Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores

MSNBC ^ | March 16, 2012 | Andrew Rafferty and Alex Moe

[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.

[ohioWfan]

Or do you prefer to euthanize them rather than permit them to engage in immorality?

More cheap shots, Papa? Can't you have a discussion without them? Not capable of having a serious discussion about an important subject?

I'll give it one more shot, and then let you mock to your heart's delight....

My solution? Privately funded shelters (both secular and church).....far more of them.....providing protection and training until they can get out on their own.

And information. Growing understanding of the depth of this problem for young kids, so that concerned decent people can volunteer to do something to solve this deep, ugly problem.

And an end to the mindless denial of people like you who want to pretend the abuse of children is no big deal, or none of our business.

That would be a good start.

[PapaBear3625]

My solution? Privately funded shelters (both secular and church).....far more of them.....providing protection and training until they can get out on their own. And information. Growing understanding of the depth of this problem for young kids, so that concerned decent people can volunteer to do something to solve this deep, ugly problem.

Cool. I approve. Go do it. And this means that the federal government doesn't need to be involved and Rick can shift to talking about what he will do to improve the economy, improve domestic energy supplies, and improve national security. Carry on.

[PapaBear3625]

It has been accurately stated that all laws are based on someone's morality.....I never stated that all laws were based on my morality......or even yours (presuming you don't deny that you have it).

And all moral codes are based on encouraging behavior that promotes the survival of the society, and discouraging behavior that works against the survival of the society. At least they on in societies that manage to survive.

A corollary is that some moral issues are more important than others.

[Oztrich Boy]

That has nothing to do with G-d’s word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as that’s the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).

It's 12 in Vatican City. (Really)

[Raider Sam]

I completely agree with that. For me, the Federal Government should be involved in as few things as possible, letting states set most of the policy. If you want to live off the dole, and NY wants to let that happen, then move to NY. That way, people can move to the states that support their beliefs, and we have 50 sovereign states loosely joined and regulated by the Federal Government.

I would even be fine with Virginia proclaiming that it is an Anglican state and Maryland saying it is Catholic. I read the 1A as a restriction on what Congress can do, not the states. That is why I dont like the Federal courts saying that some town cant display Christmas decorations. What amendment restricts a city’s ability to allow or stop it?

[ohioWfan]

Actually, our daughter is volunteering for a private anti-trafficking organization, and we're helping support her, and plan to do more. Many more people are becoming aware of the horrific aspects of abuse as it relates to pornography and prostitution.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to inform the ignorant about the seriousness of the issue of sexual violence and its relationship with porn.

Oh....and I gotta say in closing, I hope your wife (since you brought her up), requires exclusivity in the ogling department. Otherwise, methinks your marriage is in trouble....

See you around. :)

[PapaBear3625]

I approve. Go do it.

And I want to add that when I said that, I meant it without sarcasm. I think the Salvation Army, for example, does a much more efficient job at dealing with people with issues than government agencies do (in terms of results per dollar spent).

[trappedincanuckistan]

Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not ‘legislating morality?’ Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless ‘moralists’ who want a “nanny state”.

In the case of statutory rape the victim is a minor, and unable to give consent. Stop being so silly.

[PapaBear3625]

She has a policy of “look don’t touch” (unless it’s her, and not if we’re in public).

[jwalsh07]

Listen Ohio, any libertarian yoyo that claims morality isn’t or shouldn’t be legislated isn’t worth your time. Morality is always legislated and the only question is whose morality gets legislated. Anybody claiming differently is a very shallow thinker not worth your time or anybody elses for that matter.

There are no laws, I repeat NO LAWS, without somebody’s morality at their base. That includes traffic laws, property laws, tax laws and any other civil or criminal law on the books.

[jwalsh07]

In the case of statutory rape the victim is a minor, and unable to give consent. Stop being so silly

I asked you a while back to quote a law, ANY LAW, absent somebody's morality at it's base.

Nothing but crickets since.

[trappedincanuckistan]

I’m not a legal scholar, but I know there is a difference between laws that protect individual freedom (murder, rape, theft etc.), and those that seek to undermine it by elevating somebody’s judgement over mine in order to protect me from myself.

