It’s one thing when someone tries to sell you piss as lemonade.

It’s quite another thing when “journalists” who should know better drink the piss whole and CALLS it lemonade, then attempts to sell the stuff to others.

Apparently, the standards of journalism at the website known as The Daily Beast is more than a bit lacking, because they just pulled off a loony worthy of Andrew Breitbart.

The issue: the recent decision by the Obama Administration to dissolve the Obscenity Task Force that had been responsible for prosecuting people for the crime of selling and producing adlut sexually explicit material (more commonly known as “pornography”), and reduce the scope to prosecuting cases involving child exploitation and production of underage child porn rather than going after adult material.

The response of the usual antipornography witchhunters on the Religious Right has been well documented (see this space for a sample). The response upon certain “radical feminists” masquerading as “leftists” has also been duly noted.

And yet, it is too often seen and accepted amongst certain sectors of the media that the antiporn “feminist” segment is the sole voice on the Left for arguing about porn and its effects.

Never mind the history of liberals being for free expression and the Holy Grail of free speech, or the history of sexual liberation movements being far closer to the Left than the Right…some folks often can’t get it out of their heads that you can be critical of some elements of porn production or how some viewers react to it and still defend their right to consume and watch it without shame or ill effect.

Somebody needs to send that memo to the Daily Beast and columnist McKay Coppins…pronto.

On Friday, the Daily Beast posted this article (in two parts)  from Mr. Coppins titled “Obama’s Porn Problem With Liberals”, shouting the alarm about all the evils deeds done by Prez O through his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the latter’s decision to deep-six the DOJ-OTF (and reconstitute porn prosecutions under another department within the DOJ).

The only problem with Mr. Coppins’ article: he only quotes ONE “liberal” as proof positive that “the Left” should be opposed to porn with the same intensity as the Right…if not for the same reasons.

But that one “liberal” he quotes is a doozy: none other than Wheelock College professor/antiporn “feminist” crusader/bullshitter cum laude, Gail Dines.

Now, Coppins’ political confusion and myopia might be based upon the fact that he himself is pretty much a right-winger on his own; he is listed in his bio page as also a contributor to Tucker Carlson’s screech site The Daily Caller (yes, same Bowtie Boy Carlson known for buying up a URL mocking Keith Olbermann, then using same to attempt to smear Olbermann during his breakup with MSNBC).  He labels Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar  (a Blue Dog moderate-conservative Democrat who was one of 42 Senators to sign a protest letter from the rabidly antiporn group Morality in Media opposing Holder’s efforts to shut down the OTF and calling for even more agressive efforts to shut down adult porn)  as  “left-wing”, and labels even more conservative Democrat California Senator Diane Feinstein, another signatore to the MIM letter, “a staunch liberal”.

Don’t believe me?? Quoteh from the man himself:

At first, it all seemed like another formulaic episode in the culture war: the religious right crusading against smut peddlers in the name of “family values”; liberals rolling their eyes at puritanical Republicans and their censorship-happy agenda. But a closer look at the events reveals a kink in the common narrative—and a potential shift in culture-war battle lines.

Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)

She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.

The fact that they were the only “staunch liberals” (out of 55 Senate Democrats, only 6 signed their names to this letter; the others happened to be the most right-wing Democrats in the Senate: Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor(AK), and Bill Nelson (FL). I don’t think that anyone will be calling these fellows “staunch liberals” , heaven forbid “left-wing”, any time soon.

And then, there is the basic fact that Coppins fails to name or list any other “progressive” –feminist, lawyer, or academic — who would dare to support such a campaign against their “cherished” goals of free speech and free expression. Probably because no such people exist, other than within the hive mind of radical antiporn feminism or the absolute fringes.

But who needs others, when you have the intellectual weight of GAIL DINES on your side??

