Posted on 03/15/2012 11:00:14 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“I agree this is the kind of thing that scares me about him. It’s not his place to police adults and decide what kind of “speech” should be free.”
Pornography is, at best, purile entertainment. It is NOT “speech” in the original intent of the 1st Ammendment. The Founder’s would be horrified as to what is allowed in the name of “free speech.” One could say that the “courts” expanded the definition of “free speech” in their rulings. However, that was a court...not the people acting through the proper process of ammending the constitution.
Bottom line is that one shouldn’t get in a twist over this. First, because as others have pointed out, it just isn’t possible to control the internet. Secondly, there aren’t enough “social conservatives” to back him on this issue.
It is a shame though. The internet is so saturated with porn from soft to hard core. You have to be so careful when you surf the net to avoid it. Often you just can’t, even to read a news story. So, to some extent I wish is was more regulated.
There have been times when posters to this forum post inappropriate photos of scantily chad women. An abuse of “freedom.”
Just more proof that the “Libertarians” are actually “Libertines.”
Folks I’m not a prude and don’t want to force my “morality” on you. However, I view “pornography” as being anything with the intent to cause sexual arousal or sexual attraction in print or other media. My view towards towards seeing even soft porn is similiar to my views on miniskirts on women. That is - I don’t like being around women in miniskirts for two reasons: (1) They look good in them and I should NOT be looking! (2) They look bad in them and I don’t want to see it! Either I shouldn’t be looking or I don’t want to see.
“This is an issue for states and localities to legislate and enforce. I don’t want it under Federal jurisdiction.”
I am so tired of this “federalism” dodge on important social issues, and other important things. Some things are so abhorent they must be forbiden in the entire country, not just selected states. Child pornography being one. Plus, this stuff crosses state borders because of the internet and therefore becomes a FEDERAL matter. It cannot just be a “state and local” issue....it cannot be confined there. Plus things like “child pornograhy” is a big interstate business....once again falling under FEDERAL jurisdiction. Actually, it is an inter-continental issue...therefore it really is a federal issue.
Whatever, the “state and local” argument is so much sophistry.
Is that an admission that obscenity laws at the state level are perfectly Constitutional and have and should always exist?
So would putting more border agents on the Mexican border. Would you object to that? Or should greater efforts be taken to enforce the laws of the land?
What? You mean you aren't down for a national conversation about why contraception is "not okay" and a good old righteous war on internet porn?
LOL. How does anyone take Santorum seriously? This guy is a disaster. The last thing we need is a nominee who wants to lecture the nation about rubbers and birth control pills and blather on about the evils of porn.
A lot of Santorum supporters want to know why those of us who support Newt don't want him to drop out even though he isn't doing well. This is part of the reason. Romney will probably lose to Obama, Santorum wouldn't even give us a chance as he'd be utterly destroyed. This election should be about Hussein's disasterous stewardship of the economy, not condoms and internet smut.
Yes, that is the rub. There is no definition of “obscene” or “porn”. It is in the eye of the beholder.
The only absolute in law about porn is anything sexual with a child and that will put one in prison.
Holder's Justice Dept. would shut this place down as obscene and subversive and I don't know what Santorum’s definition of porn is and I don't care and he needs to shut up about this and figure out how this country can stop spending more than they have.
Of all the issues our nation needs to address, Santorum thinks this one is the one that needs addressing?
I’m sorry, but this one is not a winning strategy. There’s going to be plenty of mainstream Christians who vote against him for this one issue.
You don’t try to mess with people’s sex lives.
Santorum can't shut up about this stuff because these are the issues that he really cares about. The man is a social values crusader, it's all he has ever really been known for. It is what he is passionate about, what he is most animated over, what he speaks of with absolute conviction.
Nominating Rick would be a disaster precisely because he could never avoid yammering on about rubbers and porn even if his advisers beg him to shut up. Instead of an election about Obama's awful economic decisions, we'd be discussing whether porn should be banned, why contraception is "not okay", why women should consider staying home and having more babies, etc, etc. Hussein would be thrilled to have the election fought over these issues, it would be his dream come true. And if that happens, Obama will win a landslide re-election victory and end up with a mandate far beyond what he had in 2008.
What if, lets say, some one says "we should make a law against child molestations", does that mean "I want the armed forces of the government to impose something on this person the massses dont want"?
But its all about dope and porn to you guys anyway
“Santorum can’t shut up about this stuff because these are the issues that he really cares about. The man is a social values crusader, it’s all he has ever really been known for. It is what he is passionate about, what he is most animated over, what he speaks of with absolute conviction.”
I have supported Newt because I believe he is very intelligent and a balanced conservative and has become more socially conservative since leaving office. However, it troubles me greatly that anyone would consider Santorum’s social values to be a “negative” thing. Granted he must be more than just a social crusader - not just for being elected - but for functioning as a POTUS. However, having solid social conservative values first is a PLUS NOT A NEGATIVE. If I didn’t think Newt was socially conservative, he would not have my support.
Now IF the bulk of Newt’s supporters have the same disdain for bonafide social conservatives as you, et. Al. have expressed. Then maybe I shouldn’t be a Newt supporter?
Folks....Social Conservatives make up a substantial part of the Republican Base. IF you drive us off with libertarian nonsense....you just set yourself up to lose again and again. You need us....bottom line. Rick’s stated desire to regulate and possibly diminish internet pornography is not an issue you should be dissing him on. This is NOT “messing with your sex lives.” That is an incredible ignorant thing to say.
