A paucity of porn prosecutions

August 11, 2007

Thanks to the efforts of Rep. Frank Wolf, a conservative Republican from Virginia, the Justice Department spends $150,000 a year to pay a handful of people to spend their afternoons reviewing sexual websites, to see whether they qualify as obscene material whose purveyors should be prosecuted.

How’s that working out for the Bush administration? Not very well.

In the last few years, 67,000 citizens’ complaints have been deemed legitimate under the program and passed on to the Justice Department and federal prosecutors.

The number of prosecutions resulting from those referrals is zero.

That may help explain why no one — not Justice Department officials, not Mr. Wolf, not even the religious antipornography crusader who runs the program — seems eager to call the project a shining success.

As it turns out, the Justice Department didn’t even want to launch this program, but had no choice because of Rep. Wolf’s unwelcome earmark. As a result, the agency has outsourced online obscenity searches to some retired law-enforcement officials, who apparently can’t find anything worth prosecuting.

It’s not for a lack of effort.

The department Web site invites citizens to report material that they believe is obscene so it can be investigated and, perhaps, prosecuted. Clicking on the site to make a report takes the user to ObscenityCrimes.org, which is run by Morality in Media, the grant recipient.

Morality in Media is a conservative religious group that has worked since 1962 to “rid the world of pornography” and whose headquarters is, improbably, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Morality in Media has received two annual grants from Mr. Wolf’s earmarks and is hoping that Justice Department officials decide on their own to award a third, as Mr. Wolf’s ability to obtain an earmark for the program has apparently waned with the Democrats’ control of Congress.

Department officials, however, seemed less than keen to talk about ObscenityCrimes.org.

Apparently, the whole thing is rather embarrassing. The Justice Department doesn’t take ObscenityCrimes.org very seriously, but does warn would-be complainants not to go looking for obscene content, in part because “men are particularly vulnerable to pornographic addiction.”

It’s best left to the professionals — who, at last count, haven’t prosecuted anyone.

Your tax dollars at work.

As a result, the agency has outsourced online obscenity searches to some retired law-enforcement officials, who apparently can’t find anything worth prosecuting.

Ew. I’d hate to be the recipient of their recycled computer equipment. Gaah.

  • LOL episty. Maybe nobody wants to “handle” their complaints.

    So we’re spending $150 k a year just to get Wolfe some good links.

    Eliminate earmarks.

  • Hilarious. These guys are like the Maytag Repairmen of porn. Nothing to do all day long; so lonely.

  • Actually, the Bush Justice Department has randomly prosecuted people under obscenity laws, as the article notes, including a close relative of mine, and it has practically ruined his life.

    The one thing worse than the federal government wasting money on looking for “obscenity” is wasting taxpayer’s money on prosecuting people for it. Since so much of adult material can conceivably be deemed “obscene,” if the federal government ever became serious about the issue, it could prosecute people with the same widespread discretion police once had to ticket drivers for speeding in the days of the 55 mph speed limit.

  • If this administration were smart, they would get people to PAY them to do this job.

    “Honey, what are you doing on the computer?”

    “I’m doing some research for the Justice Department.”

    The deficit would go down, way down..

  • …the Justice Department didn’t even want to launch this program, but had no choice because of Rep. Wolf’s unwelcome earmark.

    Congress sets policy and controls the purse-strings. If the House & Senate have decided that surfing porn sites is a job worth paying somebody to do, it gets done. (And $150,000 for “a handful of people” is peanuts.) The problem comes from earmarks added by individual members which do not represent the collective will of the Congress.

  • Yeah, who has time to worry about that obscenity in the White House when there are boobs on the intertoobs.

    does warn would-be complainants not to go looking for obscene content, in part because “men are particularly vulnerable to pornographic addiction.”

    Stay back folks! This stuff’s worse than heroin!!

    Actually I’m sure the warning is more to acknowledge that many an upright citizen, hoping to rid the world of pictures of body parts, is a big old wank artist. I bet the Justice Dept. has been blamed for “making” people look and tits and arse.

    “Harold! What are you doing!”
    “Uh, I was on the Justice Department’s website, reading about terrorists and they told me to go look for porn!”

  • IIRC, wasn’t it one of Gonzo’s supposed reasons for dumping some of the USAs that they weren’t aggressive enough going after porn – especially child porn? And Gonzo won’t step down because, in part, he has a mission to save the children? So we have a DOJ that’s focused on porn prosecutions – but they can’t find enough evidence to bring a case? This is making my head hurt.

  • Why look for porn on the innernets? Just go to a Young Republicans meeting and hang out in the men’s restroom—get some real action!

  • Obscenity is in the eye of the be-oggler!

    Seriously, I KNEW you Americans were screwed up…
    but I… I…. Bluaghyhggh?!?

    Your government pays retired cops to surf for porn?
    I mean if it was just actual illegal porn, like rape and kids and other sick things, fine. (Which has as much to do with normal porn
    as snuff films do with mainstream cinema).
    But simply porn that might conflict with some antiquated “obscenity laws”?

    Why?
    Why pay for this insanity?
    The money could be far better spent getting puritan assholes laid.
    If you catch my drift.

  • Here’s a big hint..If you find it obscene DON’T WATCH IT! To waste tax payer dollars on people looking for obscene porno sites is itself obscene. Stop watching it idiots.

    In 1970 the court room was packed with people wanting to view the section of a porno film that actually showed “penetration” of a finger into a vagina close up. After several sweeps the finger actually did penetrate and the crowded court room went “ahaa”. Never saw a courtroom that packed. It was against the law at that time to see such activity or to film and show it. This was one of the most ridiculous spectacles I ever witnessed. I was more fascinated watching the watchers than the film. The whole issue was absurd.

    Now congress wastes money to do exactly the same thing and it is still absurd. Sex will always offend somebody.

  • […] the agency has outsourced online obscenity searches to some retired law-enforcement officials,[…] — CB

    Well, not everyone is an outdoors person who wants to garden or play golf during his (are there any women in that program? If not, why not?) golden sunset years. And, for a bit of extra income, it sure beats being a bagger at WalMart.

  • You mean, all this time I’ve been doing research for the Justice Department….and I didn’t even know it? I am SUCH a good citizen!

  • How long have I been watching Nancy Pelosi’s 110th that I thought the Dems could DOUBLE the anti porn budget, chastise the GOP for not getting serious about it, and then cut it all off entirely the next year as a budget balancing cost measure and a shining example of eliminating programs that don’t work. We might even get some mileage out of having given “faith-based” groups all the chance in the world in a field where they are supposed to excel with ZERO results.

    This triangulation thing sucks but this ONCE, it might be fun.

    • Comments are closed.