To all you idiots who thought the Democrats would be easy on our business...
 

Meet who Obama Wants for attny General:

According to Reuters, President-Elect Barack Obama has conditionally offered the post of Attorney General of the United States to Eric Holder, a 57-year-old former Deputy U.S. Attorney who served during the Clinton-era reign of Attorney General Janet Reno.

While Holder will have to undergo an extensive vetting process before officially being offered the job, he has already generated concern in the adult industry over a decade-old memo he wrote on the topic of obscenity prosecutions.

Addressed to all 94 United States Attorneys on June 10, 1998, the memo was titled "Prosecutions Under the Federal Obscenity Statutes". Adult industry attorneys have since referred to it as "The Holder Memo."

"As you are aware," Holder wrote, "within the past few years there has been increasing concern about the distribution of obscenity and child pornography both by traditional purveyors of "adult material" and in particular by those who distribute such material over the Internet. As a result of this unprecedented growth, I wish to remind you of the Department's policies and priorities in the prosecution of federal obscenity cases... Thus, priority should be given to cases involving large-scale distributors who realize substantial income from multistate operations and cases in which there is evidence of organized crime involvement. However, prosecution of cases involving relatively small distributors can have a deterrent effect and would dispel any notion that obscenity distributors are insulated from prosecution if their operations fail to exceed a predetermined size or if they fragment their business into small-scale operations... In particular, priority also should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over the Internet. Because of the nature of the Internet and the availability of agents trained in conducting criminal investigations in cyberspace, investigation and prosecution of Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal resources."

Perhaps even more troubling is a letter Holder wrote to Morality In Media founder Paul McGeady on July 2, 1998, which references a meeting apparently attended by Holder, McGeady and representatives of various religio-conservative pro-censorship groups:


"I appreciated having the opportunity to meet with you recently to discuss the prosecution of obscenity cases," Holder wrote. "Your commitment to this important issue is commendable, and I fully share your concerns about the distribution of obscenity and child pornography, whether it is over the Internet or by more traditional purveyors of such material. I encourage you, and the other organizations with whom I met, to continue working closely with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice as we work aggressively to address this troubling problem. Based on the many insightful comments and observations made by representatives of the various groups who attended our recent meeting, I determined that it was appropriate for me to send a memorandum to all United States Attorneys reminding them of the Department's policies."


Holder's stance on obscenity drew comments from First Amendment attorney and AVN columnist Clyde DeWitt, who dealt with the "Holder Memo" in his column for AVN's September, 1998 issue ("Federal Obscenity Prosecutions in General, and the Internet in Particular".) DeWitt referenced Holder's stance that U.S. Attorneys should follow the United States Attorneys' Manual, which at that time still suggested that adult companies could be targeted using a "multiple-prosecution strategy," where a single company could be indicted in multiple jurisdictions, forcing that company to expend vast resources defending itself, which might bankrupt the company - exactly as the Justice Department intended the tactic to accomplish.

You think Democrats are our friends you are sorely mistaken.

If this surprises anyone well....... :1orglaugh

Wait what? Obama is the same as McCain or Bush NOOOOOOOOOO. I never would have thought that! :upsidedow

no one said they were ouir friends and you know the history so you know which admins we have had the greatest pain whether you want to admit it or not.
Guess its going to change. He still has to be vetted there are alot of people that have a problem with this guy.

politicians don't like pr0n?! ohznoes!

Seriously though, until anything is actually done ( like what happened over the past eight years). It's all speculation. So what the fuck ever.

Sorry, you have been duped.

Tip Tip Tip Tipper Gore... Will she get a seat on the morality council? :1orglaugh

oh he will be approved its a democratic house and senate. he will sail through

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft

If you think ANY political party is your "friend" you are sorely mistaken.

This is a good thing. Tubes have all the content they need. Now we can put the content producers in jail for obscenity and porn can truly spread its wings and fly free like a glorious eagle.

theres is one political party that is our friend, but only myself and John Stagliano support them. I voted Libertarian everywhere I could.

that had nothing to do with porn, look up the meese commission it was under saint Reagan. Adam and eve spent one million dollars fighting. Nixon's anti porn council. Bush 2257 changes, attorneys fired for not going after adult porn,people going to jail. There was precedent, it changes well history didnt tell it right this time I was wrong. But to look at history and say oh yeah was going to happen is not so.
Holder is going to have problems getting approved.he approved pardoning marc rich and is anti gun.

Oh yeah they are your friends lol They want the choice to go back to the states then you are really really fucked.

the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

they think abortion should go back to the states they are free speech absolutists, at least most of us are.

I love to watch Obama supporters back pedal. It is pretty funny actually.

