State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor 574
Everyone knows how boring a debate on a controversial abortion bill can get on the Senate floor. So it's no wonder that Florida State Sen. Mike Bennett took the time to look at a little porn and a video of a dog running out of the water and shaking itself off. From the article: "Ironically, as Bennett is viewing the material, you can hear a Senator Dan Gelber's voice in the background debating a controversial abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.' Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"
Florida (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is safe to say we earned our Fark tag the hard way.
Re:Florida (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of Fark, I think this "News story" is somewhat beneath the standards of Fark.
A politician otes to invade our personal privacy? Zzzzz. A politician sides with corporate interests against the public at large? Zzzz. A politician makes a stupid incorrect statement about sciences, history, geography, or technology? Sometimes interesting. A politician is caught with his pants down in some way? ZOMG NEWS!
Leave that line of thinking with cable news and tabloids.
Republican (Score:5, Informative)
Bennett [flsenate.gov] is a Republican. His Republican Party would send us all to jail for watching porn at our own jobs. Indeed, Florida Republicans would have us all locked in stocks and publicly flogged by some priest for it, if they got the theocracy they're working on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for.
From my observations of American politics, the Republicans are far, far more interested in implementing Fascism [wikipedia.org] than the Democrats are. Indeed, to the casual observer it seems that's their Raison d'être.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any evidence for your claims? How does Democratic=supported regulation of industries that influence the fate of our economy in any way related to "fascism"?
Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63% of GDP.
Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Do you not see how the forma
Re:Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans
What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom. I fail to see how accepting governmental intrusion into one part of my life offsets the removal of government intrusion from another.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years.
The Republican Party is America's Taliban [google.com].
That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies [google.com]? It's true.
Re:Republican (Score:4, Insightful)
That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
You mean wars like Vietnam and deregulation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the repeal of Glass–Steagall? Oh wait, those happened under Democratic administrations.....
And they invade your bedroom, too.
And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.
Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.
Careful, your bias is showing.
You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long
"You Republicans"? That's interesting, I start out by pointing out that both parties suck and you leap to the conclusion that I'm a Republican. From my vantage point you have more in common with partisan Republicans than you probably realize.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.
In the mean time, here is a graph [photobucket.com] showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here [freerepublic.com] (so you can check the references and data).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you link to some numbers? That Obama's first year cost more than Bush's 8 years and two wars doesn't sound right.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/cost-of-the-bush-era-11-point-5-trillion.aspx
Under Bush, total spending appears to have been near 11.5 Trillion.
Some people, like the conservative heritage foundation, say Obama's total spending will be somewhere near 10.3 trillion, Over a Decade though. Not in one year.....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400
Were you
Re:Republican (Score:4, Insightful)
It should also probably be noted that most of the money we spent on TARP has already been payed back or is expected to be payed back in the near future. Also, we didn't end up spending even half of the $700 billion originally allocated to the program.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even
GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.
http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif [thefreespeechzone.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.
Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even
GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.
http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif [thefreespeechzone.net]
First, in defense of Reagan, you obviously don't remember the absolute mess the country was in when he took office. Maybe you weren't born yet. I remember mortgage rates well over 18%. I remember unemployment and inflation at double digits. I even remember something called the "Misery Index". Reagan's spending brought this country back from brink of becoming another Greece.
Now, on to the rest of it.
Congress controls the purse strings. Why not look at the deficit cross referenced by the party in contro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The top tenth of 1% of the population receives half of every available dollar of income (almost as much as the bottom 50%). The question is whether they are paying "more" like they were 30 years ago, prior to income taxes becoming more regressive, before their share of the national income quadrupled while the average American lost ground.
I mean, is it a good thing that 300,000 Americans quadrupled their incomes, and pay less tax on that money today than they would have 30 years ago? To the "less tax" cro
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.
So let me get this straight, a batshit crazy liberal is telling everyone what the "core" of the Republican party is, right? Like you have any fucking idea what Republicans want. Tell you what. How about if I, a Republican, say that Democrats are Stalinists who want to ban religion entirely, lock up religious leaders, arrest the leaders of any party they disagree with? Would that be fair? How about if I found sources that backed me up. Do you really think I would have a hard time finding prominent Demo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republican (Score:4, Informative)
Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample [dailykos.com] of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:
But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.
