Sunday, October 02, 2005

You Don't Need No Stinkin' Rights

When I first read Barton's Gellman's Washington Post article about the FBI pulling field agents off real work to form a brute squad to squash Americans' 1st Amendment rights, I honestly thought it was a parody.

Who, in his right mind, thinks that Joe Redstate needs to be protected from pictures of naked titties? Certainly not Joe Redstate. He probably thinks his right to read Hustler and Playboy is protected. He probably also thinks that his right to watch CSI is as safe as his wife's right to read a Harlequin Blaze romance novel. But they aren't safe. The government has declared open season on the Bill of Rights.

Joe Redstate-- according to the Bush administration, you don't need no stinkin' rights. An FBI agent could bust down your door and burn your vintage Playboy collection in order to keep you safe from those dangerous naked women. Think it won't happen? German citizens were kept safe from subversive thoughts and art in the late 1930s by their compassionate conservative government too.

Supposedly, an FBI memo on how best to subvert the rights of Americans is to attack anything that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

Having to listen to Senator Santorum talk is painful to me. Should any news media that prints words he says, or shows him on TV be censored to stop me from indulging in mashochistic behavior when I force myself to listen to him? Believe me, it isn't pleasant.

I can think of a CSI episode where a man enjoyed infatilism, including enemas and diapers. (King Baby, Feb, 2005) Other memorable, hot episodes have shown Mistress Heather's establishment. (Lady Heather's Box, Slaves of Las Vegas) I had a great deal of respect for the writers of those episodes for their ability to look deeper than the smirk factor to bring the human element to their stories.

I once saw an episode of I Love Lucy where Ricky put Lucy over his knee and smacked her ass. That was the first episode I remember ever seeing, and I watched the show fanatically for about a year waiting for another episode like it. I was sadly disappointed. Are I Love Lucy episodes endangered?

Probably not, because they never start with the big companies who have lawyers and money to fight. This will be very selective enforcement. Some companies are more equal than others. ABC, GE, Hustler, Harlequin - they're safe. This whole ridiculous game looks like a Bush Administration effort to shut down competition in the porn industry, protect big porn business, and kill the little provider. Given the complete lack of ethics in the current administration, I wouldn't be surprised.

According to Gellman's article, anything that depicts "Consenting Adults," and is marketed to "Consenting Adults," is fair game. Because they know how to be sneaky about this, at first they attack the small, obscure fetishes. Who is going to stand up for yiffing Furries? (Fur and Loathing, CSI, October 2003) Who is brave enough to stand in front of their community to defend the rights of enema aficionados? How about those women dressed as ponies pulling a chariot? (Hmmm, you might be thinking, I'd at least like to see a glimpse of that.) Would you be upset if every picture of two men kissing was destroyed? How about two women? How about a man and a woman? In some places, that's considered an obscenity. (Read the story about the couple arrested and fined for kissing at their wedding.) Where are you drawing the line? Don't assume that what you think is okay would pass the arbitrary test of obscenity. After all, performing oral sex on your spouse is sodomy, and was against the law in most states until recently. If Senator Santorum had his way, you could still be arrested for getting or giving a blowjob to your spouse. I don't know about you, but the idea of a bunch of white male Republicans monitoring what goes on in my bedroom seems sort of, well, unAmerican. And creepy. Mustn't forget creepy.

Eventually, your CSI TV show and your favorite girlie magazine will be targeted. Tyranny starts with silence and ends with fear. It's a slippery slope of arbitrary value judgments. Like a bully on a playground, they go after the ones that are perceived weakest first, but when no one steps in to make it stop, they get bolder and start going after YOU. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. Redstate. And you too, Mrs. Redstate. (I know what you're doing in the tub while reading that smutty book. No one needs to soak that long, honey.) Say bye-bye to Rome and it's depiction of actual sex slaves. Say goodbye to Deadwood and the Sopranos too.

Now I'm asking you, are you man/woman enough to stand up and demand your right to ogle naked titties? If you're man/woman enough to buy it, you should have the decency to protect it.

Here, call your congressman and tell him/her you want the FBI out of your bedroom and internet. (While you're at it, protest 2257 as a bad law. Don't know about it? Wake up and smell the censorship, Joe. I'm not going to hand you everything. Do a little research and open your eyes to what your government is trying to do to you.) Trust me, you'll feel much better in the morning. A little rebellion looks good on you.

Find your misrepresentative here:

Tell them that you want FBI agents to work on something important, like real crimes. You know - Enron and other connected corporate criminals, drugs, child porn, no-bid government contracts, White House aides "buying" news, domestic and foreign terrorists, blowing the cover of CIA operatives, campaign finance law violations...

Oh wait, the Bush administration doesn't want authorities looking into those things. This is all a plot to distract law enforcement with pictures of naked women!

Well, now it all makes perfect sense.

1 comment:

W. S. Cross said...

Bread and circuses. This is the circus part. It makes the administration look tough and as if they were standing up for family values.