Coppins lovingly quotes all the usual Dines tropes against porn: 1) That porn basically diffuses and distorts women’s essential sexuality for the benefit of men to abuse and rape women with impunity; 2) That porn is innately racist in that it reinforces common stereotypes of Black men and women as dangerous mindless rapists (Black men) or “ghetto bitches” (Black women)…as if traditional conservative common culture hasn’t done enough of that; 3) that porn imposes excessive expectations of sex onto impressionable women and men and ultimately drives both to acts of perversion or even addiction to feed their “unnatural” desires rather than the assumed “true intimacy” of legitimate human love (marriage?? Monogamy??); and 4) it actually traps liberals into defending destructive behaviors that “limit” the legitimate free speech rights of others.  (More on #4 later.)

Right off the bat we see where Coppins is going when he lovingly quotes in really big type the first words out of Dines’ mouth:

“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”

Riiiiight. And to be a part of the Tea Party is to be a freakin’ civil rights activist, too. And “Drill, Baby, Drill” really will kick our addiction to oil. And Rush Limbaugh really does care about the working poor. And…we will ultimately get to watch the sun rise over the West Coast.

But let’s dig deeper, shall we??

“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle,” says Dr. Gail Dines, author of the 2010 book Pornland. “The progressive position is that we’re opposed to anything that produces inequality, and porn absolutely feeds into sexual inequality—creates it, amplifies it, and justifies it.”

As a professor at Wheelock College, a liberal arts school in Massachusetts, Dines is not lacking for feminist credentials. She has devoted the majority of her scholarly research to exposing sexism, and frequently lectures on how the media promote gender bias. She has no patience for the trendy argument that porn actually promotes female empowerment. On the contrary, she argues, the violent brand of smut that the Justice Department is ignoring poisons the public perception of gender relations.

“It legitimizes the idea that men have all the power over women,” she says. “In pornography, women don’t need good housing and fair pay; all they need is body-punishing sex. They’re not human beings.”

Now, I’ve spent a whole forest of dead trees and assorted pixels explaining to you all why Dines’ concept of “antiporn feminist” activism is not only NOT the premier “progressive principle” she implies, but indeed the slippery slope to acceptance of right-wing fascism; so I won’t waste your time and space and rehash it here. I’ll just make the statement that someone who lovingly uses the term “smut” and “progressive” at the same time, and who sees even girl/girl, boy/boy, couples, and female solo sex scenes as equally guilty in imposing male power over women seriously needs to have their credentials questioned.

The main issue right now is how the people at The Daily Beast felt that this libel of “the Left” was considered suitable enough to be published without a bit of proofreading or review. Not even World Net Daily would publish crap like this without some guilt.

Of course, Coppins doesn’t completely rely on Gail Dines for his thesis; he does have some backup:

Dr. Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Washington, says that by glorifying violent sexual fantasies, hardcore porn makers can encourage naturally violent men to act on their urges: “That combination of explicit sexual scenarios and a proclivity for violence against women is combustible.”

The theme of porn (even the non-violent type that makes up the overwhelming majority of such material) enabling “violent sexual fantasies” which ultimately transfers into rape and sexual abuse of women is plastered all over Coppins’ article like horse droppings in a prairie. The fact that no positive correlation between consumption of porn and sexual abuse or violence has ever been found by anyone creditable (other than the usual right-wing cranks), or that religiously conservative/fundamentalist locales are far more likely to be centers of violence against women than regular porn consumers, doesn’t even enter Coppins’ mind.

Now, that doesn’t mean that men who are already presupposed to avts of violence against women might see specific kinds of porn dedicated to their particular rage and react in kind…but that’s quite a bit different from saying that porn transfers normal, healthy geeks into Ted Bundys and Unabombers. Based on that kind of illogic, you could say that Catholicism makes ordinary men into pedophiles.

Next, Coppins reworks Dines back into the debate to quote about how porn destroys healthy sex education:

Along the same lines, Dines says comprehensive sex education—long a rallying cry among liberals—is competing with hardcore porn sites to shape young boys’ attitudes toward sex.

“We know that at age 14, the vast majority of boys have looked at porn and probably masturbated to it,” says Dines. “Literally their first introduction to sex is sites like bangedbabbysitters.com. These aren’t adult men who can compare what they see to reality. They’re young and vulnerable.”

