Butts Raises Stink

Not OneNewsNow again!

Some gas emitter named Charlie Butts over at OneNewsNow has an article titled “‘Responsible’ Online Pornographers—an Oxymoron’”. He starts by mentioning an organization called the Family Online Safety Institute. Wikipedia says:

FOSI’s primary focus is on increasing education regarding online safety. FOSI often serves as a unifying agent, working with both governmental and corporate partners. Programs such as W3C and ICRA further the goals of FOSI by providing the necessary tools and information to better ensure the safety of children online.

Notice how nowhere in there did it say anything about stamping out pornography or restricting free speech. Therefore, the fundies hate it. Today we get Charlie Butts’ cheeky article telling us how bad they are. Butts says:

The Family Online Safety Institute has apparently struck a sweetheart deal with pornographers.
 
Pornography companies have the opportunity to become associate members of the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI). Bob Peters of Morality in Media explains how the system works.

Of course Butts could have gone straight to the source and actually talked to FOSI to find out how the system works, but no. They wouldn’t have given him the fundie spin. Butts needs a spanking-fresh fundie quote, so he talks to Peters. (I thought fundies believe that Butts and Peters don’t belong together! I’m confused!)

So here’s what Bob Peters said, as quoted by Charlie Butts (or in other words, here’s Peters coming out of Butts):

“FOSI says to the pornographers, ‘We want you to use our rating system so that parents can block you out if they choose to do so. In return, we are going to recognize you as responsible online companies,’” he notes.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable summary, coming from a fundie. If he’d stop right there, everything would be OK. But no. Peters wants to be a dick. He issues a press release. Butts elaborates:

According to a Morality in Media news release, an associate member should exist to support FOSI’s two objectives—“protecting children from potentially harmful material and protecting free speech on the Internet.” Peters calls it an oxymoron that pornography companies could qualify to protect children, even if they use explicit labels through the Internet Content Rating Association.

They protect children the same way that Second-Amendment-loving gun companies protect children: by adding safety locks, publishing gun safety materials, and offering gun safety classes. In other words, if you sell a potentially harmful product, implementing safeguards against accidental harm is the proper, moral, and responsible thing to do. I wonder what Butts thinks about the gun companies. Maybe somebody should email him.

“Now in my opinion, pornographers—and particularly the hardcore pornographers—aren’t responsible whether they use the rating system or don’t use it,” Peters contends.

And in my opinion, The 700 Club is the greatest TV show in world history. Oh look what we just discovered! Having an opinion about something doesn’t make it true!

Moreover, he notes that a person can circumvent the system and access the pornography, including children.

So obviously the only reasonable solution to the problem is a complete and total ban. I actually would be in favor of that. To my mind, OneNewsNow is the most pornographic thing on the internet. It needs to be banned completely. Then we’d never have to see Charlie Butts’ shit again.

11 Responses to “Butts Raises Stink”

  1. Parrotlover77 Says:

    And in my opinion, The 700 Club is the greatest TV show in world history.

    How on Earth did you manage to type that sentence out (even with full sarcasm in effect) without disrupting the space-time continuum?

  2. Thomas Says:

    I don’t buy any of this ‘protect the children’ bullshit for two reasons, first, far too many infringements have been made on civil liberties under the guise of protecting children and, second, it’s not like kids couldn’t get porn before the advent of the internet. I never had a problem sneaking looks at my Grandfather’s playboy collection or shoplifting a copy of Hustler whenever it suited me.

  3. Igor Says:

    Because, as we all know, banning something makes it go away without any negative consequences. Banning pornography will ensure that no one will have sex on display for entertainment of others. And it’ll do wonders for the safety of women engaging in this banned behavior as well. Fundies seem to suffer from the Ostrich Syndrome. If I don’t see it and it’s banned, then it does not exist.

  4. The Watcher Says:

    I agree with just about everything you wrote—especially the gun analogies. But I have to give my highest praise to you for your excretory double entendres. Well played!

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Thomas:

    Fundies aren’t really into all of this oppression to protect the children. That’s just their cover story. Fundies are predominantly of the personality type that likes to meddle in other people’s affairs and dictate to others how to live. It’s a control thing. If they weren’t fundies, they’d be finding some other way to make life miserable for the rest of us.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Thomas – I agree that it causes no harm to most otherwise healthy children. However, it is waaaaaaaay easier to hop on Teh Google and find pr0n than it ever was to sneak into somebody’s dad/brothers/uncle’s playboy stash. Reason enough to legislate it out of existence? Hells no!! But I’m just saying, this is why there is a fake uproar.

    Of course, Ron’s right that it doesn’t matter if kids statistically were less able to find pr0n with the interwebs. They’d still complain because it’s a “morality” thing. You know, because suppressing sexual urges always leads to a positive moral outcome.

    From the studio that brought you Prohibition, The War on Drugs, and Intelligent Design comes the next best suppression of rights: Government Net Nanny 2009.

  7. Ron Britton Says:

    I hope you guys realize that Playboy isn’t pornography. I’m sure the fundies would disagree, but it’s nowhere near being in the same league with some of the filthy stuff you can find on the internet.

    Speaking of which, our old friend BJ of the American Decency Association always ends his emails with this advertisement:

    A SAFE INTERNET ALTERNATIVE FOR YOUR FAMILY
    Millions of pornographic websites are open to everyone … 80% of e-mail is spam or worse! Does your Internet service provider (ISP) care about you or your family? Are you paying for Internet service that helps sponsor destructive and immoral behavior? You are if you use AOL, MSN, or Earthlink! For information on an ISP designed to protect the entire family, go to http://www.afo.net — it’s not too late to switch!

    That’s actually the proper response. I object to filters for everyone, but it’s OK for a family to voluntarily sign up with one. In fact, I think all fundies should, so they leave the rest of us alone.

    So that should settle the matter. BJ can sell his filter and shut the hell up about “indecency” (which includes scantily-clad mannequins—the guy has serious issues). But as you can see, he doesn’t. Merely making smut unavailable isn’t good enough for him. The fact that it exists somewhere has his spleen in a knot. He won’t be satisfied until he has made the government clamp down as hard on porn as he clamps down on his sphincter. BJ and his ilk really do want to live in a Muslim country.

  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The picture at afo.net is priceless. Daddy looks like he’s smirking because he found some high quality pr0n while daughter is in the background thinking, “Daddy, why is that man sticking that thing where poop comes out?”

    Either that or I have been forever negatively twisted by my time on the interwebs…

  9. Ron Britton Says:

    I agree. I’m thinking about doing an article about it. It will depend on how much is there that I can laugh at. That picture is what got me thinking there might be comic potential.

  10. Chuck Says:

    You had way too much fun with these pathetic mens’ names. I loved it! Isn’t it so…satisfying to force your sexuality into the lives of fundies? And they wonder why we (gays) act so flamboyant around them….

    Also, the bit about opinions NOT magically making things true – brilliant. I love it when your sarcasm is so…biting 🙂

  11. OtherRob Says:

    I took a quick look at the afo.net site and after looking at what they block I’m surprised there’re any sites left they can show. 😉