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.

[Jonty30]

If the leader is inspirational, the work will still be done through the pews. It will not be done through government legislation.

[Antoninus]

If you honestly think that this wouldn't be used to open the door to further censorship, you're a fool. Once the feds get Americans used to the idea of dictating what they can do on the internet, it will not stop with porn.

Are you serious? You do realize that most pornography was outlawed in this country up through the 1960s, right? Were we some sort of fascist dictatorship until the "enlightened" Supreme Court of the 1960s came a long and "fixed" everything?

You do realize that's the narrative of the Obama left you're parroting, right?

[Claud]

Ok good to know. It apparently had its intended effect then.

Shame on me for not seeing through that.

[tacticalogic]

Can we get a candidate that just wants to stop abusing he Commerce Clause? Just once?

[Utmost Certainty]

The Internet didn’t exist in the 1960s, so you’re arguing apples vs. oranges here.

[C. Edmund Wright]

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?

What an arrogantly insulting post to Jonty you made. Who are YOU to determine that Jonty was discounting the Holy Spirit (he was not by anything he said BTW). And who are YOU to determine that the Holy Spirit is working through a man who clings to a faith that really almost discounts the existence of the Holy Spirit to begin with? Wow, that was to Jonty, but it was insulting to everyone.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are the run away winner of today’s “Obnoxious Pharisee” Award.

Congrats. You really earned it.

[cuban leaf]

I get all that. Nevertheless, there is a reason we have a drinking age. And there is a reason we are not complete anarchy. Heck, it's why we didn't allow poligamy and homosexual marriage.

There really are some things that a culture, to preserve itself, must control. This is one of them.

If parents then want to give access to pr0n to their children, they can overtly give them the password.

But I feel like I'm WAY too late with this. The horse is out of the barn.

The short version: "The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws."

[trappedincanuckistan]

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

The Department of Obscenity.

Coming soon to theaters near you!

[Antoninus]

And I am sorry you think that anyone who is adult enough to understand that this is not the role of government is in favor of people doing that.

It's not difficult, really. Do you or do you not think we have a God-given right to buy, sell and view hard-core pornography? If not, then the government may restrict it.

It might help if you actually, you know, read what Santorum said. Or do you think enforcing existing laws is a bad thing?

[Utmost Certainty]

The short version: "The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws."

The counter to that: “In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.”

[C19fan]

Drudge now is all over this.

[Utmost Certainty]

The Department of Obscenity.

Lol. Sounds like something you'd find in the government of an Islamic Sharia state.

[C. Edmund Wright]

It's not difficult, really. Do you or do you not think we have a God-given right to buy, sell and view hard-core pornography? If not, then the government may restrict it.

You just proved you are totally ignorant of what our Founders meant by limited government. As such, I've lost all interest in you and will leave your much needed education to others.

[af_vet_rr]

Are you serious? You do realize that most pornography was outlawed in this country up through the 1960s, right? Were we some sort of fascist dictatorship until the "enlightened" Supreme Court of the 1960s came a long and "fixed" everything?

I'm old enough to remember that it was still available and still easy to get before the "enlightened" Supreme Court, so please don't try and pretend like it was hard to get when it was "outlawed" because it wasn't hard to get at all.

The problem with your argument is that there has never been anything like the internet, and regardless of the laws on the books, once you go down the road of having the government censor any part of the internet, we're on the road to becoming China or Saudi Arabia.

Because I know, and I think you know as well, that once Americans get used to the idea of having their internet censored by the government, it won't be long before the liberals start passing legislation to protect this or that minority or this or that religion.

You and I would think that's ludicrous, but pump out two generations of Americans who are used to the internet being censored by the government, and stir in the liberals love of trying to ban "hate speech" (speech that disagrees with them), and it's not hard to imagine an internet where you aren't allowed to say bad things about illegal immigrants or Islam or whichever group is the flavor of the month.

When the camel gets his nose in the tent, it's over. Today it's protecting women, children, or morality. Tomorrow it's protecting this minority group or that minority group, next week it's protecting this religion or that religion.

[Utmost Certainty]

Such laws shouldn’t be on the books at all.

[trappedincanuckistan]

Or do you think enforcing existing laws is a bad thing?

I take it you`re for the big government that we currently have. Afterall, it`s on the books.

[Steelfish]

Only supporters of obscenity and child pornography, neither of which is protected speech under the First Amendment and are part of our criminal laws have reason to worry. Part of the presidential oath of office is to “faithfully execute the laws of the country.” Something Obama (and his Hollywood pals including the smut industry) does not understand.

[Antoninus]

If the leader is inspirational, the work will still be done through the pews. It will not be done through government legislation.

I disagree. The purpose of law is to restrain fallen human nature in areas where such restraint has been shown to be vital to the proper functioning of society. Given the damage that the ubiquity of pornography does to families, it is long past time for it to be restrained if we have any hope of rebuilding this republic.

[cuban leaf]

Bottom line for me is this: The internet pr0n will be unfiltered and a couple of generations will be lost before the return of the Lord.

We’re already seeing it. In fact, we are part of the slow slide. It can be very difficult to explain “wet” to a fish.