Notice how Dines’ position dovetails quite nicely with the fundamentalist Right’s stated position against government funded sex education outside of the traditional pillars of marriage and abstinence, transmitting the same fear of out-of-control boys ravishing young women at will. Of course, women learning about sex at a young age isn’t seen as quite a problem to Professor Dines…mostly because her assumption is that women are so pure that they aren’t capable of such dirty thoughts…or would be were it not for men imposing porn on them. I guess that that includes lesbians and solo masturbation/sex toy play too, madame??

And of course, gay male porn and its impact on impressionable men is simply ignored or taken as its own sin and issue.

The “porn is racist” meme is nextL

While racist depictions in mainstream media have dramatically declined over the years, Dines writes that contemporary pornography continues to “[get] away with a level of racism that is breathtaking in its contempt and loathing for people of color.” No stereotype is off-limits. Black women are depicted as mouthy ghetto-dwellers who need a dominant man to cure them of their “attitude.” Asian girls are subservient, obedient, and bred for male pleasure. Latinas are debased by their poverty, thus making them accessible to any man with a few bucks.

Given progressives’ historical role in the civil rights movement, Dines says, it’s absurd that the left would stand up for distributors of such racially offensive material.

This one is a definite howler (though not nearly as riotously inducing of laughter as what follows next).  So, racist depictions in mainstream media have actially DECLINED in comparison to porn?? You mean, like, those emails depicting President Obama as a young chimp?? Or, the frequent Birther jokes?? Or, the recent statements of certain Tea Party stalwarts that young Black men would be an excellent replacement for Latino “illegals” as slaves….errrrrrrrrr, farm workers?? Or…the recent survey just released that noted that nearly a majority of Mississippi Republicans believe the the Confederacy should have won the Civil War, and close to a plurality of Mississippi TeaPublicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal?? But yeah, the size of Black cock in porn being stuffed in the orfices of White women is far more dangerous and far more racist than that!!

And oh my, the projection here could power an IMAX theatre!! Asian women as submissive?? (Tell that to Jizz Lee or Ava Devine or Midori.) Latina women reduced to their poverty and inately sluttable?? (Paging Nina Mercedez, Akira Lane, Gabby Quinteros??) Even when they specificaly WANT and openly DESIRE to play the slut willingly?? Oh, wait, that’s the MEN talking for them..we all know that “cumdumpsters” can’t think for themselves…only antiporn ‘feminists” and people like McKay Coppins have the power to speak FOR them!!!

But even that pales to the pinnacle of Coppins’ argument for antiporn “liberalism”: that it actually represses legitimate free speech!! Read forth and laugh, Clones:

Traditionally, what’s drawn liberals to defend hardcore porn is a passion for the First Amendment. But John Kang, a law professor at St. Thomas University in Florida, argues that it’s precisely this commitment to civil liberties that should motivate liberals to crack down on distributors.

“It’s fashionable in the contemporary Supreme Court to justify protection of violent hardcore pornography as the ability of men to realize themselves through some artistic format,” Kang says. “But this is nothing but pure, pathological violence against women.”

He echoes Schwartz’s concern that such material can motivate abuse, assault and even rape: “If enough mentally unstable men watch this and want to recreate it, this actually represents a clear and present danger against women”—a constitutional exception to the First Amendment.

Or to put it another way, allowing the freedom of violent expression could suppress the freedom of innocent victims. As Kang wrote in a 2008 paper, this is a case where “the free speech of men silences the free speech of women.”

I will now give you a couple of minutes to get the laughter out of your system.

,,,,

There now…feel better??

First off, St. Thomas University is a very fundamentalist Catholic university that specializes in promoting this kind of antiporn/antisex claptrap. To call it “progressive” is like calling a cantaloupe an orange.

Secondly…there is simply no “clear and present danger” clause in the Constitution of the United States when it comes to speech and expression. If the Ku Klux Klan can be protected for marching through a public speech and howling anti-Jewish, anti-Black, and other forms of smack, and if the Westboro Baptist Church can be protected for their antigay protests as long as they don’t penetrate the sacred grounds of the actual funerals, then I’m guessing that even depictions of consenting adults carrying out scenes featuring explicit sex are still protected by the Bill of Rights. (In fact, only child porn is the one area of sexual speech that is held not to be protected…and that is due to the underage factor, not the sex.)

