Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers

The Daily Call ^

[Kazan]

The Border Patrol falls under clear Constitutional duties.

Obscenities laws are as constitutional as laws against murder or rape.

They have always and should always exist.

[Kazan]

Think about who we have in the White House. Now imagine somebody like him in 2020 or 2024. You think they wouldn't be tempted to broaden the definition of what is considered to be obscene?

Obscenity laws already exist and pertain legally to sexual behavior. There is no reason to believe they will be used to silence political speech.

[trappedincanuckistan]

I did realize that when I reread what you said Sola. It is just your preference. Sorry didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.

[Longbow1969]

Well then let me introduce myself to you. I go by the name of Sola Veritas on FR. I am an active Southern Baptist and I DO have problems with birth control

Sorry, but that is a fringe position in a general election population. Perhaps some percentage of social values voters in a GOP primary oppose contraception on principle, but not even close to most Americans. This debate was settled long ago and the public is just not with you on it. I don't want a President who thinks it is his/her job to lecture Americans on why contraception is "not okay".

Now I DO NOT hold to a viewpoint that sex, in marriage, is just about procreation. I think it is something God chose to bond a married couple closer together. Sex is good, but only in the context of monagamist hetereosexual marraige.

See, your personal beliefs on these issues just shouldn't be part of the political dialogue. Nor should mine be. You and your family can opt of contraception and you are free to teach your children what you believe. It is not the job of a president to lecture Americans on why he/she feels contraception is "not okay". I disagree with Santorum, but mostly I find the fact he believes he needs to yak about it disturbing. It's simply none of his business what other people and families choose when it comes to rubbers, birth control pills, etc. If he wanted to lecture on these issues, he should become a priest. He is already acting too much like one to ever be elected president.

[OneVike]

I see no where in the statement that Santorum desires to inhibit yours, mine, or anyone elses ability to surf porn, nor do I read that he desires to stop Larry Flint from posting his trash on the web for those of age to enjoy. I do read he desires to enforce the laws on the books, something Obama is not doing.

I remember when the Clinton Admn was usurping our right to bear arms by supporting stiffer gun control laws. Thank God the Republicans pretty much stopped him once they gained control. However, Clinton was not enforcing the laws already on the books. The then president of the NRA Wayne LaPierre an op-ed you may remember where he stated that bthe Clinton admn was not enforcing gun laws already on the books because they wanted a certain amopunt of gun violence to justify more gun control laws.

Well, I am of the belief that Obama is not enforcing, nor prosecuting the current laws controlling sexual implicit material and the access to them or the proliferation of them so as to create an environment where our children will be able to access it.

In his case it is not to enforce more laws, but to destroy the very fabric of our society. I will not repeat the facts of how pornography destroys the minds of teen boys as they are entering puberty, but I will inform you that homosexuals use pornography as the best way to gain control of a young boys mind.

One of the big reasons Rick desires to enforce the laws already on the books is to stop the homosexual movement from destroying gaining a bigger foothold in our children. Laws like the ones that Judges are trying to over turn, that makes it a felony to give pornographic material to children. Those pushing the homosexual movement are getting cherry picked Judges to allow children access to pornography in Schools and libraries.

All we need is to enforce the laws, we need no new ones, and Rick is not suggesting we make new ones. By the way, I am a Newt supporter, have been since he entered the race. My problem with Santorum is the b way he justifies his votes as Senator by claiming his constituents were farther left than him and he was pleasing those who voted for him.

Justifying evil for any reason is evil, and it points to one heart. He has yet to admit he was wrong for voting the way he did, just excuses. Sure didn’t help him getting re-elected did it?

Newt screwed up a few times, but he admitted he made mistakes, while never justifying them. So while I defend Santorum on this, I do not want him to win the nomination.

I do hope we get a brokered convention, because it will fire up the base for the general so that whoever gets the nod will win in a landslide with huge coat tails.

Imagine the viewership of the Republican convention if Romney cannot garner enough votes on the first ballot. Once the first ballot is over and no one wins, all delegates are free to vote for whomever they chose. The delegates are always the base and thus more conservative. The more votes taken wiothout a victor, the farther right the delegates will go in their support.

I do believe that history is our best friend, and Gingrich being a history prof. knows it. We could end up with someone other than the four running now, and that can only be a good thing, because then the people win, not the establishment. And no, a moderate nor a liberal will aver have a chance once the delegates are free to vote their conscience.

