Check this out. If you go to the third link below for the DOJ website you will be referred to Morality in the Media when you want to file an obscenity complaint.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/faq.html

Seems to me a real conflict of interest when the US Gov supports bias press releases written by the president of MIM


NEWS RELEASE from MORALITY IN MEDIA, Inc. NEW YORK (August 13, 2007)

Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, had the following comments in response to an article by Neil Lewis, "Federal Effort on Web Obscenity Shows Few Results," which appeared in the N.Y. Times on August 10, and an op ed article by Stephen Bates, "Outsourcing Justice, That's Obscene," which appeared in the Washington Post on July 15.

Morality in Media (MIM) should be honored that a project it launched to combat Internet obscenity has been criticized in short order by two of our nation's leading left-leaning daily newspapers. We must be doing something right; or perhaps the fear is that we may do something right in the near future, if the liberal press doesn't come to the rescue of hardcore pornographers.

MIM launched the ObscenityCrimes.org website in June 2002 to provide citizens with a convenient means online to report possible violations of federal Internet obscenity laws. The site is patterned after www.cybertipline.com, which was also launched by private citizens and which allows citizens to report possible violations of sexual exploitation of children laws.

Complaints submitted to ObscenityCrimes.org are forwarded to each U.S. Attorney where a report originates and to the Justice Department in Washington. As of August 2007, over 66,000 reports had been submitted to ObscenityCrimes.org, despite very little funds to promote the site.

In 2002, MIM also retained the services of two retired law enforcement agents (with extensive experience investigating Internet pornography cases) to follow up on complaints submitted by citizens to ObscenityCrimes.org and to prepare their own investigative reports which describe in detail the promotional material and sexual conduct that the agents observe on various "adult" websites.

One might think, therefore, that the Times and Post would have long ago published articles highlighting Morality in Media's fine work in combating pornography, urging citizens to make complaints and urging the Justice Department to enforce Internet obscenity laws.

Instead, on July 15 the Post published an op ed article by Stephen Bates attacking Morality in Media for its views on a wide variety of subjects that have nothing to do with the ObscenityCrimes.org project and the Justice Department for delegating its authority to an "outfit" like Morality in Media.

If the Justice Department had in fact delegated to Morality in Media the authority to determine which cases will be prosecuted, Mr. Bates would have a point. But the Department hasn't done that. The Justice Department determines which citizen complaints (if any) it will investigate and ultimately prosecute. Like it or not, Morality in Media has no say in those determinations….

In the N.Y. Times article of August 10, Mr. Bates again bad mouths ObscenityCrimes.org. In particular, Mr. Bates says that MIM's "religious cast, the…constitutional issue of free speech and the outsourcing together made a mockery of the First Amendment, chilling freedom of expression."

While not all of our nation's founding fathers were devout Christians, most were certainly "religious." Abraham Lincoln and Rev. Martin Luther King were also "religious," as is Barak Obama. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were "religious," as is Hillary Clinton….

And if obscenity is unprotected by the First Amendment and if the determination as to what is or isn't obscene is ultimately made by the Courts, how can a project that forwards information to the Justice Department make a mockery of the First Amendment and chill "freedom of expression?"

Mr. Lewis's article in the Times repeats another of Mr. Bates' misstatements - namely, the Justice Department is "outsourcing a search for obscenity."

ObscenityCrimes.org provides citizens with an opportunity to report websites that they believe are or may be violating obscenity laws…

Mr. Lewis's article did get two things right. First, I am concerned about the explosion of hardcore pornography viewed only by "consenting adults." Viewing pornography is linked to variety of harms, including sexual addiction, the breakup of marriages, the breakdown of morality, and sexual crimes against adults and children. The Supreme Court has also held that…"consenting adults" is not a defense to an obscenity prosecution.

And second, I am troubled by the fact that Justice has publicly praised ObscenityCrimes.org on a number of occasions, but to my knowledge has not initiated a single prosecution in response to a citizen complaint submitted to the site. I am hoping that will change soon…