As much as I loathe Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I don’t want to live in a world where even they can be prosecuted and put in jail merely for what they say…I’d rather have a world where I and the rest of their victims can fight back with equal words to say that they are simply full of shit. Because the same forces that would love to lock them up can use the same powers to lock ME up as well. That , Mr. Coppins, is what seperates a true liberal/Leftist and a legitimate civil libertarian, from an tyrant…even one who pretends his or herself to be such a “progressive”.

Thirdly…”unstable men” have been able to rape and pillerage women from time imortal without the aid of sexual imagery….and they will be able to do so even if all such content was wiped off the face of the earth.  But, the vast majority of men (and women) who consume porn and yet manage to remain quite stable and healthy shouldn’t be forced to lose their rights and be the target of a smear campaign leading up to castration just because a few “unstable men” aren’t able to get above themselves.

Finally, those who happen to be the real victims of those “unstable men” who do commit real acts of violence against women (or anybody else, for that matter) do have a very powerful means of justice and remediation. It’s called, simply, the judicial system and the police.

And quite frankly, it’s not “the pornographers” who are the biggest detriment to rape and sexual assault victims getting justice; it’s the “slut shaming” and traditional “she got what she deserved by acting/looking like a slut” attitude that permeates the core of dominant conservative culture…and which happens to also be the foundation of most antiporn attitudes as well. After all, there must be a reason why right-wingers seem to be the biggest consumers watchers of porn…and it’s not because of the articles, either.

Finally, we get the knockout punch from Coppins and Dines:

But porn opponents on the left, such as Dines, are characterized by their evangelism, and they’re hopeful that the lower the porn industry sinks, the more their message will resonate. In the end, she says, the progressive case against hardcore porn has little to do with the Judeo-Christian views of sexuality espoused by the right.

“Corporate-owned media is designed to legitimize economic inequality,” says Dines. “I would argue porn does the same thing when it comes to sex. You want sex to be fun and meaningful. You want your sexual autonomy to be your own, not some corporation’s.” Spoken like a true liberal.

WOW. A right-winger determining who is a “true progressive”. Of course, Coppins is the one who called Klochobar “left-wing” and DiFi “an unabashed liberal”, so maybe we can forgive him for that. But Dines knows better, and she has no excuses.

I’m as much an opponent of corporate-owned media as anyone calling himself a progressive or Leftist or liberal; and I support without doubt sexual self -autonomy. On the other hand, though, I understand corporate control to be based not on mere words, but on their actions; and people making sexually explicit media for their own pleasure does NOT necessarily fit into the kind of harm done by “corporate speech”. When the Koch Brothers spends their millions of dollars to pay legislators to pass anti-worker and anti=poor laws that takes away their hard earned cash and fills their already overstuffed vaults, that is a real crime and a violation. When Larry Flynt uses his hard earned money to pay a model to take off her clothes and perform live, consensual, and mutually pleasurable sex with an equally consenting and horny model/actor, then that is quite a bit different. Likewise, someone casting their vote for a Tea Party Republican (or, for that matter, a neoliberal Blue Dog Democrat) whom enables similar policies is complicit in the crime against working people. Someone who purchases a copy of Who’s Nailin’ Palin???  Not so much, I gather.

Yet, people like Gail Dines and pseudo journalists like McKay Coppins would tell us that the man or woman who makes and/or views porn for his/her own pleasure and that of the participants is far more dangerous and far more worthy of not only censure, but full scale state repression, than any capitalist or media hound who exploits people ever would be…or for that matter, any real rapist or pedophile. To them, this is “true” liberalism/Leftism.

To me and other legitimate Leftists and progressives, it is another term: pure horseshit. And it left unchallenged it will become another all too real term: full scale fascism.

If Gail Dines is a progressive, then we might as well call Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann feminists, too. Too bad McKay Coppins can’t tell the difference..and that The Daily Beast is too lazy to remind him.