One last time about this porn issue, 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.

Allowing children to have easy access to porn is an evil, and not a right. We can defend them from seeing it to a point, and I would suggest a simple fix that would work about 80% of the time. Force all porn sites to have its own domain name like ( porn. ) then you just set the pc to not allow internet access to that domain.

Ultimately it takes parents to control what their children have access to, and we will never stop all children from ever gaining access, but by enforcing laws on the books that Obama is not will take care of about 50% of the problems we already have.

Sorry for the thesis.

God bless, OV

[catnipman]

“—another idiotic diversion from the important issues by the idiotic Santorum-— “

Indeed. Probably half of America looks at some form of Internet porn every week (hell, maybe every day), most of it being pretty harmless stuff. Besides, the porn wars have already been fought and the Supremes have basically already said anything goes. That’s the end of he story right there. Santorum is beating a dead horse here, one that’s been dead for at least two decades.

Quite frankly harping on these kinds side-show issues is what gives Pubs the reputation of being extremists. Most people are rightfully suspicious when anyone tries to tell them what they can and cannot read, view or think, be it from the left or from the right. If Santorum happens to become the nominee, we count on the biggest landslide loss ever. These kinds of social issues simply do not resonate with the majority of voters, and in fact frighten them, which is why the left always lies about their intent. The left knows if they came right out and said what they were going to do, they would never win an election.

All any Pub nominee has to do to win the Presidency is do what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts, namely, stay on message with a hand-full of simple talking points and refuse to be drawn into playing the “gotcha” game by the leftist media.

The points:

1. Cut gov spending massively.

2. Immediately quit running up a massive deficit.

3. Reduce taxes.

4. Reduce regulation. Roll back all Obama regs.

5. Do everything possible to increase domestic energy production via oil and coal, plus build the XL pipeline.

6. Strong military.

7. Strong border security. Build a fence. Deport illegals. No social spending for illegals.

8. Stop all Obama lawsuits against the states. Support Voter ID. Support states rights in general.

9. No more bailouts of any kind for any one. period.

10. Repeal Obamacare and replace it with true health care reform.

11. Strong support for Israel, UK and our other stalwart allies. Take out the mideast pirates.

12. Get rid of the czars.

13. Reign in the EPA. Abolish all regs under Obama. Revoke all Obama exec orders and start over.

14. Stop all unconstitutional activity started by Obama.

AND NOT A DAMN THING ELSE! NOT ANOTHER WORD ON A SINGLE OTHER SUBJECT. NO MATTER WHAT THE LEFTIST PRESS ASKS, REFER BACK TO ONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES!

[j.argese]

Why would you have to turn “safe search” on immediately, it’s the default setting? Didn’t want the grandkids seeing what you were searching for? Just another hypocrite who needs saving. My moral compass is just fine.

[cuban leaf]

—Why would you have to turn “safe search” on immediately, it’s the default setting? Didn’t want the grandkids seeing what you were searching for? Just another hypocrite who needs saving. My moral compass is just fine.—I get the feeling you are just looking for an argument. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the feeling. Let me be really clear here:

The default (for firefox, at least) is moderate. With that you will get bathing suit shots, and soft pr0n. But a lot (I mean, a LOT) of dads out there have modified it to “off”. Frankly, I did because some of the NON-sex related stuff I was looking for a few years ago was getting filtered out.

But to go WAY back, I used to be the “Computer guru” with my circle of friends in an AG church in the 90’s. Every now and again someone would ask me to fix their computer problem. Often it was storage space problems and clearing out unwanted data and defragging was all that was needed. Even on a church deacon’s computer I searched for all files over a certain size and sorted them by type, and the number of xxx jpg’s that filtered to the top was shocking.

Actually, if you want to get a feel for what’s going on, watch the movie, Middle Men. It is not as graphic as you would think and really nails the point home regarding computers in the US. I used to go to computer meets back in the day and every single time the most popular booth was the one where they sold x-rated cd’s and, when they came out, DVD’s. It’s what got movie rentals off the ground as well (VHS).

Sure, YOU may be ok. And I may be OK, but most men (I mean the GROSS MAJORITY) are not. We are imperfect creatures and daily temptation takes its toll unless you are a unich.

