Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores
MSNBC ^ | March 16, 2012 | Andrew Rafferty and Alex Moe

Posted on 03/16/2012 10:56:03 PM PDT by Steelfish

Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores By NBC's Andrew Rafferty

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL -- Rick Santorum accused President Barack Obama of not enforcing the country's obscenity laws and said Friday that as chief executive he would crack down on illegal pornography.

Santorum found himself answering pornography questions during a stop at an Italian restaurant here after the discovery of a statement posted in his campaign website in which he asserts that "America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography." Recent reporting has shed light on the letter in which the former Pennsylvania senator vowed to "vigorously enforce" all the country's obscenity laws, though he said the statement was posted three weeks ago.

"We actually respond to questions that we get into our campaign when they say 'What are you going to do about these issues?' And when we respond we post them up on our website. And the response is, ‘we'll enforce the law,’" said Santorum.

"I don’t know what the hubbub about that is," he said. "We have a president who is not enforcing the law, and we will."

The candidate best known for espousing family values argues on his website that pornography causes changes in the brain to both children and adults, and contributes to violence against women, prostitution and sex trafficking. "The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography," he wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 2012electionbias; antiprotestantrick; culturewar; familyvalues; freespeech; how2lose2obama; kenyanbornmuzzie; lostby18forsenate; mittromney; nannystate; nationalissuesricky; newtbotsforromney; newtgingrich; obamassillytwin; obscenity; obscenitylaws; peripheralissues; pornification; pornography; proillegalssrick; prounionsrick; rick4anticondomczar; rick4antipornczar; rick4pope; rick4proillegalsczar; rick4prounionczar; ricksantorum; ricksdebateoncondoms; ricksearch4ridicule; saintsantorum; santorum2012; santorum4censorship; santorum4obama; santorum4romney; search4dumbproblems; senatorsactimonious; tinybrain; tinyideas; tinyiq; tinysolutions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-500 next last
To: GeronL

And you know this is ONLY about kiddie porn how? And do you have any statistics proving it’s gotten worse under 0bama? Have prosecutions gone up or down during his administration. If they’ve gone up that would indicate he is doing something about it. There isn’t a person here who doesn’t think kiddie porn is abhorrent so your accusation that people here have “no problem” with kiddie porn is just hyperbole. Just like Santorum.

Cindie


201 posted on 03/17/2012 10:44:39 AM PDT by gardencatz (I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
You bet! I think I may just go outside and enjoy this lovely day.

Happy St. Patrick's Day! :)

202 posted on 03/17/2012 10:45:03 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star recipient!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Wake up, Folks. Which NATIONAL anti-porn law are you afraid of Santorum enforcing? Any takers? If not, grow up and stop being swayed by propaganda.


203 posted on 03/17/2012 10:49:16 AM PDT by alstewartfan ( 27 of 36 Romney judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

You’re right. When you ask them if they favor obscenity laws prohibiting public nudity, masturbation and consensual sex acts in their neighborhoods they become outraged and claim this is different because their children should not be subject to seeing these acts involuntarily. It is their “right” not to be subjected to these acts in public.

But somehow it is not their “right” not to be subject to same on the public broadcast system or the internet. Your theory that the collective IQ has diminshed a couple of sigmas might explain that little conundrum.

Then they go on to complain that you and I want to prevent them from doing what they want in their homes and bedrooms throwing around the statist epithet. How ridiculous can the argument get? Nobody gives a crap what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as I’m concerned they can glue their eyes to images of adults engaging in sex acts until the sun stops shining. LOL, I mean really, how moronic can they get?

Here’s another beauty of an argument. By regulating the internet to require XXX websites to require ID to enter the site you have trampled on political speech. That’s my personal favorite.

A little less retarded is their state powers argument. Yes public obscenity laws should be as local as possible but small towns, big cities or large states have no capability to regulate the broadcast spectrum or the internet. Common sense and common decency must take a back seat to the libertines these days. It’s all right there in the Constitution and the DOI, the inalienable right to subject others to your sexual dalliances. Good grief.


204 posted on 03/17/2012 10:50:45 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

By moralist I am referring to those who would legislate morality. You are definitely one of those.

I don’t make things up. Rick has talked about enforcing obscenity laws with respect to the internet.


205 posted on 03/17/2012 10:51:01 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

The “bestiality” folks will protest./sarc


206 posted on 03/17/2012 10:54:39 AM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
By moralist I am referring to those who would legislate morality.

Hey trapped, name one law devoid of somebody's morality. Only very shallow thinking libertarians still quote the "you can't legislate morality" meme. All legislation is based on the legislators morality. The only question is whose morality gets legislated.

207 posted on 03/17/2012 10:57:00 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
But somehow it is not their “right” not to be subject to same on the public broadcast system or the internet. Your theory that the collective IQ has diminshed a couple of sigmas might explain that little conundrum.

Ignorant, illogical people are much easier to control with propaganda. Few things are more insufferable in life than an arrogant moron and we're currently rife with them.
208 posted on 03/17/2012 10:58:00 AM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
Yes. Enforcing the law. And you oppose that because......?

