Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers

The Daily Call ^

[timlot]

Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is elected president.

The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.

[cuban leaf]

Yes. I know I can do all that. My point is that I live in a country where the gross majority of parents almost certainly don’t do that. It’s gonna bite us.

[randomhero97]

True. Look how much the "war on drugs" shredded the Constitution.

All I can say is better be careful what you wish for.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Brother, these folks scare me more than the marxists. At least with the marxists we can see their true colors.

Yep, and it really doesn't matter whether RS would actually do this or not, and it doesn't matter whether he was taken out of context. All that matters is A: that he would even go into areas like this, and he will because he simply cannot help himself and B: many of his supporters LIKE this about him.

Thus, the few reasonable folks who support RS are left with no basis because the majority of his supporters DO think this is the proper role of President.

[GOYAKLA]

“lindependents”
Are you a Knicks fan? LOL

[BikerJoe]

Anybody who tries to stop internet porn will be as effective as the boy sticking his finger in the dike.

Why did you have to bring Rachel Maddow into this?

No boy ever stuck his finger in...

[magellan]

Dear Senator Santorum,

It's the economy, stupid.

Sincerely,

Magellan

[C. Edmund Wright]

You nailed it! In fact, forced faux piety from the government would probably retard it.

I agree with RS on most if not all issues of morality, but even I am horrified and insulted by his dalliances into these areas.

[VideoDoctor]

What a Joke!

Stopping porn will be just as effective as stopping drug sales and use.

Santorum is sealing is fate making ridiculous claims such as this.

[annieokie]

You said "smart". there's the problem.

In a general election, he will be as persecuted as Gov. Sarah Palin was/is, simply because of their faith based morals, which we can all agree with, but Right Wing Extremism looses every time and the media is salivating now for the chance to pounce on that one.

Sarah can mouth anything she wants, she's not running now.

Rick can't seem to get "engage brain before speaking", Joe Biden has the same problem.

I like Rick. I WANT NEWT GRINGRICH.

[AAABEST]

Ascribing positions to others they dont' hold - especially in lecture format - is not a good way to get to know someone.

Your application to my blowhard list (#104) has been accepted.

[Catphish]

Maybe porn regulation made sense when it was a theater here and there and magazines but internet porn? That cat is so out of the bag it’s never coming back.

Really, this guy is a TERRIBLE general election candidate. I held my nose and voted for Romney in Michigan and I don’t feel like I should have held my nose anymore.

[trappedincanuckistan]

“Yep, and it really doesn’t matter whether RS would actually do this or not, and it doesn’t matter whether he was taken out of context. All that matters is A: that he would even go into areas like this, and he will because he simply cannot help himself and B: many of his supporters LIKE this about him.”

I agree. The point is not whether Santorum would actually do this or not........the point is that many of his supporters, and financial backers etc. believe in nanny statism. They believe that one of the roles of government is to make people more moral. Look at all the “sin” taxes Rick has voted for in his career!

[Wyoming Cowboy]

"To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers"

If I had ANY inclination whatsoever to support Mullah Santorum before, this was certainly the last straw. Yeah, let's have the government block access to sites it doesn't like! That always works out SO well! They'll promise you they'll only block kiddie porn, and next thing you know, they pull the plug on Free Republic.

A Santorum presidency would be as big a threat to our constitutional liberties as a second Obama term. Gingrich and Paul are obviously the only two candidates left that are possible to support at this point, but I'm hoping (as I'm sure many others are) that come convention time, we can get someone else entirely.

[Antoninus]

Ayatollah Rick can take his Sharia mentality and choke on it. It isn’t the Federal government’s job to police obscenity—if you think it is, please show me a Constitutional precedent for it.

You porn hounds haven't changed in the 14 years I've been on FR. Same old arguments that are just as easy to shoot down now as they were then. For your information, for the first 180 years of our nation's existence, the was no problem banning obscenity:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

You people have confused Larry Flynt with the Founding Fathers.

[trappedincanuckistan]

“Yeah, let’s have the government block access to sites it doesn’t like! That always works out SO well! They’ll promise you they’ll only block kiddie porn, and next thing you know, they pull the plug on Free Republic.”

Such a valid point! Much of the runaway government we have was built on the foundation of nanny state intervention!

It’s a slippery slope!

[Antoninus]

I am not a supporter of Santorum. I’m scratching my head over why he’s focusing on this instead of, oh, I dunno, the country going bankrupt.

He's not. This is based on a statement from Santorum's website that some enterprising reporter made into an article with he (apparently successful) intent of riling up the porn-hound libertinarian-types. As far as I can tell, it's been up for a while and the content is not exactly earth-shattering--unless you're addicted to pornography.

[magellan]

"I know I can do all that. My point is that I live in a country where the gross majority of parents almost certainly don’t do that."

So not all parents are responsible parents. And you can't trust irresponsible parents to do the right thing.

That is the argument for public school breakfasts, lunches, and dinners

That is the argument for public school food police seizing brown bag lunches

That is the argument for public school teachers, administrators, and principles taking on parental responsibility.

That is the argument for Head Start and Early Head Start.

That is the argument against school choice.

That is the argument for WIC, AFDC, and TANF.

The government should not be the substitute parent for children who have irresponsible parents.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand the government filter the Internet access of irresponsible parents for the good of society but complain when the same government meddles in the parenting of responsible parents.

With liberty comes responsibility.

[Antoninus]

If there is revival in America, it will come from p2p contact or from the church pews, it will not come from government imposed morality.

You are wrong. It will come from the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit chooses to move people through the words of an inspirational leader, who are you to argue that point?

[trailhkr1]

This thread needs some related humor...

[Utmost Certainty]

Aha, but who gets to define what’s ‘obscene’?