I don’t see Newt attacking Rick over his social conservatism. Maybe you should follow his example?
For now, I stick with Newt. However, some of you supporting him should shut up before you drive folks like me away. IF libertarian views are your thing then vote for Ron Paul. True Republicans support all three legs of conservatism. Obviously, candidates each have a leg that is more near and dear to them. Rick is a social and national defense conservative. Newt is more balanced...unless I am reading him incorrectly. Whatever, stop dissing social conservatism....THAT IS A TURN OFF!
That’s not the point...in the whole scheme of things, with the country falling apart and the financial terrorism we’re living through Santorum shouldn’t even get sucked into this kind of thing. Do you think anyone who’s looking for a job, has lost a house, is worried about 0bamacare wants to hear a candidate get wrapped up in a discussion of porn? The fact that he can be so easily sucked in to this kind of thing is what I’m concerned about, not that he has a particular point of view on it.
Cindie
I have a question. You keep using the words “hard core”. should we be allowed to view softcore pornography? More importantly, who in government are you going to trust to determine what you can read or watch?
“Nominating Rick would be a disaster precisely because he could never avoid yammering on about rubbers and porn...”
I hope he doesn’t get elected - he needs to go home and write a book about perfection.
I worked on a case that charged a county judge with looking at child porn on the internet. I knew he would not do that and started researching for this case. A Democrat district judge and her cronies wanted to send this man to prison for one picture they called child porn.
This caused me to go to that particular website. That male person was not a child, that person was an adult. The district judge got a law officer to say he “thought it might be a child” and that’s how this county judge got charged with child porn.
I can assure you police types are always searching the internet for child porn and tracing down those who engage in that and that’s a prison sentence for sure.
This research caused me to consider what porn actually is and I went to numerous websites and all “suggestive” websites have a warning that a certain age must be reached before getting on that website. It’s up to parents to decide what their child can see.
If you go to the Playboy website, look at that, is that porn? (There are Playboy magazines everywhere.)
Where does porn start:
1. If an arm is exposed, is that porn?
2. If a leg is exposed up to the knee, is that porn?
3. When does a neckline become a porn neckline?
4. Is a bare shoulder porn?
5. Is wearing one’s hair without a scarf on it, porn?
What is porn for one may not be what is porn for another. I do not want any government telling me what porn is and arresting me if I don’t agree with them.
If you had been in the middle of that case, you would have seen how an innocent man could go to prison very easily and it was Democrats that tried to do that. He was not convicted of child porn as my side debunked that.
All of you should realize when you give the government power, you lose more of your liberty and it doesn’t matter if it’s more power (laws) to Republicans or Democrats. Once the power is there, parties change and that power goes to whichever party is in power.
Never make a law that will hurt you if the other party gets in power - always consider the consequences.
Oh the irony. The very fact that I just read the above statement which you transmitted via the internet to be read by an untold number of readers, and I am in return broadcasting my own thoughts in reply over the same medium demonstrates why the internet is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from any other form of mass media.
If you read what I said you know that my point is that Santorum speaks MOST passionately on social issues. That's his thing. It's why he is known for it. Everyone is not equally animated and interested in ALL issues. Newt is actually one of those rare people who seem to be equally excited to talk about almost anything. With Bush it was 9-11 that he spoke about with the most conviction. Get him on certain topics and you could see he was just going through the motions. That's just how it is.
The problem with Santorum is he will not be able to resist taking the bait over and over and over again and expanding on his reasons for believing contraception is "not okay", why the federal government needs to crack down on internet porn, etc. He can't resist speaking to this stuff because it is what he seems to have the most conviction about. And some of the issues Rick is focused on (opposition to birth control in general for example) are gigantic election losers - especially in an environment where Obama is desperate to avoid talking about the economy, debt, failed stimulus, etc.
I think Ron Paul is a kook and am certainly not a libertarian, so there is no reason for you to claim that people who don't think we need a national conversation about why contraception is "not okay" are libertarians. Some social issues almost all conservatives agree on (at least here on FR) such as opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage, opposition to forcing religious organizations to pay for insurance that covers things they don't believe in (contraception), etc. If those were the social issues Rick was most focused on most of us with reservations about Santorum would feel much better about him. Unfortunately Santorum goes just way too far and holds views that would make him a fringe general election candidate. Sorry, I have no trouble with contraception and know virtually no one that thinks we need a national discussion on why it is "not okay". I don't want a president that thinks that is part of his job. Internet porn? Seriously? Sorry, Santorum isn't going to be able to do anything about it and the very idea he thinks he should is just disturbing.
Santorum is a good family man with decent values who would make a terrible presidential general election candidate. He is known almost exclusively for social values positions (including some that are controversial even to many conservatives and downright fringe in the overall population) rather than economic ones - and that is precisely the fight Obama would want.
The cat will drink to that, as long as Saint Ricky also outlaws all alcohol!
You mean you don't trust Santorum to appoint regulators to determine how much skin you are allowed to see online and how racy a story can be before it is considered "hard core"?
I hear China is getting especially aggressive at regulating the internet to protect their people from seeing things that violate the governments idea of what "family values" are. It almost sounds like some people want to emulate them. Perhaps we can have a federal department of internet morality next. Saudi Arabia would be happy to assist I am sure.
Debating the relative advantages and disadvantages - vetting - of the candidates is a good thing, but thats not whats happening on most of these threads. Whats happening now is not healthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.