And kids use dad’s computer often. And teenagers are no better.

[cuban leaf]

—Why would you have to turn “safe search” on immediately, it’s the default setting? Didn’t want the grandkids seeing what you were searching for? Just another hypocrite who needs saving. My moral compass is just fine.—

I visited my wife’s university in 1998. She commented on all the boys being up really late in the computer lab doing school work. Then I flew out to the place to visit.

She showed me the computer lab, and I noticed a lot of computers in the back of the room with the screen facing the back wall. I asked if that was where they were sitting. She said yes. I then went to a random computer, went into the IE cashe, and sorted the files by size. All the big JPG’s sorted to the top and the files had names like “Hot babe in panties”. Each file also had a download date. They were all pulled from the web at the times the boys were doing “homework”. I opened one and my wife (then girlfriend) freaked out. She was mortified.

She complaned to the school and their take was “boys will be boys”. Well, those boys are now in their early 30’s and represent that generation.

Oh, and it was a Catholic school.

[Antoninus]

And none of those laws where enacted by the federal government, but instead were at the local government levels. And it was good.

That also changed in the 1960s when federal judges trumped the self-government rights of local governments and started declaring their anti-obscenity laws unconstitutional.

But the internet is different to the extent that local laws against obscenity are completely unenforceable on the internet. If internet obscenity is to be regulated--and it should be--it will require a federal solution.

[CodeToad]

The biggest whores are politicians.

[Antoninus]

(Defined by Obscenity statue 12.1.34 ~ 43, dated 1 April 2016) Therefore, the government will now block any internet access to you.

Dude, you have no idea about the variety of proposals for limiting access to porn. No one is saying that you won't have access to your precious pornography if you want it and can pay for it. However, there should be serious restrictions on who can view what and where. Many of us have suggested a porn-only domain (.xxx) which would segregate obscenity to a ghetto which can easily be blocked by decent people.

There are plenty of other ideas out there that make much more sense than the current all-access system we have in place now which allows any 12-year-old to view the latest simulated rape websites if they so desire. The core of the argument here is over whether the people and their elected officials have the right to restrain the aggressive onslaught of hideous and ubiquitous pornography. The answer to that question is clearly "yes" as such filth has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[samtheman]

I agree with your idea for a .xxx ghetto.

I disagree with Santorum for making this an issue in this campaign at this time. I question his judgement. I question his intelligence. I question his common sense.

[Antoninus]

If someone in a given US state or locality is distributing child porn, prosecute them under the regional laws there. This could be done more efficiently and effectively than the Federal Govt. If the material is coming from overseas, local providers could block content from those domains.

"Local providers"? How many internet providers do you think there are which only service local areas? Don't bother answering, just look at the chart on this page:

ISP Usage and Market Share

Answer: none.

Ergo, this requires federal regulations. And enforcement would be no more difficult than enforcement of existing child porn and anti-SPAM laws.

If one actually thinks about this, restricting access to online porn is not difficult at all. Furthermore, it will result in the curtailing of no one's desire to view obscenity if done properly. What it will do is move the disgusting cr@p out of the view of decent people who want nothing to do with it. The internet is an online public forum that is conceptually not much different from a mall or other public place. Just as there are laws restricting people from public masturbation, there should be laws restricting the display of sex acts on the internet.

[j.argese]

ROLFLMAO, Rick Santorum an “inspirational leader”? If you took every strand of Santorum’s DNA and placed it end to end you wouldn’t get enough “inspiration” to illuminate a matchbox.

[j.argese]

Thanks for your reply. Google, used safe search as their default, with other options from there. There was a recent change in their privacy settings and it’s truly annoying.
It’s not a matter of porn, it’s a matter of accessing all available information on a topic. I’m 50 years old. I don’t need anyone determining what is appropriate or inappropriate for me.

[Jonty30]

I tend to agree. Santorum’s leadership style more fitting of a lieutenant than that of a captain, where somebody has given the order and Santorum backs him up.

[trailhkr1]

Now that the stuff is just given away for free, give it time and porn will naturally die on the vine.

Yes, it is now free for the most part but they are making ads from the porn sites. The just have a difrerent revenue source from it.

Porn is not going away.

[Rockerwolf]

Looks like he didn’t read the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Pinkbell]

See post #334.