False equivalence. There is nothing actually "Communist" about Democrats, nothing anywhere near as severe as the truth about the Republican Party and its actions. "They're both as bad" is a lazy judgment, when the facts show the difference between "bad" and "intolerable".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bi
Re:Republican (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.
Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).
Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.
I agree and even take it a step further. In order to not "break all sorts of "social programs"", the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved.
I only say that because there are certain "benefits" that are afforded to married people like child custody, power of attorney, and so on. There needs to be federal and state recognition of the union currently called marriage. I believe everyone would be happy if you just changed the name. Civil Unions have no religious significanc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:
The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.
By the way, we know what the Bible says so including in your post "what they think their Bible says" is a transparent attempt at discrediting them. Nice try but it didn't work. Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast ma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.
Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice job dodging the issue.
I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.
And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.
--Jeremy
And Biden telling a man in a wheel chair to stand up and take a bow was very telling as well. Not just because that Biden is a fucking idiot, but what kind of idiot picks him to make his campaign look better? And Obama was known for stepping on his dick every time he tried to speak without a teleprompter.
The point is that every politician stumbles on what should be an easy issue. On paper, both candidates, Palin and Obama have roughly the same number of years experience. The differences are that Palin's
That's NOT Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Just breasts.
Bloody puritans.
I don't see what the big deal is (Score:5, Funny)
You liberal nerds are just jealous you don't have female coworkers sending you naughty pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't see what the big deal is (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, they're only "nude" if you consider a bikini nude.. in which case you are delusional.
The picture CLEARLY shows bikinis (even the ones that were partially black-boxed are obviously bikinis).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have/are, what's the diff?
The diff here is, dickless or not, what he did is against policy, may be illegal, and is certainly disrespectful of the entire state that is paying for his time and has to live under the decisions he participates in making.
Doesn't matter whether it was b00bies or reruns of Curb Your Enthusiasm. When a State Senator breaks the rules it's as if he thinks the law means nothing, and that is the picture next to the entry for Hypocrisy in the dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. He was also looking at video of a dog.
Bingo (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo. It seems to me like the bigger "crime" is that he's not paying attention to doing his job. He'll then have to vote on that issue, and I'm hard pressed to imagine how watching bikini babes or dog videos is going to help him make an informed choice.
Re:Bingo (Score:5, Interesting)
whether or not these guys should be paid so much to do such an easy job is up for argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that were true, then there would never be any debates, and legislation could be done entirely by popular referendum.
Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be abl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! Heeeeheeheeeehee! Whooeee, that just made me laugh.
Re:Bingo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bingo (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his contributors.
FTFY. Really when it comes to abortion most people have their minds already fixed on a position... politicians even more so. This topic galvanizes people based on philosophy, religion, or affiliation lines. Like everyone else in the room he already knows how he will vote on the issue, and nothing short of the new "Mike Bennett Turnpike" will change his mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.
Easy. His lobbyists had already told him how to vote.
Porn..... (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm... (Score:2)
...anyone else surprised that porn isn't blocked as per the IT policy for the Senate? Or am I expecting too much?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have a filtering system that can identify pornography inside a video file inside a zip archive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?
Oh, don't get me started on annoying ultra-paranoid email administrators and their obsession with blocking every goddamn file type known to man.
Seriously, I'm so sick of it. I don't know how many times I've seen this email exchange between developers and clients:
Email #1: Can you send me your configuration file so I can try to determine what's wrong?
Email #2: Can you send me the file again, but this time change the file extension because apparently the mail server blocks XML files.
Email #3: Okay, one more time, but this time zip the file. Apparently changing the file extension doesn't work, because the mail server sees the contents as XML and blanks it all out.
Email #4: That didn't work either. You're going to have to send it one more time, but this time zip it and change the file extension of the zip file.
Email #5: Praise $deity, it finally worked.
Grrrr.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.
Tell that to my boss
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it is, and you know there are NEVER any holes in blocking technology.
Hardly qualifies as porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
being topless in most places is not an actual crime.
It only becomes a crime when women go topless for money in public.
You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.
Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes.
Now, do YOU understand that the image was:
A) Of Bikini-clad women. Not nude, and not even (as TFA falsely states) topless.
B) E-mailed to the Senator uninvited and unannounced, with a deceptive filename.
C) Sent by a female co-worker.
Basically, it's looking more and more like this Senator got Punk'd.
But hey, let's not let a few facts get in the way of a salacious story! This IS /. after all.
Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it was sent via e-mail can easily be backed up with mail server records, which will be released if needed.
While this senator is obviously not the most technically astute, he does at least grasp the basic concept that all of his internet traffic is running through some kind of web proxy server:
When asked if he ever looks at pornography while on the Senate floor, Bennett responded, "You'd have to be insane to do that. It all goes through a server. I don't think anybody would be doing that."
And then there is the fact that he closes it within seconds of it appearing on his screen, and if you look at the application open immediately behind the image, it's quite obviously an e-mail client.
From the evidence available from the video, I see no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
what about my friend that works HR for a stripper club?
I am certian it's not only acceptable behaivoir, but expected!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (Score:4, Informative)
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).
Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?
Nope, you are just illiterate.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.
47 states protect the right to breastfeed.
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.
Creative commons for boobs?
Re: (Score:2)
I know what I'm talking about, what the frak are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Incorrect etymology (Score:3, Informative)
from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil"
Wrong. It comes from porne meaning "prostitute". The etymology of "pornography" means "writing about prostitutes". You're probably thinking of the Greek word poneros. Writing about evil would perhaps be "ponerography" but definitely not "pornography".
--
.nosig
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil".
Nope. Pornoi were low-class prostitutes in ancient Greece. "Pornography" means "whore's writing", more-or-less.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Asking a senator to pay attention?
Next, you will ask they actually read and understand the bill they are voting on...
You forget how this country works.
A setup (Score:5, Informative)
Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.
He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.
Re:A setup (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, I would rather my senetor [wikipedia.org] spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.
Re:A setup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, not even that is automatically wrong.
I Don't Think So (Score:5, Interesting)
Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.
He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.
I disagree. If you zero reference the women from left to right, women one and three have no visible straps that would hold the top part of their bikinis up. While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material. I do agree that he was just opening up an NSFW e-mail sent him to him and it didn't look like he was "viewing" it as it seemed to be closed as soon as his brain registered what he was looking at. Three seconds and then closing the window is not really "looking at porn" in my book. Accident at best. Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work [photobucket.com].
Re: (Score:2)
While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material.
http://www.google.com/search?q=strapless+bikini [google.com]
I love the US. At least the parts of it I've visited (San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas and New York). I still don't get you though. Where's the porn?
(Maybe it's because I'm Swedish ... )
Re:I Don't Think So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A setup (Score:4, Insightful)
He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time
Whereas reading Slashdot on a private employer's time is perfectly acceptable.
Re:A setup (Score:5, Informative)
Not really, here is the original image (for all intents and purposes)
http://img157.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00376_0460_ff2009-darksand1-3001_123_939lo.jpg [imagevenue.com]
Very poorly made bikinis.
Re:A setup (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it's not the EXACT image, since the poses are SLIGHTLY off (look at the head tilts). But it is obviously from the same sequence of images. /pedantic mode
Missing the Point (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.
My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why is it important that he pays attention?
Why is it even important that he actually goes to the voting?
He could simply send a memo saying "This year I vote whatever [party leader name] votes" with the exact same result.
Everything else is self delusion.
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
That's primarily because they are in full lock down right now due to their deep minority status. Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on. When there is some wiggle room in the balance of power certain legislators are able to put their vote counter to the party because it won't matter. The democrats did exactly the same thing when they were backed into a tight minority in the 90s. Welcome to the game that is American politics.
Wait until the census comes out and the gerrymandering begins! Then we'll see some gamesmanship.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Never has a person had a more appropriate user name. Can we still be friends?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics is a game. It always has been, it always will be.
Anyone who plays apologist/propagandist for either party is nothing more than a useful pawn. My pointing out that both sides play these games is a simple statement of fact, nothing more. I even gave another example of the games these people engage in. Yes, the stakes of these games are incredibly high, but you have to recognize that it is this adversarial approach that ultimately keeps things in balance in the long run. The greatest threats to t
Re:Missing the Point (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you list off these numerous filibusters? And quoting Obama doesn't count.
For 7 months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, meaning the Republicans could not filibuster any bill/motion even if they wanted to.
The oft cited cloture stat is next to meaningless as cloture and filibuster are not directly linked.
A filibuster is a tool use by the minority party to prevent a vote. Which as already pointed out was impossible for Republicans to do without Democratic support for at least 7 months.
Cloture, on the other hand, is a tool use by the majority to close off further debate. This could be because of a filibuster or simply because they just don't want to discuss the matter further.
