So where is the government and where are the anti-obscenity laws? According to most sources, anti-obscenity law enforcement had been largely curtailed by (gee, what a shock) Clinton. In fact for most of Clinton's administration, the various pro-family, Christian, Christian-right, and vocal conservatives complained bitterly about the whole situation.

PBS did a Frontline Report called "American Porn," which made the same accusations. Regarding the documentary, Ann Hodges of the Houston Chronicle wrote: "Frontline has no fear of placing blame. Bill Clinton's administration opened the door to a porn explosion on the Internet, it says. In her rebuttal interview clip, former Attorney General Janet Reno said dropping porn prosecutions was a matter of establishing 'priorities.'"

The worst offenders in this regard have been the free speech advocates who make the dubious claim that somehow a photo of someone performing an unnatural act with a horse is "free speech." First of all, who's talking? I have been a libertarian as long as I can recall, and have always been baffled by the concept that something other than words spoken constitutes free speech. Even the printed word, according to our Bill of Rights, needs to be mentioned separately (freedom of the press) since it isn't obviously covered by the definition of free speech. But I digress. There has been a long history of anti-obscenity lobbying in this country. Lenny Bruce got arrested for doing nothing more than cussing in a private nightclub in San Francisco some years back. What he did was deemed illegal. Today, graphic images pour out all over, and this is legal. What's wrong with this picture?