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 ...
I said that statutory rape was non-violent immorality which was regulated by law, and by citing in its defense, the age of consent, you were supporting that the law does indeed legislate morality, because that's exactly what the (arbitrary?) 'age of consent' does.
In citing that argument, you conceded my point, and helped make my case that you are inconsistent.
WTF?!?
The age of consent is the age in which society determines a child is now an adult. That's it... and it's for all matters. Bank accounts, jury duty, voting, prison, EVERYTHING!
That was *NOT* an example of legislating morality, but an example of how it *WASN'T*.
Basing your conclusions on faulty impressions is a very bad thing. It's even worse when you then use those conclusions as 'proof' of your righteousness.
And trying to proclaim your righteousness unto all the world is the height of hubris. So much so that I find it obscene (Rick ought to do something about that, maybe ban it?)
As for my "righteousness" it is precisely the opposite. It is because none of us is righteous that those of us who aware of our need understand that we must seek absolute standards beyond ourselves. The Founders understood the sinfulness of humankind and set in safeguards in our Constitution to prevent abuse, and also understood that the system wouldn't work without morality.
Again....it is understanding that I am NOT righteous that makes me understand how human nature works, and what it will do unbridled.
This, a social liberal like you cannot comprehend. And this, therefore, is my last attempt to help you figure it out. Good luck.
And this accentuating crosses all lines of women, conservative and liberal.
Well, there is always the burqa! Because burqas are so liberating for women since the garment frees them from the degradation of men looking at their breasts. Maybe we should be more like Saudi Arabia? We can create a Department of Morals and Virtue and hire thousands of regulators to scan the internet for T&A.
Before the internet the only form of communication people had was the TV and radio and we know who controlled those mediums. The problem with TV and radio is it is a one way communication with zero rebuttel allowed.
The internet has allowed like minded people to get together from areas all across the country to voice their opinions, change public opinion and hopefully the gov't. Banning what consenting adults view on the the 'net such as with LEGAL porn, whether a person likes it or not is a slippery slope.
The internet is our only form of defense we have against a tryannical gov't. Having the gov't take control of it in any way is bad news.
Keeping porn off of TV..fine. I have no problem with that but keep our only true voice of freedom open with zero gov't control
“Rick is thinking about the millions of people in America who have quit watching TV shows and have quit going to movies because of content.”
______________
Hi Maryhere-
I understand your (and Rick’s) concerns; however, you have pointed out in your reply above what I think should be the logical (and Constitutional) remedy; simply quit watching these types of films and TV programs. If enough viewers do that the ratings/reviews will fall accordingly and the promoters and advertisers will flee.
Certainly, if you have small children or impressionable adolescents, you, as a responsible parent, should monitor the films and TV they view; just as you would monitor what they read or with whom they associate.
That said, there are many intersting and informative programs on various cable and “dish” channels; although, I will admit that even these have to be monitored for the accuracy of content; as many have thinly veiled, revisionist, political agendas behind their historical and scientific documentaries. If you do not have access to these many similar programs are available on DVD and many local libraries provide these at little or no charge.
My main point is that it is our responsibility as citizens to be both vigilant and proactive in the care and protection of ourselves and our children. When we start foisting those responsibilities onto government we are well started down the pathway to tyranny.
Regards,
-Geoff
Thanks for that. I think I’ve finally got it!
So your well-established definition of pornography is that the offender is “the most heinous pusher of the most revolting perversion imaginable.” Funny but I don’t recall ever seeing that language being used by the courts before. Is that from the Ninth Circuit perhaps?
Anyway, I’m not arguing with you. I certainly don’t want to be on the side of Obama and the Godless porn-loving sodomite democrats.
I wrote in post #481 "The age of consent is the age in which society determines a child is now an adult. That's it... and it's for all matters. Bank accounts, jury duty, voting, prison, EVERYTHING!"
And you quote it as "Legislating the age of consent for which someone can legally have sex with another is precisely legislating morality." With which you then construct an argument based on an idea that wasn't even in the original post.
Age of consent is not specific for sex. It is simply a measure of when society says that you are not a child anymore. Sex laws came afterward, using the already existing age of consent as a convenient yardstick.
