The quote comes from a recently published editorial in Scotland's Sunday Herald, written by Brian McNair, a professor of journalism and communication at the University of Strathclyde, and the author of Striptease Culture (Routledge, 2002) and Mediated Sex (Arnold, 1996).

He's upset that hoary old U.K. has decided to enact an The Obscene Publications Act, which outlaws the possession of "extreme pornography," defined as images which portray "in an explicit and realistic way" acts that "threaten a person's life", or that could likely result in "serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals."

Yes, it is somewhat ironic that England, Orwell's home and the country in which 1984 is set, has chosen to pass such a law, though considering the number of security cameras throughout the country, this action can hardly be seen as a first step toward taking "the ‘thought police’ out of the realm of fiction." The nation long since started down that road.

So it's not like the state is entering your mind, mate; it is entering your mind, mucking around to find our what you're up to and into, then passing judgment on you, your mind, your behavior and all the other stuff that makes up your sense of self, and then maybe throwing you into jail.

God save the Queen.

Big D of Bangin3D.com is at it again. This time he thinks he's the Illustrated Man, or rather, the Illustrated Banner Man.

He just posted up a thread on GFY offering up his right arm as a banner spot for some edgy flesh-loving marketer, or marketers — it's a big arm. (see photo of his left arm)

Some respondents to the post think that at $10 a centimeter he's selling tat spots too cheaply, but I'm not sure how one calculates the value of something that never existed before.

Actually, now that I think about it, as the test case he probably should err on the high side. But it's his arm. This is very subjective territory.

Will it catch on? Like reality porn and tube sites, will body advertising sweep the industry?

Big D says there is already interest. I don't doubt it. Who wouldn't want to own a piece of Big D?!

The New York Post this morning reported the possible existence of God.

Well, not literally, but certainly figuratively if it is true that a 15-minute, 16-millimeter film exists that shows Marilyn Monroe performing oral sex on a man whose face is obscured.

"An illicit copy of the steamy, still-FBI-classified reel... was just sold to a New York businessman for $1.5 million, said Keya Morgan, the well-known memorabilia collector who discovered the film and brokered its purchase," the article reads.

The writer of the story, Hasini Gittens, says that such a sex tape would only continue the "sordid tradition of peddling raunchy video footage of celebrities à la Paris Hilton...," but I would have to disagree with that clearly moral judgment and the ease with which it unifies the various participants throughout history without regard to pedigree.

Set aside the fact that one cannot truly assess the sordid nature of anything without having first seen it, heard it or experienced it. Even if it is sordid, It's Marilyn Monroe, so it can only be so sordid, and maybe it is perfectly sordid.

Because it presumably still is contraband, the footage may only ever get to be seen by a privileged few, but just knowing it's there makes life a lot better. Sort of like knowing that extraterrestrial life exists because you have had a close encounter, even if no one believes you.

The story also said that Hoover's men exhaustively investigated the "ownership" of the male parts, hoping to find them attached to one of the Kennedy brothers, but apparently came up short.

Of course, who but a Kennedy could endure Monroe for fifteen minutes of unendurable bliss? Mailer? Maybe, he was a novelist. DiMaggio? Baseball player, not a chance. Giancana? Big time mobster, so yeah, maybe. At any rate, the forensic anatomic investigators will have a field day with this one for years to come.

There is a lot more info in the article and to the story, which will surely have legs. Check it out.

Yes, kudos and best of luck to KidZui, the latest attempt to create a safe place and a great experience for kids on the Internet.

The way they are going about it seems very thoughtful and pragmatic, and I hope corporations and vendors of all types and sizes jump on the bandwagon and help promote and sponsor this venture. It needs to succeed without becoming a marketing and advertising nightmare.

To be honest, I also want it to succeed so that those naysayers who have condemned the idea of a kids.com over the years get to eat their words, especially the delirious folk behind the .XXX idea.

Enough of these money-making schemes disguised as methods to protect kids. If parents only knew how dishonest most of those claims are, they would rise up in international protest. Well, maybe KidZui is one way they are doing just that.

So here's to the success to KidZui, and to any and all projects taking concept to fruition that actually bring honesty and rationality to the task of providing a safe online experience for our kids.

I am downloading KidZui for my 4-year-old today, by the way, and will report back on how he likes it.

The anniversary of one of the most execrable laws ever passed by Congress occurred two days ago.

The year was 1873, not the best of times for the United States, mired as it was not only in a stock market crash and resulting depression, but also the second corruption-ridden presidential term of Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant.

Perhaps to take citizens' attention off these and other national woes, Congress passed The Comstock Act, which became law on March 3 and outlawed the distribution through the U.S. Postal Service of "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" materials, including any information about birth control and abortion.

The law was the brainchild of Anthony Comstock (1844-1915, pictured above), a former dry goods clerk who, earlier that same year, had founded the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.

A passionate defender of public morality, Comstock not only convinced Congress to pass the law named after him, but he also took personal responsibility for enforcing it, at one point even contacting the New York City police about the contents of George Bernard Shaw's play, Mrs. Warren's Profession. In retribution, Shaw coined the term "comstockery," defined as "censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality."

The following is partial text of the Comstock Act:

"Be it enacted... That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States...shall sell...or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper of other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States...he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court."

It took until 1971 for Congress to remove the prohibition on birth control. Today, we are still fighting the forces of intolerance and comstockery directed at sexual expression and identity.

