Aquarian Weekly 4/24/02
REALITY CHECK

CURBING THE INSANE & OTHER SOBER JUDGEMENTS

Hoorah for the Supreme Court!

Its final judgment on repealing the ambiguous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 is a victory for not only free speech, but also the precious freedom of expression promised to the citizenry of this wounded, often misguided, but always resilient country of ours. As stated ad nauseum in this space since its inception in late 1997, this "law", along with so many others which slip into the national debate each year, is a dangerous seduction in governmental regulations of art. This cannot stand; no matter how neatly rapped it is in scare tactics, pugnacious rhetoric and volatile "save the universe from ourselves" puritan horseshit.

This was not a "law" based on banning child pornography. If that is all these freaks want from "laws", then why do they muck them up with vague semantics and strangely worded phrases like " a range of techniques" and "youthful looking adults" and the always fan favorite, "designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Here's a law we can jam through congress and send in front of the Supreme Court just to dare them to boot it: "Any use of actual humans under the age of consent as established by the state in which the alleged crime is being committed, in any form of art, film or dance routine, results in castration, general eye-gouging and public stoning. A raffle or a big lottery drawing will be arranged for the top ten people chosen to cast that first stone!"

I apologize for the smoothed tone; it was the dreaded third draft. The first was closer to the bone and more direct, but even the enlightened sometimes bow to law speak.

But until which time we can get down to the crux of our "laws" we must be ultra-careful to watchdog what the hell the government decides is "youthful looking" and what "range" the techniques will achieve, and what exactly "conveys" anything. And let us not deem to understand the "impression" offered by anyone, least of all a designated area of "explicit conduct."

Read that wording again. Now read Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" without blushing or running for your annotated Bible, with the bolded Leviticus chapters for extra "Wrath of God" goodness. "Oh, Jesus! Not Sir William! My Lord, where do we spark up the bonfire to burn that horrid ode to teenage lust?"

This is just another example of how the concept of congressional politics, sequestered in its sliver-spoon, five martini lunch, kickback mania, can manipulate the loathsome language of our presently raging sexual deviances. In other words, if someone hoists "ban child pornography" on any debate they are sure to get a rousing "YEAH!" from the clamoring constituency. This is tantamount to yelling, "Free Beer!" at a Hell's Angel's picnic or starting the obligatory "Boston Sucks!" chant in the bleachers at Yankee Stadium. You are assured of instant support and popularity, and that is so needed these days when most Americans view our politicians as the legion of Satan with a collective bad hair day.

Back in '96, this was incredibly important to the Clinton administration, which was trying to draw attention away from the Willie Follies going on nightly in the Oval Office. Not to mention the FBI's rabid cover-up of then attorney general, Janet Reno's systematic murder of armed religious fanatics in Waco. Let's face it, when your hosting "Friday Night Ass Slapping" in the West Wing, it's hard to not at least claim you despise some form of pornography.

Remember, when this whole mess became concrete there was the silly idea that some right wing radical revolution actually meant something. We were all proud of our "Contract with America" and the sweeping changes in freedom it would provide to Johnny Six-Pack and his 3.2 tax relief. But that was before Captain Newt went to Princeton and tried to explain why God cheated women in the "strength of mind" sweepstakes and the freshmen congress fucked with the elderly. Yeah, it was fun while it lasted, and this annoying bit of legislation is its sad residue.

Now we have that lazy crackpot, John Ashcroft cramming CNN with cries that this ruling will prevent the FBI from rounding up the child pornographers and pedophiles running amok on the Internet. I think Johnny better stop looking at the Internet and begin trolling our churches and YMCA's and Boy Scouts and all those sickening cretins who parade four year-old girls in juvenile beauty pageants dressed like Jodi Foster in "Taxi Driver".

"Taxi Driver"? That was also in trouble under that atavistic act of 1996. But Jodi was only acting. You want to practice world class projectile vomiting, go to one of these beauty pageants. Yes, that is quite normal.

I have written volumes about this duplicitous type of government wrangling meant to satiate the weepy with mounds of paper trails, and I'm running out of space this week, so I think it is important to once again point out that thirteen year-old girls in jeans ads does not constitute child pornography. Neither does these silly machinations Britney Spears calls dancing. That may constitute subtler forms of child abuse, but let's not go into that thorny category without mentioning the state of this country's school systems, religious institutions or the pathetically poor state of parenting in the opening few years of this fancy 21st century.

Everyone knows what is child pornography. Let's get down to combating that heinous problem, instead of creating new ones.

Meanwhile, without the complete and unadulterated freedom of expression and speech we are a doomed society. It is all we have left to us that isn't cajoled, manufactured, bribed or compromised.

As always:

Fuck Law.

Use your brain.

Reality Check | Pop Culture | Politics | Sports | Music