Looks like Gonzales really doesn't like smut-peddlars. Good for him! Do you think he finds torture obscene?
As if his appointment wasn't enough of a harbinger of doom, now he's gone and made it official by laying out his agenda. And this is typical neo-con strategy, controlling the vocabulary as it were (eg. criticism is "unpatriotic", former Baathists are "insurgents", etc.). I mean hey, we all agree "smut" and "obscenity" is pretty low on the list of things to protect or exhault. Problem is in the definition. See, 'cause I can think of two different situations where splitting hairs might end up costing us. Check out the story of Gordon Lee. And then when you're done with that, check out how the anti-obscenity laws Gonzales is so gung-ho on will probably affect file sharing.
2 comments:
Is there no end to this? I bet that if Mr. Lee's comic book had depicted the torture of Iraqi prisoners in a gun-ho fashion, draped in flaq waving and Bush praise the charges would have been dropped. Pretty soon they'll be jailing us for those concrete statues of little boys peeing into fish ponds that can be found in lawn and garden centers all over the coutry.
I would put nothing past them, Billy! I mean we already know Ashcroft had “aesthetic” problems with semi-naked female statues, you might be on to something as far as the lawn statues.
But the problem with Mr. Lee was that he *gasp* dared to pass along a comic book that *gasp* featured a naked Pablo Picasso in a few panels during a Halloween night “free comic book” party. No sex in the comic. Nothing pornographic or even remotely titillating. Just a couple of comic creators being historically accurate (Picasso did paint in the nude, folks!) and now Mr. Lee could face jail time for “distributing obscene material to a minor”! Its bullshit, but I guess we better get used to seeing these cases now that Gonzales has a say in it.
Hope all is going well with you, Billy!
Post a Comment