And if you want to talk about improper actions taken in the Senate, the Democrats win this round hands down. To protect their filibuster proof majority and to help push their agenda forward, they violated the rules of the Senate which they themselves demanded previously by allowing the interim Senator from Mass. to continue to vote even after Brown had won the seat. The rules of the Senate clearly state that in the conditions present at the time newly elected Senator Brown was legally permitted to hold his seat and vote the day the election was completed and he was recognized as the winner; and the Senate rules specifically don't even require State certification. The Dems actually held several votes after the election in Mass. and prior to them recognizing Brown (at least 17). Previous, the Republican majority had recognized Democrat winners of special elections the following day, even when important legislation was on the floor.
Of course you could also extend the improper actions to the very appointment of a interim Senator to fill Kennedy's vacant seat since the Dems had to change a law THEY PUT IN PLACE just a couple years before to even do that. But I guess that was on the state level and not the federal so that's ok.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bills are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages of legalese, constructed by dozens of staffers over the course of several months. Bills don't get written on the senate floor, they get written literally in back room offices by people at least one, and usually two levels removed from the actual representatives, and then summaries are made and distributed. The 'debates' on the floor are seldom more than grandstanding their views, as opposed to anyone trying to convince each other of anything.
So, while I agr
Re: (Score:2)
What if he was reading his email?
Don't tell me you've never gotten silly emails like that from friends or family?
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing but manufactured outrage to make political hay. If I were in Florida I'd be more likely to vote for the guy now than before, since it seems to me Republican-or-no he's probably not some too-tightly-wound moralist of which there too many on both sid
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
This was a *Florida* Senate session, not the USA.
About the most important thing they could discuss right now is that fucking sea-floor oil geyser.
They're pitching an abortion bill around - have been for twenty years. Bo-ring.. Bring on the state of emergency and the hardcore discussions about what resources to deploy to LA.
Also, I don't know about you, but I happen to find appropriately aged girls in bikinis extremely inspiring and rejuvenating, especially when they arrive unexpectedly during an 82-degree
Doggie porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give a dog a bone . . . ? (Score:2)
Live, in your Senate . . .
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
The saddest part is that the repercussions of these actions wouldn't be the same if he was browsing any other, not job related, content.
If they have porn on the floor... (Score:2)
Porn isnt the issue (Score:2)
Its that he was doing personal activities while 'on the job'. He wants to watch porn, fine, but do it while on his own time.
Do as I say, not as I do (Score:2)
What I find most interesting is that Florida State Senator Mike Bennett represents District 21. That district, encompassing zip code 342xx, still has laws that ban pornography.
He has a bright future... (Score:2)
...as a future SEC employee!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Not Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not when one is a Republican, the party of (check their anti-sex, anti-personal-freedom-other-than-Second Amendment) voting record before modding me) the Christian Taliban.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, but tell that to John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, most of the GOP, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now wants to modify the State Seal, because the Roman goddess Virtus has a bare breast. [washingtonpost.com]
Hate to defend the guy. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?
It was a reply... (Score:5, Funny)
"Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"
She sent it in response to his "tits or GTFO" text message.
Lowering standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you call that porn?
Come on, folks. We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more. That photo isn't more than R-rated.
PORN ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry, I know I am from Europe, where being topless is just the norm sometimes even in a park, but calling a picture of 5 topless women PORN is a little bit of an overreaction.
I am not saying, that everyone viewing your private crap behind you in congress, and watching this kind of crap on any meeting is right, but it is not PORN.
Besides, he is at work. How many of us looked at this article/video at work? Well, then I guess we cannot throw the 1st stone at him.
Give the guy a break... (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like he opened up the mail and then closed it right away. That stuff happens, even at work. People have sent me NSFW things before without warning that I've opened up and -quickly- closed.
Also, since when is a row of girls wearing swimsuits (maybe a few are topless) 'porn'?
Give the dude a break.
Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi,
It goes against any emotional bone in my body, but i have to vigorously defend a politician.
By borrowing the headline unchallenged, /. is participating in a witch hunt. Even on this site i suspect several readers not to look at the material and to remember just the headlines. I hereby petition Slashdot to change the headline to "State Senator falsely accused of Looking At Porn On Senate Floor".
CU, Martin
Pure Fud (Score:4, Insightful)
Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.
Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.
Good grief, cut the guy some slack.