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.

[Marcella]

“...pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it.”

Not sure why you ping Jim Robinson about this subject, but I did since you did.

What is your definition of pornography? Do you want yourself or Santorum or the US Senate, controlled by Democrats, to decide which of these legal websites should be removed? What if Democrats decide Free Republic is not a decent website and they remove it - is that okay with you?

[calex59]

What a lot of FReepers don't seem to realize is the real reason we lost the legislature in 2006, the main reason was because just before the elections(how stupid can you get)the Republicans made it illegal to gamble on line in the USA. This is what really lost us the elections that year. No one wants government intrusion and meddling in the private lives of individuals, which to me proves that most people are still freedom loving individuals. Santorum needs to get a clue, or people who vote for him do.

I will tell you what, there is a sh** load of blue nosed puritans hanging out on FR.

[Osage Orange]

So....would you say Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni’s work was porn?

[calex59]

I am not libertine and I do not watch porn. What I am is a person who recognizes freedom when he sees it and outlawing porn on the internet isn't freedom and none of the governments business. As I said, internet porn has been ruled legal, all the sites on the internet, except a few that are caught and prosecuted frequently, are legal.

All of the things you mention are not legal and they are not the topic of this forum.

What you are is a control freak who thinks you have the right to tell everyone else how to live, just like liberals do. I will bet a dollar to a doughnut you are against legalizing drugs too, because they don't fit into your strict moral code.

Strict codes are fine, until you start pushing them onto everyone else. Legalized porn hurts no one but the users of it, and I really doubt it hurts them. legalized drugs, ditto. Legalizing something doesn't mean it is required, therefore you can live by your code and leave others alone to live by theirs.

You are a blue nosed puritan, and we all know just how controlling they were, not to mention they hung witches.

[jwalsh07]

Is it very difficult for you to distinguish obscenity from political speech?

Should there be any obscenity laws?

If so, should they be enforced?

[calex59]

PS, one other thing. All the things you mentioned in your reply to me, take place in public places, which infringes on others rights, therefore are subject to being controlled. Internet porn takes place in people's homes, in private. What goes on in a persons bedroom or home is none of your business and certainly not subject to control by the government.

Get a life, quit trying to force your beliefs and moral-isms onto others.

[MD Expat in PA]

Well let’s find out how libertine you truly are. Is it too much government to have obscenity laws regarding nudity in downtown wherever you’re from? How about masturbation at the local playground? Fellatio on the A train? Group sex at a public beach?

I assume you support all of the above and oppose government intrusion. Is that correct?

There is a vast difference in regulating public behavior, i.e. sex acts taking place in a public place subject to everyone and anyone witnessing such whether they want to or not and the federal government regulating what an adult can view, read or do within the confines of his or her own home. Santorum is advocating criminalizing the later. As POTUS he may use the “bully pulpit” to say that in his own opinion it’s “morally” wrong but for him as POTUS to criminalize it goes against everything I understand about individual liberty.

I don’t want the government to dictate and criminalize every aspect of my life, either from the left or from the right.

Santorum is as much as a “Statist” as Obama is – different sides of the coin but from the prospective of individual liberty, very much the same coin, the same bum wooden nickel and not at all what our Founders envisioned for our Republic.

[Marcella]

“Is it very difficult for you to distinguish obscenity from political speech?”

Well, if it’s Hussein’s political speech, it is obscene. That was an easy one.

[OneVike]

You people have confused Larry Flynt with the Founding Fathers.

Amen to that.

Those who would defend evil in the name of rights, will one day find their children and Grandchildren consumed by the very evil they demand has a right to exist.

[jwalsh07]

All of the things you mention are not legal and they are not the topic of this forum.

They are not legal because legislatures have deemed them obscene you blue nose, busy body puritanical cowardly lion you. Obscenity is the topic of the thread Mr. Mensa.

As for drugs, if I were king pot would be legal to grow in your garden and become as unproductive as you like as long as I didn't have to pay for your munchies.

Are you disappointed that I pointed out that you're not quite as enlightened as you thought you were?

[Longbow1969]

Trashing Santorum for being himself is just foolish. The same is true of trashing Newt for being himself. They are what they are. At least they aren’t being phoney.

Ron Paul isn't being phony either, but most of us here have no problem calling him a loon. What's your point?

Because someone is being genuine doesn't mean we have to like or support them. There are plenty of people on the far left who aren't phony either, should we cut them a break too?

