Last month, the FBI began implementation of an anti-obscenity initiative designed to crack down on those that produce and distribute deviant pornography. According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults.

According to the Washington Post, the new anti-obscenity squad, which will consist of eight agents, a supervisor, and assorted staff, will be responsible for accumulating evidence to use against those that produce and distribute criminally obscene content. So what constitutes criminal obscenity, and how does that relate to our first amendment rights? Under current American law, the Miller test is the means by which the courts determine if content is obscene and consequently not eligible for first amendment protection. The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

Despite a growing deficit and considerable budget concerns, the federal government will soon be paying FBI agents to surf the web in search of questionable content, a job that many Arsians would gladly do for free. An even greater irony is that, only one day after the FBI announcement, House Majority leader Tom DeLay declared victory in the war against wasteful government spending.

In the past, government attempts to regulate Internet pornography have been met with tremendous resistance from civil liberties advocates. Many laws proposed to control Internet pornography are patently misguided and inherently destructive. I'm sure many of you remember the short lived Communications Decency Act of 1996, which blatantly violated first amendment rights and established vague provisions that could easily have extinguished free speech on the Internet. Some critics of the new anti-obscenity initiative argue that it could lead to greater government censorship, and others are concerned about costs and priorities. An article in the Washington Post featured a few cynical responses from law enforcement agents:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

There are also a number of people that strongly support this new initiative. According to the same Washington Post article, the Family Research Council affirmed "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general" in response to the heightened law enforcement emphasis on Internet smut. Concerned parents argue that our society has become increasingly tolerant of pornography and socially questionable material, and many of them blame the Internet for the degradation of traditional American values. Conservative columnist Benjamin Shapiro argues in favor of the initiative in a recent article, and he comments on the concerns of those that oppose the initiative:

They find the anti-pornography crowd disturbing because they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn't harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It's a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country.

Mr. Shapiro's dismissal of modern deontological ethics and the categorical imperative doesn't impress me much. Last time I checked, our legal system was supposed to protect the rights of morally autonomous individuals. As a Libertarian, I tend to be skeptical of government regulation. Internet pornography is an enormous, profitable industry (which happens to provide the government with massive amounts of tax money) and I strongly support the rights of those who choose to engage in production, distribution, and consumption of pornography that does not inherently violate the rights of others. In principle, I also value the rights of those who do not wish to be exposed to such content, but I have very little faith in the government's capacity to effectively shield the innocent without violating the rights of consenting consumers. I think that this latest measure is an attempt to appease those concerned without incurring major expenses. When it comes right down to it, this solution is less expensive and less ominous than other potential solutions, but I am concerned by the fact that the Attorney General considers this a high priority.

The absurdity of the situation is accentuated when you study previous situations where the government has attempted to censor content on the basis of criminal obscenity. A commonly cited example is Allen Ginsberg's poem Howl, the pinnacle of beat poetry and arguably the defining composition of an entire generation. In 1957, the government attempted to prevent the publication of Howl and pressed charges against Ginsberg and poet laureate Lawrence Ferlinghetti, claiming that the duo was guilty of criminal obscenity for distributing a poem that contained drug references and overt homosexual themes. Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union intervened on behalf of the poets, and today, Ginsberg's masterpiece is read in classrooms all across America. I question the validity of a legal standard that requires the government to make determinations about what constitutes art, and for that reason I question the legal validity of anti-obscenity laws and the Miller test.

Is this a timely and legitimate solution to a serious problem, or is it a costly and wasteful attempt to appease concerned parents and religious fundamentalists? Will it make the Internet a safer and more wholesome learning environment for children, or will it stifle free speech and civil liberties? More to the point, how many of you will be polishing up the old resume and applying for jobs on the porn squad?