Here’s a question for you. How is the thinking that supports the nanny state any different from the thinking that supports full blown socialism?

[Longbow1969]

how do you feel about the fact that looking at women's breasts degrades women,

What on earth are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that looking at a woman's breasts degrades them. What do you do, turn your head or cover your eyes at the beach? Good grief man. When I read comments like this from you it makes me all the more certain that I don't want you or some government regulator determining what constitutes porn.

And that the majority of women who are in porn flicks have been sexually abused and/or trafficked, and that's why they're there.

Utter nonsense. I'm going to throw you a curve ball here, but I know you are probably incapable of accepting that it is true. Most women (and men) in the adult entertainment industry do it because they want to. It's generally easy work, it tends to pay good, it gives them a certain amount of power, etc.

I mean no offense when I tell you this, but I've known plenty of guys (White Knights) that sounded just like you until they found out the hard way that most of these girls don't want to be saved and many/most are reasonably or even perfectly happy. Perhaps corrupted in your eyes, but living life in the kind of fast lane they choose for themselves. Is it a healthy lifestyle? Nope. Is it something many/most are willing to do till they've gotten what they want out of it? Yup.

The information age is here. You can't roll back the clock. You are wasting your time even trying, and any politician who thinks he/she is going to win national elections by declaring a war on porn is going to lose and lose badly. The amount of control the Federal Government would need to assert to stop online pornography is far more frightening than just letting people watch skin flicks if they wish to do so. The ends do not justify the means. Porn is simply not a pressing national issue.

[gogogodzilla]

As to your first point, it completely supports my argument. Statutory rape is against the law....even though it may not involve violence of any kind, and is between consenting individuals......because of the morality of society's determination that the age of consent is 18.

I see the problem. Your definition of morality is simply what society agrees it should do. I thought you defined morality as G-d's word. I define morality as the intentions and decisions made leading up to whatever behavior is acted out.

So to legislate morality, by my definition, is to legislate what one may or may not think. And that is patently offensive to me. (In essence, it is 1984's 'thoughtcrime'.)

And I note that you dodged my list of laws. I had the courtesy to address yours... yet you do not for mine?

[gogogodzilla]

That is why I dont like the Federal courts saying that some town cant display Christmas decorations. What amendment restricts a city’s ability to allow or stop it?

On a tangent... Every time I do any research onto that kind of thing, it always boils down to some city bureaucrat denying or forbidding other displays. And then when the courts says he/she can't do that... the little prick just cancels it for everyone. That way, everyone gets treated the same way.

Instead of just letting every religious (or non-religious) group put up a display.

[af_vet_rr]

I agree with this line of thinking, and I agree with the point that I am not willing to send tax payer funded law enforcement after someone for looking at breasts.

My biggest problem, and those who defend it still haven't been able to assure me otherwise, is that the line will get moved. This is the federal government, this is about people who want to tell you what you can and cannot view. What is illegal or legal doesn't matter because the line will move.

Once you have the bureaucracy in place and thousands of federal employees looking at porn (and getting paid to, for once) and deciding what's illegal or legal and either blocking it (federal control of the internet?) or sending out emails to the internet providers to block it, somebody will take that and run with it.

Right now it's hardcore porn (Santorum believes softcore porn is legal), but once you get that bureaucracy entrenched and get people used to the idea of federal bureaucrats deciding what's proper to look at on the internet, the Muslims will lobby that images of Mohammed are obscene and should be banned. Think that's crazy? They consider such images more obscene than pornography, and they think it's worthy of death sentences for those who create such images and cartoons. Given the liberals' tolerance of Muslims and even some support of Sharia law, it's not hard to see something like that coming into play.

I've had the misfortune of being stationed in Saudi Arabia where the government tries to control everything that people view and where there is a true morality police. It's not pleasant.

Look at this thread - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2861069/posts - you have some FReepers making comments about women weather forecasters - harmless. But just imagine what the Bureau of Internet Obscenity would say 10 or 15 years down the road.

And it's not just stuff like that or cartoons of Mohammed. What happens when Bureau of Internet Obscenity decides that negative comments about gays, illegal aliens, Muslims, etc. are obscene?

If I knew 100% that this would only and forever be about certain types of pornography, I would be okay with some aspects - certain not the hiring of federal agents to look at porn and decide what's illegal and not, but I know that it will not stop with certain types of pornography.

Even if the discussion is about laws already in place, the problem is that once the bureaucracy is created where federal employees decide what is hardcore (illegal) and what is softcore (legal), the lines will be moved by future administrations and sessions of Congress.

[Longbow1969]

What happens when Bureau of Internet Obscenity decides that negative comments about gays, illegal aliens, Muslims, etc. are obscene?

Which is exactly what would happen. Put the infrastructure in place and get people to accept that the government will be regularly censoring the internet to protect "morality and virtue", and the bureaucracy will find a reason to expand and censor things not deemed politically correct. It is far better to leave the internet a chaotic, relatively free venue for people to see and read what they want, than to allow the government to get its hooks any further into it and start "regulating" online activity to prevent people from seeing porn.

Even if the discussion is about laws already in place, the problem is that once the bureaucracy is created where federal employees decide what is hardcore (illegal) and what is softcore (legal), the lines will be moved by future administrations and sessions of Congress.

And even then, how would the government really make that determination? Who is going to sit around and create the regulations that govern what specifically falls into which category of porn. Do we really want government bureaucrats doing this? Are we really going to go after, say, couples who like posting amatuer sex videos online at the countless sites they use for this sort of thing? Will we be monitoring things like 4chan, reddit, etc, to prevent individual anonymous users from posting porn photos. If citizens have a private website and wish to put pornographic pictures of themselves, will the government prosecute them? What about all the hundreds of thousands of websites based overseas? Will the federal bureaucrats be tasked with sitting around reviewing every potentially porn related site from around the globe to determine if they are "soft core" and tolerable, or "hard core" and obscene. Where does it end?

The idea we are going to "crackdown" on porn is silly. It isn't going to happen. Rick Santorum only makes himself look foolish when he yaks about things like this. Sure, there are many social conservatives (not small government conservatives mind you) who find this kind of talk appealing - but these are many of the same block of voters that cast ballots for people like Pat Robertson, and in the end those types of candidates have pretty much no chance to ever win a general election anyway.

[af_vet_rr]

If citizens have a private website and wish to put pornographic pictures of themselves, will the government prosecute them? What about all the hundreds of thousands of websites based overseas? Will the federal bureaucrats be tasked with sitting around reviewing every potentially porn related site from around the globe to determine if they are "soft core" and tolerable, or "hard core" and obscene. Where does it end?

Or what if people email pictures between themselves, or mailing lists? Those don't have to go through the web, which means the only way the government could block them is if it began monitoring our email.

Once a government bureaucracy is created, it will continue to grown and expand its power, especially if it involves law enforcement. The obscenity laws maybe on the books, but the government does not yet have a bureaucracy to tell us what images and websites are legal and illegal. The government does have plenty of employees who sit around and look at porn though, just now they'll be officially paid to do so. Once it's created though, I fear for this nation. I would give it 2-3 years tops before images of Mohammed are banned, 10 years tops before negative cartoons and comments about gays, illegals, etc. are banned. It'll take some time, but once the people are conditioned to the government dictating what they can do on the internet, it'll go downhill quickly.

And if I were a betting man, every person here who wants a government bureaucracy invented to look at internet porn to determine what is illegal and legal, would not trust Obama with such a bureaucracy.

[ohioWfan]

In the case of statutory rape the victim is a minor, and unable to give consent. Stop being so silly.

It might involve an 18 year old boy and a 17 year old girl, which is by any definition, 'legislating morality' and not likely involving violence.

Get up to speed on American law before you pretend to know what you're talking about................silly.

[ohioWfan]

Listen Ohio, any libertarian yoyo that claims morality isn’t or shouldn’t be legislated isn’t worth your time.

I definitely see your point, jwalsh.

I guess I do most of this for the lurkers who aren't off the liberaltarian deep end. :)