A lot of us do not want a general election nominee who believes it is his job as president to talk about why contraception is "not okay". And yes, Santorum did say that as part of his argument for why he should be President:

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.' It’s not okay"

Sorry, but no. I don't want a nominee for President who believes this would be part of his/her job. I have no problem with contraception. I don't even know anyone who has a problem with contraception. It's a fringe position. Opposing government mandating contraception coverage is something virtually ALL conservatives agree on. Opposing contraception in general is something that most conservatives don't agree on - and as an issue it would be a spectacular loser in a general election.

Santorum would lose by an even greater margin than Romney. It would be one thing if Santorum were well known as some great conservative warrior on reforming entitlements, or spent his career fighting union thuggery in his home state, or battling to reduce/end the deficit/debt, etc. But he is not known for those things, he's known only as a social values guy, he is playing up those issues in the GOP primaries and he would never escape them in a general election. Again, if the focus of his social agenda were simply opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage we could all agree - but Santorum takes things to a whole new level as a guy who wants to re-fight contraception wars that have long been settled and go to battle against internet porn.

I support Newt, but am politically savvy enough to see that he probably can't win. I don't want him to drop out because there is simply nowhere else for my vote to go. I don't like the Romney the chameleon because he simply isn't a conservative at all, I think Ron Paul is a kook (on foreign and defense policy particularly), and I think Rick Santorum has only narrow appeal to those who are voting for who they think the most religiously acceptable candidate within the confines of a GOP primary is. None of them have broad based appeal, and all would lose - with Paul and Santorum losing in landslide fashion. At least with Newt we have a chance and I hope he sticks it out to the end and I'll pray for a miracle.

[jwalsh07]

Well here’s a tougher one for somebody of your intellect and steadfast principles. Newt has signed the same pledge as Santorum to appoint an Attorney General who will prosecute the obscenity laws on the books.

So I’m curious will it be Romney or Obama for you?

[jwalsh07]

The topic is obscenity. There are laws against public sex and nudity because legislatures have deemed them obscene. You support government intrusion vis a vis public obscenity laws. Ergo you see a role for government in regulating obscenity. And by your reckoning this makes you a statist of the first order

You can’t have it both ways Marcus. You can certainly take a position on where obscenity and government should intersect but you’ve already ceded the point that they can and should. A common problem for libertarians especially those with a sense of decency.

[jwalsh07]

Santorum is as much as a “Statist” as Obama is

Gingrich and Romney both have joined Santorum in stating they will appoint Attorney Generals who will enforce the obscenity laws on the books though Romney has not signed that pledge

So you're left with the foreign policy nutter or the prince. Who will you choose?

[jwalsh07]

I truly hate to bring you the news but Newt holds the exact same position as Santorum about current obscenity laws on the books. Sorry.

[Melas]

Surely you are intelligent enough to know that public displays are in no way comparable to what you read or view in your own home. If you cannot make that distinction, then there is little hope for you.

[Marcella]

Utmost Certainty posted this on this thread about Newt’s position:

Relevant article, in sharp contrast to Santorum’s views:
In 1996, Gingrich — then the speaker of the House — resisted an attempt to fight porn on the Internet.

When the Senate began to push for the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Gingrich put up a roadblock that helped undermine the act, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The act, introduced by then-Sen. Jim Exon (D-Neb.), would have made indecent materials on the Internet illegal and made intermediaries — such as Internet service providers — responsible for policing content on the Web.

Some saw this effort as trying to apply rules of broadcast television to the Internet. Gingrich said then that the bill would not protect children but would impinge on the rights of adults. Gingrich pushed for an alternative that emphasized parental education.

“He should be credited with helping to promote a solution to come out against regulation that would have thwarted free speech and the vibrant Internet we know today,” said Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology, one of the first cyber liberties groups.

213 posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38:47 PM by Utmost Certainty

[jwalsh07]

PS, one other thing. All the things you mentioned in your reply to me, take place in public places, which infringes on others rights, therefore are subject to being controlled. Internet porn takes place in people's homes, in private. What goes on in a persons bedroom or home is none of your business and certainly not subject to control by the government.

How is public nudity, masturbation or consensual sex an act of aggression against you Mr Libertarian? If you have a right not to witness live sex acts by accident in public then certainly somebody else has the right not to witness live sex acts while tuning in Sesame street on broadcast TV. Though I would disagree that it is a right. It is a law passed by duly elected officials. Big difference, perhaps you should learn the difference?

As for your home you can watch whatever you'd like for as long as your little heart desires. Have fun!

[jwalsh07]

And it is patently obvious that you are not intellectually honest enough to concede that there are obscenity laws that you support and others that you oppose. Which is exactly the same position that I hold except I’m a blue nosed statist pig and you’re enlightened. Except of course that while I may be a blue nosed statist pig I am not a hypocritical bs artist who confuses license and liberty.