CURBING THE INSANE & OTHER SOBER JUDGEMENTS
James Campion - Mr
example of how the concept of congressional politics, sequestered in its
silver-spoon, five martini lunch, kickback mania, can manipulate the loathsome
language of our presently raging sexual deviances
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." Heres 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 Shakespeares "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 silver-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 Hells Angels 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 FBIs rabid cover-up
of then attorney general, Janet Renos systematic murder of armed
religious fanatics in Waco. Lets face it, when your hosting "Friday
Night Ass Slapping" in the West Wing, its 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 YMCAs
and Boy Scouts and all those sickening cretins who parade four year-old
girls in juvenile beauty pageants dressed like Jodi Foster in "Taxi
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 Im 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 lets
not go into that thorny category without mentioning the state of this
countrys 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. Lets 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 isnt cajoled,
manufactured, bribed or compromised.
As always: Fuck Law. Use your brain.
© James Campion
2002 'Mr Reality Check'
Previously by James
< Reply to this Article