Again....it is understanding that I am NOT righteous that makes me understand how human nature works, and what it will do unbridled.
And yet, you have no problem telling everyone that does not believe the way you do that they are wrong, to the point of insults (not to me, but others have commented on it). Have you not heard the phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
As for something we have in common.....have you ever hiked Bright Angel Trail to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (and back up!)? It's AWESOME! (Even for us old folks! :)
godzilla, I'm finally heeding the advice of a wise FRiend upthread not to try to reason with social liberals, as it is an exercise in futility.
I saw that you posted to me, but chose not to read it, and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
(Even though I am. :)
Gee, thanks. The old ‘I won because I say I won’ cr@p.
I figure you’ll respond to this with some other misquote. It’ll fit ya...
“You already know what the legal definition of obscenity is because you said it was vague and problematic.... You should take your support for the disgusting communist Obama and his sodomite pornography agenda somewhere else. Support for Obama and his policies in favor of obscene pornography are not welcome here.”
My, my, aren’t we touchy. Not used to having people disagree with you, I see.
The definition I quoted to you was “patently offensive to prevailing local community standards.” Pray tell, Sherlock, what are “local community standards” on the internet? Is it the local community standards of New York City or of Enid, Oklahoma? Or do you think they are the same?
I was a criminal defense lawyer for twenty years, and I can tell you that trying to enforce “local community standards” on the internet is definitely problematic, and if you would open up your brain for two seconds and actually think about it instead of leaping into attack mode, you would see that I have a point.
That is incorrect. The legal precedent is "the average person applying contemporary community standards," you added the word "local." The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite.
President Bush successfully prosecuted obscenity cases involving fisting, vomiting, urination, torture, bestiality, rape and defecation.
Now it is entirely up to you to explain how any average American would not find the depiction of such acts to be prurient and offensive. Just don't expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.
Take care.
My GF and I did part of the Appalacian Trail last year. 10 days total. We carried everything in our packs-food, tent etc.
We want to do something this year for a 5-6 day stretch but have not decided where yet-probably on the mid west or east coast.
Hiking is the best.
We were just in Tennessee, but it would be great to do the whole trail sometime.
At least one can dream!
Try the Grand Canyon, if you haven't already. It is absolutely AWESOME way down in there, especially tenting by the creek at Phantom Ranch. It's incredibly beautiful in May when the cacti are blooming.
I really, really want to do that again sometime too. As for now, it's hikes on a local bike trail and through the neighborhood. :)
“That is incorrect. The legal precedent is ‘the average person applying contemporary community standards,’ you added the word “local.” The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite...don’t expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.”
Tailgunner Joe is a good handle for you, blasting away without checking too carefully what you’re shooting at. You quoted the first of four parts of the test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California. Part 4 is where the “local” comes from:
“The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a ‘national standard.’” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34
And why did the Supreme Court say that it was proper to use a local community standards instead of a national standard? Because, according to the Court, it is impossible to enunciate a national standard:
“Page 413 U. S. 30
Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the “prurient interest” or is “patently offensive.” These are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. When triers of fact are asked to decide whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would consider certain materials “prurient,” it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation. The adversary system, with lay jurors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions, has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community, guided always by limiting instructions on the law. To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national “community standard” would be an exercise in futility.
Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable “national standards” when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter
Page 413 U. S. 32
of fact. Mr. Chief Justice Warren pointedly commented in his dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 378 U. S. 200:
“It is my belief that, when the Court said in Roth that obscenity is to be defined by reference to ‘community standards,’ it meant community standards — not a national standard, as is sometimes argued. I believe that there is no provable ‘national standard.’ . . . At all events, this Court has not been able to enunciate one, and it would be unreasonable to expect local courts to divine one.”
It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City. [Footnote 13]
The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a “national standard.” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34” (finish)
So my “absurd sophistry” in fact comes from the very language of the Supreme Court.
Good luck overturning those convictions! Bwahahaha!
I’m not arguing with you anymore. You’re a genius. Sorry it took so long to realize it.
I accept your surrender.
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.