Skip to comments.Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers
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 ...
Can someone remove this guy from the presidential field.
If he had enough sense, he would know that the presidency should NOT be controlling where you go on the net, where you go in your car and what you do in the bedroom. He keeps coming back to his government umbrella. Ricky sure does have sex on the mind. Thing of it is-it's others' sexual business in which he thinks about controlling.
What a shame that RS wont debate Newt in Portland...there are so many questions left unanswered. The voters want the debates instead of constantly having to research everything or watch the media spin..debates are always much more informative.
My daughter controls what her children watch on tv and what they view online. It is not that hard to do. My mother did the same when I was growing up.
Don’t want Michelle telling my children what to eat and dont want Uncle Sam to babysit.
I do want more done about the economy so the children and future generations are not left dealing with a 3rd world nation. America is BROKE
The SCOTUS will take up Obamacare in 2 weeks. Hoping it will be over turned.
There are a ton of inane laws on the books...such as it is against the law to spit on the street in some city. There also used to be old blue laws in Virginia where you could not buy toilet paper or laundry detergent on Sundays. Think it began with a preacher called Billy Sunday.
You can search absurd laws...there are some whoppers
Its the last thing mentioned on a list of ten or twelve issues, yet the tenor of many of the posts criticising him here are a bit hysterical, don’t you think? More in line with what they’re talking about on MSNBC.
Yeah I did some looking on the internet. Some crazy stuff.
OMG-fallen behavior to be controlled by LAWS by a GOVERNMENT. We have a Problem here folks- people posting for MORE government intrusion of our personal freedoms. Are we going to lose or what with this guy-the voters are now beginning to fall for government is the answer on a conservative forum. How can anyone defend Santorum idea of invading into our personal freedoms..don't go around to your neighbor and tell him/her what TV channel to watch or which site on the internet they can or cannot go to-as in what is alright for a moral factor decided by a person from a government- let mom and dad be the role models; not Rick's governmental agency.
Your post is doubleplusgood.
Santorumites bellyfeel porn doubleplusungood. Only goodsex bellyfeel doubleplusgood. Need BB thinkpol to stop prole ungoodsex crimethink.
Welcome to 1984, a la Santorum.
(some help to decipher)
I'm not one of those people.
And your 'shock' would be more believable if you haven't been showing up on every Santorum thread, picking up whatever line of attack his critics and the media lay out for you.
Read through the whole thread Catb. It is hilarious. Frightening, but hilarious.
Hey. Maybe I should have read the entire thread, too.
I can’t believe the Rick supporters of how far they go in
defending what he meant (and it's always suppose to be a good thing)
“And, unfortunately, Santorum is a rehash of Mike Huckabee. IE: only conservative on the social front and not in any other aspect.”
I am NOT an apologist for Rick Santorum. However, what you wrote is just not correct. Santorum was standing up against Islamic radicalism from the get go. He urged President Bush to not wrongly call it a war on terrorism, but instead on Islamists. Santorum is most definitely a national security conservative and not afraid of being politcally incorrect to be so. I know folks here fear Sharia law. Santorum is steadfast in his opposition to that. In fact, in dealing with the Radical Islamic threats to the country....I think he would be exceptionally good.
However, I still agree that Newt is the most balanced and would best be pitted against Mr. Obama. However, once again...you are stooping to insulting social conservatives. You need us. If you want our votes, you have to somewhat cater to our issues. EVERYONE, to include Santorum, knows that the economy is of prime concern. That is a no-brainer. You accomplish NOTHING by putting Santorum down for his social concerns. You just push more social conservatives, like myself, to support him. The bashing Mike Huckabee got on this forum in 2008 is still a bad taste in my mouth. Had Sarah Palin not come on the scene, I was ready to wash my hands of “other than social” conservatives.
It's very unfortunate to see some conservatives so quick to want to use the boot of the state to solve a perceived problem in society. I've often lamented the fact that social conservatives almost always wish to use government as a weapon of first resort, which I don't believe is a philosophy consistent with respect for liberty.