Sorry, but if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you really ought to at least try to have them make sense.

Unfortunately for his country, it seems Australian Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy couldn't care less about either making sense or being taken seriously. Pity. It's such a nice country.

His quote in response to criticisms about the imminent plan to institute mandatory Internet filtering — i.e. censorship — is a stunner.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree," he said.

That, readers, is an inane statement, but it is also a particular type of totalitarian rhetoric that George Orwell warned us about many years ago.

Shame on the Australian minister for employing it. Being an Australian, he really should be more sensitive to this sort of sloppy undemocratic thinking.

I suppose at some point they will also equate this move with the war on terror.

Buggers.

No surprise to us technological elites that G4, the youth-skewed TV network usually focused on all things video game, has been niftily sliding an increasing dosage of adult fare into its offerings in the form of soft videos, news items and other relatively innocuous items.

G4 crews have also been spotted covering the occasional adult industry party, manning the red carpet and even utilizing the inestimable interviewing talents of gram ponante.

Now G4 is stepping it up once again, actually promoting the fact that they will be in Vegas in January for the Adult Entertainment Expo. They are also going around town interviewing people for a documentary. They even had the nerve to stop by the XBIZ offices to interview me!

Not everyone is happy. Steve Lightspeed has lodged an official complaint. He says his kids like to watch G4 and he's not sure he wants them exposed to, say, the highlights of the kink.com booth show. One has to assume the little Lightspeeds fall well under the 18 threshold and are not inclined to playing in dungeons.

Tough call, imho. One can well understand that G4 would want to give their of-age audience the content they live for, which of necessity includes undulating flesh and lots of it. Indeed, G4 has probably looked at the landscape and long since concluded that a bleak future awaits if they don't at least acknowledge the dark side.

On the other hand, what to do with the little ones lured by the excitement of the video game world and the chance to hang with the big kids?

My guess is they'll simply stick with softer fare overall, continue adding escalating shots of naughtiness during the nighttime TV slots and maybe over time think about integrating an age-restricted members area into the G4 website. Of course that last item may never happen.

Of greater interest is the fact that the mainstreaming of porn is also happening at a place like G4, which is a community for all ages. Steve's first responsibility, as he has shown, is to his kids, but he also has to be concerned about the "gentrification" of adult content or any trend that would make this less of an "outlaw" business.

Paradoxically, people in adult are rightfully protective not just of the sanctity of their industry, but also of its singular identity as a sanctuary for taboo bending if not breaking.

In that sense, G4, with its fun, gee-whiz attitude, while exposing us to a new generation of potential consumers, may also be unwittingly planting the seeds of our destruction.

Happy New Year, btw!

He died at the age of 64. He was a genius.

He had absolutely nothing to do with the adult entertainment industry, and would have blanched at the idea of being mentioned in reference to it, but in fact even here his greatness has been felt.

I know of at least two other people who work full-time in this business who knew Gar well, worked with him over the years and loved him as much if not far more than I. They are grieving deeply this week as well.

I acted with him, was directed by him and studied with him for years, and I can say with absolute certainty that I am a more complete human being for the experience, and am definitely a much better actor.

The holiday season is immeasurably more sad for hundreds of people this year because of this untimely loss, but each and every one of those same people is also celebrating the life of this extraordinary man, and counting their blessings for having known him.

I'm sorry for posting this here, but I had to let people know that we have all lost a great man, even those who never met him.

Ars Technica is reporting on a new study that shows no linkage between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

The researcher, Dr. Christopher Ferguson from the Texas A&M International University, used a process of meta-analysis to address the problems inherent in understanding such a complex relationship, but in the end the study's conclusions were pointedly clear.

"Results from the current analysis did not support the conclusion that violent video game playing leads to aggressive behavior. However, violent video game playing was associated with higher visuospatial cognition. It may be advisable to re-frame the violent video game debate in reference to potential costs and benefits of this medium."

So there you have it. Another study proving something we knew all along. Or did we? And do we?

Something tells me that neither the general public nor Congress will even remotely heed these new findings. And why should they listen to some egghead researcher over their gut feeling? This is America.

We are a superstitious people and we're going to keep it that way. We want to demonize the video game manufacturers and we sure as hell want to make a connection between watching pornography and the dissolution of the Republic.

This is just the way it is. This is who we are. I don't even understand why these people engage in this research.

No one cares!

Fox News, the dependable news network, is reporting the purported release of a new Paris Hilton sex tape.

We all remember of course that the first Paris sex tape went on to record an astounding number of sales, and almost single-handedly saved the adult Internet industry from extinction back in the day of the dot com bust.

Now, less than a decade later, when we find ourselves burdened by increasing gas prices, a weakening dollar and the real prospect of a recession, has the time come for Paris Hilton to once again ride to our rescue?

As dire as the situation is, I can't begin to take any of it seriously before I speak with the only person on earth who can help me parse fact from fiction. I call Kevin Blatt. Actually, I ICQ him.

tom (11:29 AM): I need your help. I have one of two headlines to post. 1. KB Says There Is a New Paris Hilton Sex Tape 2. KB Says There Is No New Paris Hilton Sex Tape.

KB (11:41 AM): There is no new sex tape. There is an old tape of her in a bathtub floating around that was on parisexposed.com.

tom (11:42 AM): That's all I needed to know. Thank you, sir.

So there you go, Fox News. You want the truth, you go to Mr. Truth. Anything else is just a waste of our time.

Thank you, and good night.