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 ...
Are you advocating the overthrow of constitutional principle because we don't, in your opinion, have a moral and religous people?
Have you ever considered that it was the government failing to live up to their constitutional duties, and the people failing to hold them to those duties, that lead to the spread of immorality in our nation?
—Yes porn is bad, but the Government controlling the internet is worse..—
On this one subject, I disagree. Pr0n is insidious. All I am saying is that just as it was controlled in the past in non-internet media, it should be controlled on the internet.
One thing this would mean is that all sites would be responsible for their photo/video content. This would mean that to post anything, members would need to be identifiable and trackable, or everything would need to be reviewed before it was allowed to be published. You want to publish something or even post here at FR? Then SOMEONE affiliated with the site must be able to tell law enforcement who you are and how to reach you.
It’s how it’s worked in the past, graffiti notwithstanding...
I really have no problem with that.
I don’t believe you.
Back in the mid-1990’s a friend of mine, a gun owner, was searching for some information using one of those pre-google search engines. He discovered that “Colt” is what homosexuals call young boys.
And I was searching for some SQL Server info at my job at T-Mobile a couple of years ago and one of the sites it brought up was raw pr)n. We’re talking a full scrollable page of people “in the act”. I went back to google (It was difficult because the page did not want to close) and took a screen print of the page that took me to it (including the search values proving I was searching work stuff) and emailed it to myself in case HR accused me of surfing Pr0n.
And if safe search is off, try searching ANY female name in google images. It’s all right there.
I actually stopped using hotmail and switched to Gmail several years ago for a single reason: Google is all text. Every time I went to Hotmail I had to see pictures of scantily clad women telling me how I could lose weight or other such nonsense. One finally tipped me over the top.
“Lead me not into temptation...”
—I guess then that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Michelle Obama saying what school children should eat at school? —
That is different, because it directly affects them and even the indirect effects on other people’s children are very, VERY small.
There are all sorts of things the government controls to ensure society does not completely collapse. It’s why there is a cover on “girlie” magazines at grocery stores, and why you have to be over 18 to go to a strip club or drink. There are some very limited aspects of life that the government does control insomuch as it tries to protect children’s bodies and minds from serious corruption before they reach adulthood, becoming the next generation of “responsible” adults. Pr)n is one of those limited areas.
We have a “limited” government. Not NO government. This is ONE area I would like to see them really crack down.
And what else would Saintorum block on the internet?
Even if he doesn’t block anything else, he’s opened up the door for somebody else to control content on the internet.
And they know more about his conservatism than you do.
Oh, boy.
The country’s economy is collapsing, and that sickening guy is only thinking about sex matters. He’s such a dreary joke of a candidate.
Zip up your pants, Rick.
“And what else would Saintorum block on the internet?”
He will forbid it altogether.
Welcome to prudish new Saudi Arabia.
Good morning, Durus. Perhaps after you have had a cup of coffee you will actually read what has been posted to you! The gist of the new info. is that all three of the top candidates have been asked the porn question, and all three have said that they would enforce the laws already on the books. The article was written to get folks like you to jump, and boy, did you ever. Why are you so easily led by the media, when for years we’ve been getting a really good education about how they operate? Is it perhaps because you have a pre-conceived bias against Santorum, who is arguably the most conservative, and mostly flagrantly Christian, of the three mentioned? Do you suppose the liberal media know how to take advantage of that to stir up trouble in their enemy’s camp? Do you want to be a pawn in their game?
“use it to justify government control over the lives of all Americans.”
Besides, he’s a freaking hypocrite.
Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh-based OBGYN who had co-founded the city’s first abortion clinic, delivered Santorum’s future wife, Karen, and gone on to share an apartment and a bed with her for seven years.
“When Karen told me she was moving out,” Allen said, “she said, ‘You’d really like Rick. He’s a lot like you. He’s politically active and he’s pro-choice.’”
Rick Santorum In 1995: ‘I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress’
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/507177/RICK-SANTORUM.jpg
Try to keep up, Marguerite.
With what?
The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect political and religious speech, elements the British colonial authorities suppressed. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights protections to the states. However, for almost a century after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, state and local governments routinely suppressed pornography. Political and religious speech were never in the same category as commercial or sexually oriented speech. Commercial speech, i.e., advertising, is considerably restricted by law. When was the last time you saw a billboard, a TV commercial, or a newspaper ad for Winston cigarettes? The FDA restricts the claims that may be made for both prescription and nonprescription medicines, as well as for vitamins, minerals, and homeopathic remedies.
The restrictions that Santorum advocates were considered mainstream and almost universal public opinion before the falsified Kinsey Report. Unfortunately, the level of moral depravity in this country is such that Santorum is regarded as an extremist in such matters.
Wow.
You said a mouthful there. It is not Santorum advocating these restrictions, however, or, to be more precise, not merely Santorum doing so. All three top candidates were asked to respond on this issue, but the liberal elites in the media have decided to serve the story up to us in this particular fashion, attempting to relegate Santorum to a position apart from the mainstream of America, or even just apart from the other two candidates, presumably because the liberal media elites like the other two better than Santorum! Here are the quotes -
Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement: “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”Former Governor Mitt Romney in a written statement: “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting: When MIM’s Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”
I've never been lead by the media. I don't watch TV (except for entertainment), I don't simply believe anything I read (including writers and posters that think they know everything) and I am most suspicious about anything that too easily supports my opinions. So I explore any I begin to treat as axioms often.
That being said I do have a bias against Santorum. It is based purely on his actions while in office and not a thing based on what he says. Based on his actions he is not the most conservative and no reasonable argument could be made that he is. He is a Catholic the same as Gingrich so religion shouldn't be an issue.
There are a lot of pawns in this election cycle. I don't believe I'm one of them.
Very relevant point.
In fact, the facts indicate that the bigger and more oppressive government becomes, the more access the public seems to have to such corrosive vices - l'homme moyen sensuel.
“ps good luck with banning birth control for unmarried women (you really made me smile with that one)”
That was just me saying what I “think” is right. No way it is ever going to happen, nor would I waste time attempting it. Just never will, because societal norms have so changed.
You mean like Ben Franklin who was a “moral” person????
“While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.”
John Adams
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.