I think Saintorum doesn’t talk much about many of those issues, because he doesn’t have a clue on how to deal with them.
* President Newt Gingrich-”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
“Debating the relative advantages and disadvantages - vetting - of the candidates is a good thing, but thats not whats happening on most of these threads. Whats happening now is not healthy.”
Amen! That is what I’m trying to make those here understand. This war between the two camps is out of control and just hurting the future of the GOP. Trashing Santorum for being himself is just foolish. The same is true of trashing Newt for being himself. They are what they are. At least they aren’t being phoney.
Santorum joined forces with Lieberman and Hillary on a study as to how watching tv effects children.
Check it out..Senators Propose Redundant Media Research Study
(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for reintroducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA), which will set up a $90 million program to research what countless other studies have already documented the effects of television viewing and other media on children. CAGW named Sen. Lieberman Porker of the Month when he introduced the same legislation in August, 2004.
This proposal is just one expensive rerun, CAGW President Tom Schatz said. For decades this issue has been studied to death, always yielding the same results. Calling for yet another taxpayer-funded study belittles the ability of parents to use common sense in deciding what shows are appropriate for their children.
1. Santorum joined Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Lieberman, Sam Brownback in introducing the CHILDREN AND MEDIA REASEARCH ADVANCEMENT ACT which allocated a 90 MILLION dollar program to research the effects that watching tv has on children. This was a call for ANOTHER taxpayer funded study the thinks the govt knows better than parents on what is appropriate for their children to view.
“More in line with what theyre talking about on MSNBC.”
I wouldn’t know, that channel isn’t on my TV and it’s just as well - wouldn’t watch it anyway, except maybe for laughs.
In my opinion, social conservatism should be about trying to keep the left from using government power to destroy traditional values in this country.
Oh Pleeze! Ive been surfing the net all the way back when it was the Usenet. And I surf a lot of topics, some rather strange topics at that on my home computer with no search restrictions or parental filters in place and I also use the web at work for research related to my job on a daily basis. And never, never in the last 20 years+ have I ever accidently brought up any xxx pr0n sites. And most xxx pr0n sites require a credit card in order to access their material.
I recall a few years ago my great nephew at the age of 13, got caught by his mother web surfing for Girls Gone Wild. His defense was Yes, I searched for Girls Gone Wild but I didnt see any because I dont have a credit card. LOL!
You mean the Republican Democratic National parties-a party of one.
As a Club for Growth type of Republican, what I suspect from Social Conservatives is that on the economic issues they would feel comfortable with the Democrat Party of the New Deal. What I fear the most, is a Leftist who sees the social issues in the same light as Santorum. This Democrat would be impossible to beat in today’s climate.
“Im quite shocked at how eagerly some are to accept government control as conservative.”
I for one am not an anarchist. I realize that all government control is not intrinsically evil. Like I have stated, that line of reasoning is just libertarian/libertine ideology.....which is NOT conservative. Whether you want to accept it or not, pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it. So, getting upset that a candidate wants to put some controls on it does not equate to “Big Brother.” Once again that is Ron Paul libertarian thinking.
Well, he is a big government guy... Mr. Bridge to Nowhere. I do not believe he will ever reside in the White House.
This is such a miserable year, yet it never had to be....
Hey genius, you do know that your boy Newt has declared exactly the same thing, don’t you?
You are right, it is not Conservative, in the 19th Century European sense of the word. A 21st Century American Conservative is more correctly a Classical Liberal. A Conservative under its true definition, would have been a strong supporter of absolute monarchy and a strong Catholic Church. Like a Carlist during the Spanish Civil War. So you see why maybe some Classical Liberals might have a problem with Santorum. As a true believer in the American Tradition I would have less problem with Mormonism than extreme Catholicism, from an American perspective.
“Whether you want to accept it or not, pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it.”
If the government regulates the internet how long do you think it would be before they deem opposition to them as “a blight on mankind that nothing good can come from”?
And this is why he would lose the election.
If so then this demonstrates the nation is beyond saving. Libertine being substituted for liberty is a real clue. Seems the nation in its laudable form lasted about 200 years.
No, what it says is that people don't want the government putting it's brand of moral-ism into laws. We have enough nanny state laws as it is. Besides, the SCOTUS has already ruled porn is legal. Fat chance he has to stop it. All he is going to do is piss off a bunch of freedom loving conservatives. This is a perfect example of government intrusion into the lives of the people.
Well let’s find out how libertine you truly are. Is it too much government to have obscenity laws regarding nudity in downtown wherever you’re from? How about masturbation at the local playground? Fellatio on the A train? Group sex at a public beach?
I assume you support all of the above and oppose government intrusion. Is that correct?
“...pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it.”
Not sure why you ping Jim Robinson about this subject, but I did since you did.
What is your definition of pornography? Do you want yourself or Santorum or the US Senate, controlled by Democrats, to decide which of these legal websites should be removed? What if Democrats decide Free Republic is not a decent website and they remove it - is that okay with you?
I will tell you what, there is a sh** load of blue nosed puritans hanging out on FR.
So....would you say Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni’s work was porn?
All of the things you mention are not legal and they are not the topic of this forum.
What you are is a control freak who thinks you have the right to tell everyone else how to live, just like liberals do. I will bet a dollar to a doughnut you are against legalizing drugs too, because they don't fit into your strict moral code.
Strict codes are fine, until you start pushing them onto everyone else. Legalized porn hurts no one but the users of it, and I really doubt it hurts them. legalized drugs, ditto. Legalizing something doesn't mean it is required, therefore you can live by your code and leave others alone to live by theirs.
You are a blue nosed puritan, and we all know just how controlling they were, not to mention they hung witches.
Is it very difficult for you to distinguish obscenity from political speech?
Should there be any obscenity laws?
If so, should they be enforced?
Get a life, quit trying to force your beliefs and moral-isms onto others.
I assume you support all of the above and oppose government intrusion. Is that correct?
There is a vast difference in regulating public behavior, i.e. sex acts taking place in a public place subject to everyone and anyone witnessing such whether they want to or not and the federal government regulating what an adult can view, read or do within the confines of his or her own home. Santorum is advocating criminalizing the later. As POTUS he may use the bully pulpit to say that in his own opinion its morally wrong but for him as POTUS to criminalize it goes against everything I understand about individual liberty.
I dont want the government to dictate and criminalize every aspect of my life, either from the left or from the right.
Santorum is as much as a Statist as Obama is different sides of the coin but from the prospective of individual liberty, very much the same coin, the same bum wooden nickel and not at all what our Founders envisioned for our Republic.
“Is it very difficult for you to distinguish obscenity from political speech?”
Well, if it’s Hussein’s political speech, it is obscene. That was an easy one.
You people have confused Larry Flynt with the Founding Fathers.
They are not legal because legislatures have deemed them obscene you blue nose, busy body puritanical cowardly lion you. Obscenity is the topic of the thread Mr. Mensa.
As for drugs, if I were king pot would be legal to grow in your garden and become as unproductive as you like as long as I didn't have to pay for your munchies.
Are you disappointed that I pointed out that you're not quite as enlightened as you thought you were?
Ron Paul isn't being phony either, but most of us here have no problem calling him a loon. What's your point?
Because someone is being genuine doesn't mean we have to like or support them. There are plenty of people on the far left who aren't phony either, should we cut them a break too?
A lot of us do not want a general election nominee who believes it is his job as president to talk about why contraception is "not okay". And yes, Santorum did say that as part of his argument for why he should be President:
"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, thats okay. Contraceptions okay.' Its not okay"
Sorry, but no. I don't want a nominee for President who believes this would be part of his/her job. I have no problem with contraception. I don't even know anyone who has a problem with contraception. It's a fringe position. Opposing government mandating contraception coverage is something virtually ALL conservatives agree on. Opposing contraception in general is something that most conservatives don't agree on - and as an issue it would be a spectacular loser in a general election.
