arstechnica wrote:Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults.
What's next? Banning of homosexuality because that's deviant? Before you know it, women may be back to wearing veils (1). Of course, women wearing veils probably isn't something that concerns politicians these days, given that women in Iraq are now being forced to wear veils (2), too.
(1) Ya ya - it's a slippery slope fallacy. If you think that undermines the point, go post in this thread.
(2) I can just imagine some ultra-conservative nutcase objecting to this because "no one can force anything to do anything". If you think that, then just think about the consequences. In a purely idealogical sense, freedom and consequences aren't at conflict. In a more practical sense, however, they are. If you disagree, go post in this thread.