Its the same thing. It had to do with restrictions of viewable materials that someone ELSE determined whether they were ok for viewing. Same friggin thing. Someone ELSE telling us what is or isn't obscene.

Oh no so now we wont have rape videos and child pornography?
Whatever will we do?

Idiots

also he wrote that in 1998 name 4 obscenity cases that happened during Clinton?

no obscenity would go back to the states. Porn would be more fucked not less.

Actually I said if it happens then im wrong.I dont have to backpedal but the history is the history.

Name 4 obscenity cases that happened during Jefferson. Makes as much sense.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do you really think McCain would be much better in regards to our industry?

As is with any election, you have to vote with whoever you agree most with. In this case, it was Obama that got my vote. It doesn't mean that I thought "Change" and "Hope" was realistic in the manner it was portrayed. Only the uneducated did. I don't vote based on taglines and hooks.

I do believe it will be a change from Bush and that we'll be seen in a much better light on the world stage. That is what I believe, and that held a lot of weight for me during this election. If I felt either party would be good for business and I based my vote solely on that, than I'd have been an idiot to vote for either candidate.

now you are being silly so no point in talking. this guy wrote this scary memo in 1998 ,they had 2 more yrs. What happened? Nothing

And you're just someone who sits back and bitches no matter if Obama or McCain would of won.

fair enough

I do more than bitch. :winkwink: Youre right, I think we were screwed either way.

If you think anyone one is a friend of porn you are sadly mistaken. The fact is the govt will eventually push to regulate porn on the net and it wont matter which party it is. Too many ass holes in this biz push things too far and with all the fuck tards spamming sites like youtube, yahoo chat, myspace ect..ect where kids hang out. Well big surprise they are going to eventually do something about it.

The only difference is, it's less likely that obscenity cases will be top priority for the FBI like they were under Bush & Co with Gonzales.

True. :thumbsup

The Libertarian party would not have touched porn. Ron Paul the Republican would not have touched porn. Obama and McCain to varying degrees will/would.

Where do libertarians get this idea? THe choice what is obscene would go back to the states. Then it would suck on a level you cant imagine.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

thank you i did not feel like typing all that. :upsidedow

no matter who is to blame, let's recognize that we're not well liked and should learn to not be so shocked. we should be self-regulating instead of bling-blinging

oh wait we're not even bling-blinging anymore...

Paul is hardly a Republican these days. He's stated the only reason he is a part of the party is because the laws are so schewed against 3rd party candidates.

But you're correct. He would not have gone after obscenity prosecutions and would have vetoed any bills to regulate the industry. The only thing that would have been bad though is the fact he'd appoint strict constructionist judges which are not good for the industry.

What do you big government people not understand that states can not create unconstitutional laws?

what? :1orglaugh Strict constitutionalists are GOOD for the industry

Any party would go after porn if their kids are getting spammed with porn. If people in this biz acted responsible we likely wouldn't have much to worry about.

Oh and Ron Paul is a nut job.. I just thought I'd toss that in. :winkwink:

I'm waiting for my Democratic senator (Debbie Stabenow) to attempt her porn tax again. Why wouldn't she, sin taxes are easy to pass in tough economic times.

Libertarians believe it is the job of the PARENT to stop the child from getting the spam not the government. :2 cents:

Republicans will say anything now to try to vindicate and justify their embarrassing loss.

Who is this "we" you speak of? :pimp

those of us who haven't been approved for SoloSlutCash yet! :mad: :mad: :winkwink:

I told you so.

Yea that works well, right up untill election time and angry scoccer moms start bitching. You also notice they never get elected.. :2 cents:

ummm bad news for ya it already is a state issue the feds only go after it when you use interstate commerce to ship it.

Did you sign up? icq me your affiliate username you chose and I'll see what's going on.

So that explains why Jesus doesn't have a problem with it over here in Vegas! He sure didn't seem to be happy when I was in South Carolina! LOL!

Funny how Jesus is like that. In one place he's an asshole, yet in others he's pretty cool.

Hey Mike, since you hauled ass to a friends wedding during the Atlanta Forum...are you gonna make it to Vegas in Jan.?

Actually yes it would seem that way its mostly gonna depend on if kayden gets nominated for best new starlet, if so I pretty much have to be there if not its about 50/50

yes obscenity is and always has been a state by state thing, look at the federal trial they always have one thing in common and thats the interstate commerce. Thats because the feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Max was charges with transporting obscenity for example....Ray Guhn on the other hand was an obscenity charge and it was local not federal.

Oh christ. Shut the fuck up already. Get off your self appointed pedestal.

When is your print magazine coming out?
hahahahahaha

Oh geez!!!

bad joke. :error it was approved yesterday

...back to the slap-fest

I'll take someone who goes after us, if at all, for legality rather than morality. :2 cents: