Reason magazine has published an article describing, without much detail, about pornography in the 19th century, what people did about it, and the amount of good laws did, as told in the book Licentious Gotham. Answer: punishing sex and pornography doesn't help much, and probably makes things worse. It's sure a good thing that history rarely repeats itself, right?

Nominee for deputy attorney general David Ogden has coservatives' panties in a bind: he has been a defender of pornography in the past, promoting First Amendment rights for everyone's safety. Republicans, however, are terrified video of two people having sex will destroy our culture more than militant Christianity, greed without bounds, and making the poor even poorer. But, oh, no, not naked people! Ogden wasn't really a porn lawyer; he worked on behalf of the ACLU, interested in promoting freedom and reducing government influence in the lives of individual's beliefs, two things espoused by conservatives but only if it meets their needs. Ogden is also pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and combined with his positive free speech stance makes him pleasantly progressive after the past 8 years.

People getting their stimulus check are looking to stimulate more than their economy -- in this cute little press release, online adult marketing group AIMRCo provides some anecdotal proof (but not much research data) that the stimulus checks are improving the adult website business, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a genuine measurable effect. People love their porn, and if you give 'em a little disposable income, nobody should be surprised if a little part of their stimulus check gets slipped under the g-string strap of a beautiful woman. Californians, however, might find that little part of their stimulus check going right back to the government -- a member of the state assembly has proposed a 'sin' tax on pornography. While it's nowhere near actually getting passed, it was a great way for reporters to get out into the community and talk one-on-one with their local porn stars. Speaking of important conversations, your IRS agent would like to have a 'talk' with you:She would like to see how you're handling a little stimulation, and what you're planning on doing with it.

Woo! Provision 2257 of the COPA, that "prove you're not a criminal, you criminal!" law requiring "publishers" (an overbroad description) to keep personal records of their models and provide it to anyone who asks, has been struck down by the courts. Strictly according to law, because I've posted some naughty pics on this blog, that makes me a publisher -- so somewhere in my files I'm legally required to have those pretty ladies' real names and copies of their driver's licenses in a file. While this would make my Christmas-card mailings much easier, it ain't happening -- an earlier court ruling said republishers didn't really have to, but they still should anyway...which probably meant selective enforcement, an even scarier threat to small-time pornographers. Why won't these laws just die? Well, it's because the powers-that-be flail their arms about, declaring, "won't someone please think about the children?!!??" Since 2257 is trying to prevent child porn, well, the "thinking about children" in the wrong way seems a little too prominent in the lawmaker's minds...