I realize this is irrelevant because the content was donated (which I didn't realize when I posted). But still: "Well, if they don't enforce this, it will loo

I realize this is irrelevant because the content was donated (which I didn't realize when I posted). But still: "Well, if they don't enforce this, it will look bad when they try to enforce something else." Because the US government and the fourth tier Pat Robertson law school grads and Bush's Youth alums running the justice department would never selectively enforce laws so the effects of that enforcement would conform to their irrational religious bigotries. The whole purpose of the system of laws in this country is that everyone is always breaking some law. This allows the people in power to have a lever they can use against anybody, at their discretion. Although not applicable to this case, selectively enforcing laws (and being hypocritical about it) is part of the foundation of the US legal system. Right wing fascist states always depend partially on sexual repression (and the associated fear/hatred of the feminine other that come with it) to create the psychological preconditions in the collective unconsciousness to allow authoritarianism to thrive. They would never side with porn producers that relieve sexual frustration. They would only side with porn producers when the pornography was titillating (like American Idol or beer commercials) instead of overtly erotic. When they do go after pornography, they go after pornography that contradicts the masculine objectification of females. This is why the last DOJ cases concerned squirting fetish movies (which are all about female orgasm, and deemed so dangerous that we must be protected from it) but the DOJ never goes after porn where the male orgasm is fetishized. Until people stop confusing titillation with eroticism, and eroticism with sex, the government will not stop being aggressively hypocritical in it's reaction to all three.