The article seems to think the only noteworthy aspect of this new Porn Squad is that FBI agents tell dumb jokes, but it does briefly mention to kind of porn that will be targeted: “bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior.”

While most probably won’t be upset about a crackdown on bestiality porn, it’s noteworthy that bestiality itself isn’t entirely illegal. Urination and defecation are also probably not the most clearly legal kinds of porn (under the obscenity test, at least — more on that later), but there’s no arguing their niche popularity (see: R. Kelly).

However, the thing that pisses me off is that last category, S&M “behavior.” Apparently, this includes Suicide Girls, who have been forced to take down several bondage photosets.

Suicide Girls, along with being a personal favorite, is probably the least offensive soft-core porn out there. Sure, their female-empowerment claims are a little dubious, but they’re a helluva lot less degrading to women and a lot more artistic than the rest of the crap (no pun intended) out there. SG features *real* girls, the kind who work at your local coffee shop or tattoo parlor, showing off their *real* bodies. Further, these pictures clearly have artistic merit, again disqualifying them from the legal definition of “obscene” (which I swear I’ll talk about later).

S&M is probably the most socially acceptable kink out there. Sure, it can take forms that are genuinely offensive and degrading (is that illegal? Later, I SWEAR). But Britney Spears has shown up to an award show in a dominatrix outfit, they joked about someone’s grandmother using handcuffs on Friends — honestly, is there a generally less-offensive kink than consensual light bondage? For the FBI to devote an actual task force to this is ludicrous.

And then about what is legally “obscene”…

Per Miller v. California:

If the average person applying contemporary community standards finds the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest AND the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way under contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law AND the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, THEN the work could be considered obscene.

Note that the prurient interest doesn’t include a “normal, old-fashioned, healthy interest” in sex (per SCOTUS somewhere — I’ll look it up if you really want to know).

Of course, whether you think the Supreme Court should be deciding what is obscene and what isn’t, or whether you think the First Amendment should protect obscenity regardless, is an entirely different matter.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 28th, 2005 at 07:48 by Skeletor Ogboggle and is filed under Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.