Santorum would lose by an even greater margin than Romney. It would be one thing if Santorum were well known as some great conservative warrior on reforming entitlements, or spent his career fighting union thuggery in his home state, or battling to reduce/end the deficit/debt, etc. But he is not known for those things, he's known only as a social values guy, he is playing up those issues in the GOP primaries and he would never escape them in a general election. Again, if the focus of his social agenda were simply opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage we could all agree - but Santorum takes things to a whole new level as a guy who wants to re-fight contraception wars that have long been settled and go to battle against internet porn.
I support Newt, but am politically savvy enough to see that he probably can't win. I don't want him to drop out because there is simply nowhere else for my vote to go. I don't like the Romney the chameleon because he simply isn't a conservative at all, I think Ron Paul is a kook (on foreign and defense policy particularly), and I think Rick Santorum has only narrow appeal to those who are voting for who they think the most religiously acceptable candidate within the confines of a GOP primary is. None of them have broad based appeal, and all would lose - with Paul and Santorum losing in landslide fashion. At least with Newt we have a chance and I hope he sticks it out to the end and I'll pray for a miracle.
Well here’s a tougher one for somebody of your intellect and steadfast principles. Newt has signed the same pledge as Santorum to appoint an Attorney General who will prosecute the obscenity laws on the books.
So I’m curious will it be Romney or Obama for you?
The topic is obscenity. There are laws against public sex and nudity because legislatures have deemed them obscene. You support government intrusion vis a vis public obscenity laws. Ergo you see a role for government in regulating obscenity. And by your reckoning this makes you a statist of the first order
You can’t have it both ways Marcus. You can certainly take a position on where obscenity and government should intersect but you’ve already ceded the point that they can and should. A common problem for libertarians especially those with a sense of decency.
Gingrich and Romney both have joined Santorum in stating they will appoint Attorney Generals who will enforce the obscenity laws on the books though Romney has not signed that pledge
So you're left with the foreign policy nutter or the prince. Who will you choose?
I truly hate to bring you the news but Newt holds the exact same position as Santorum about current obscenity laws on the books. Sorry.
Surely you are intelligent enough to know that public displays are in no way comparable to what you read or view in your own home. If you cannot make that distinction, then there is little hope for you.
Utmost Certainty posted this on this thread about Newt’s position:
Relevant article, in sharp contrast to Santorum’s views:
In 1996, Gingrich then the speaker of the House resisted an attempt to fight porn on the Internet.
When the Senate began to push for the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Gingrich put up a roadblock that helped undermine the act, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The act, introduced by then-Sen. Jim Exon (D-Neb.), would have made indecent materials on the Internet illegal and made intermediaries such as Internet service providers responsible for policing content on the Web.
Some saw this effort as trying to apply rules of broadcast television to the Internet. Gingrich said then that the bill would not protect children but would impinge on the rights of adults. Gingrich pushed for an alternative that emphasized parental education.
“He should be credited with helping to promote a solution to come out against regulation that would have thwarted free speech and the vibrant Internet we know today, said Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology, one of the first cyber liberties groups.
213 posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38:47 PM by Utmost Certainty
How is public nudity, masturbation or consensual sex an act of aggression against you Mr Libertarian? If you have a right not to witness live sex acts by accident in public then certainly somebody else has the right not to witness live sex acts while tuning in Sesame street on broadcast TV. Though I would disagree that it is a right. It is a law passed by duly elected officials. Big difference, perhaps you should learn the difference?
As for your home you can watch whatever you'd like for as long as your little heart desires. Have fun!
And it is patently obvious that you are not intellectually honest enough to concede that there are obscenity laws that you support and others that you oppose. Which is exactly the same position that I hold except I’m a blue nosed statist pig and you’re enlightened. Except of course that while I may be a blue nosed statist pig I am not a hypocritical bs artist who confuses license and liberty.
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.