"Legislating morality" is a leftist canard that you have clearly fallen for. As I have stated above, if we didn't do that, there would be no laws against murder or sex with your child. There would be no law against drunk driving, assault, or child pornography, or rape.

If you're here to argue against legislating morality, go for it. I doubt, however, you'll get much support on an internet forum that supports morality as FR does.

Give it a try.....just not in a conversation with me. Because you can't win it and you'll probably embarrass yourself trying.

209 posted on 03/17/2012 10:58:00 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star recipient!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

People care about the economy, jobs, inflation, gas prices, getting out of afghanitsan, taxes, etc, not having some politician in their home bossing them around.


210 posted on 03/17/2012 10:59:37 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
No, they are laws that regulate behavior.

Morality is the intentions and decisions a person both holds and makes prior to their actions.


What makes both Obama and Santorum so appalling is that they do want to legislate morality. Or in other words, they want to use government to change what you believe. (Obama... you vill believe in global warming and abortion for all! Santorum... you vill believe porn is Satan's work)

And that is patently offensive to any free man or woman.

211 posted on 03/17/2012 11:01:18 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

When Obama gets re-elected and his tax rates go up by 50% he’ll be screaming ‘immoral laws’ at the top of his lungs. :-}


212 posted on 03/17/2012 11:02:37 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Child pornography and sex trafficking are crimes that are much more serious DO NOT fall under obscenity laws. The laws for the former are separate and are SO serious they should NOT get lost in a debate about obscenity. How dare you judge a person’s morals. Just because we’d prefer he’d talk about the economy because we have NOT ONE clue about his plan doesn’t mean we don’t think REAL crimes like child porn and sex trafficking shouldn’t be dealt with or aren’t already. Of course, if you can prove they’re not, please do so. And if Santorum is so stupid he doesn’t know the difference between adult pornography and trafficking or child pornography he doesn’t have the necessary common sense to be president.

Cindie


213 posted on 03/17/2012 11:02:49 AM PDT by gardencatz (I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: gardencatz
"Yeah cuz if I’m concerned about the economy like the majority of Americans are, I’m really going to care about this. Look, his first priority should be the economy. I have NO clue where he stands on that. I don’t know his ideas. I hear platitudes and vagueness from him and his supporters only seem to care that he has conservative values. He’s like the 0bama of the right...all the right credentials but no specific ideas. That’s why he’s simply not ready. Even Romney has expressed more specifics than Santorum. There’s plenty of time for him to play King Pious after the pressing concerns of the nation have been dealt with."

The reason Rick's stance on pornography is even being discussed is because msnbc and others of their ilk went to Rick's "Issues" page on his website and scrolled all the way to the very end, after his position papers on:

First 100 Days Economic Freedom Agenda

No More Leading from Behind for America

We Hold These Truths

Unleashing America's Domestic Energy

Bold Solutions for America’s Families

Immigration Reform: Securing And Strengthing America

ObamaRegs Versus Freedom

Santorum Record on Defending the Dignity of Every Human Life

Appointing Constitutionalist Justices and Judges Who Refuse to Legislate from the Bench

Restoring America's Greatness Through Educational Freedom And Opportunity

Defending 2nd Amendment Rights

Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with Patient-Centered Healthcare

Spending Cuts and Entitlements Reform

Made In America

Response To Iran

Executive Branch Actions

Champion of Faith & Families

Defender of the Taxpayer

Believer in American Exceptionalism

10 Steps to Promote Our Interests Around the World

Now, the fact that Rick has his stance on pornography listed after all of the above would suggest to any thinking person that it's not a priority or centerpiece of his campaign as msnbc would have you believe, and which you have clearly bought into. The fact that you claim to know nothing about his other stances when they are presented in the order I've listed above, suggests you're willing to rely on msnbc to do your thinking for you...which is truly very sad.

214 posted on 03/17/2012 11:05:14 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Laws exist to protect people from force/violence, and to enforce contracts made by free people.

Only nanny staters think legislation should protect people from themselves.


215 posted on 03/17/2012 11:05:37 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia

The problem is that he can’t do that. His campaign is built around social issues. Sure, he does have other issues in it... all cribbed from Newt’s positions last month.

He’s a one trick pony and the press know it.


216 posted on 03/17/2012 11:06:56 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Embarrass myself? ROFL. You’re embarassing yourself by equating laws that protect people from themselves to laws involving force and violence like murder and rape.

Please.


217 posted on 03/17/2012 11:09:22 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan

LOL. Tell it to the pro choice libertarians who are against agression except on defenseless babies.

How does a man masturbating on Main Street in your little town meet your force/violence/contract test?


218 posted on 03/17/2012 11:14:17 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Nobody is talking about a man masturbating in public. States and communities have laws in this regard. What Santorum is talking about is the Federal Government regulating the internet.


219 posted on 03/17/2012 11:20:46 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan

“What Santorum is talking about is the Federal Government regulating the internet.”

What will then be the difference between America and the dictatorships and theocracies?


220 posted on 03/17/2012 11:23:38 AM PDT by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-500 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson