Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let me point out: Santorum has suggested no new laws concerning pornography
Radio Vice Online ^ | March 15, 2012 | Steve McGough

Posted on 03/15/2012 11:22:58 AM PDT by Steve495

When a politician makes a statement like this, he or she is putting it all on the line. That said, I’d like to point out American’s have already expressed an opinion and Congress has passed federal “obscenity” laws. It’s the Executive Branch’s job to enforce those laws. Should the president not enforce the law?

Quite honestly, as it pertains to laws on the books, this is very similar to the current and previous administration’s refusal to vigorously enforce illegal immigration laws. In this statement, GOP candidate Rick Santorum stated he agrees with current law, gave the reasons why, and confirmed he would enforce the law as it is written. He did not suggest or propose new legislation. For those of you who want to dismiss Santorum thanks to this statement – and many of you do – are you suggesting the Executive Branch should ignore legislation that has passed Congress, signed by previous presidents and confirmed by the Supreme Court?

...

(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: obscenity; pornography; santorum

1 posted on 03/15/2012 11:23:04 AM PDT by Steve495
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steve495

Exactly.


2 posted on 03/15/2012 11:35:08 AM PDT by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
If you want to open the door to government censorship of the internet be my guest. Just don't be surprised when they won't stop at pornography.
3 posted on 03/15/2012 11:37:27 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495

You mean all the people that have been saying Santorum wants to implement a Vatican-oriented, Catholic Taliban, Spanish Inquisition type theocracy were (gasp) lying?!?!!?


4 posted on 03/15/2012 11:38:19 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
It’s the Executive Branch’s job to enforce those laws.

It's the Executive Branch's job to abide and support those laws. It's the Judicial Branch's job to enforce them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

5 posted on 03/15/2012 11:40:05 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
There are two problems with this.

#1 Even if it's not new legislation, it would require an expansion of the government to censor what we do on the internet. That means more government bureaucracy which means more Big Government. Big Government is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problems this country faces.

#2 The bigger problem is that anybody who is able to think coherently knows that if the government gets in the business of censoring what we do on the internet, that the government will not stop with porn. Once the American people get used to having the government dictate what we do on the internet, we'll see more legislation, ostensibly to protect the children, and before you know it, we're China.

Very disappointed with Rick. He's intelligent enough to know that a lot of us hate big government and that liberals would use this as an opening to screw up the internet.
6 posted on 03/15/2012 11:41:56 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495

What a dope!

Think of all the good freely available internet porn has done for the nation!

I mean, what better way to corrupt the youth and prepare them for the socialist destruction of marriage?

What better way to destroy the family than to turn husbands and fathers and brothers and uncles into leering, lusting louts?

What better way to cheapen the One-man-for-one-woman-for-life Biblical paradigm?

And imagine all the good that homosexual porn has done!!

Enforcing existing law against this sewage would hamper the deconstruction of society so necessary for a communist takeover.

Who in his right mind would want to do that?

(hoping not to need it but /s just in case)


7 posted on 03/15/2012 11:45:45 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495

Let me point out:

You post only stuff you have written yourself.
You excerpt it in an attempt to draw traffic from
Free Republic in order to get hits, USING us as an
advertising tool. You kind of suck, if I may point it out.

Here’s the proof:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:steve495/index?tab=articles


8 posted on 03/15/2012 11:52:22 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
geez louise, why not wear a small yellow bracelet that says, "It's the economy stupid." Everytime they drift from that message they lose the focus of getting Bambi out of the White House. Everytime the attack the other republican they make Bambi look better. Focus on getting rid of the true eneomy and let the folks decide if your plan for the economy is better.

Powerline has a nice bit on how conservative was Rick - social yes, spending not so much. I am no fan of MassCAre and so Romney looks bad - except maybe the mistake of it will show him what to do now.

9 posted on 03/15/2012 12:16:08 PM PDT by q_an_a (the more laws the less justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
You mean all the people that have been saying Santorum wants to implement a Vatican-oriented, Catholic Taliban, Spanish Inquisition type theocracy were (gasp) lying?!?!!?

More likely taken in by the original story's headline. His comment elcited this interpretation: "If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

Of course, there are many other laws on the books that he could/should have focused on; like DOMA, illegals coming into the country, and so forth. Making this a point for his campaign demonstrates he's basing his campaign and electability on his religious beliefs and he doesn't seem to be able to make (other than when he repeats some of Newt's talking points) reasoned arguments about the issues that will begin to heal the damage done to this once great Nation.

10 posted on 03/15/2012 12:28:13 PM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trebb
"Of course, there are many other laws on the books that he could/should have focused on; like DOMA, illegals coming into the country, and so forth. Making this a point for his campaign demonstrates he's basing his campaign and electability on his religious beliefs..."

You do realize of course this statement comes from the "Issues" page on his web site. It comes after the following op-eds he's got there...

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

To say that this is a "focus" of his campaign is kind of silly. It's an issue he's taken, and articulated a position on, but it's hardly being held out as a centerpiece of his campaign.

11 posted on 03/15/2012 12:39:34 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steve495

What other “laws” will Santorum enforce. For example, it is a illegal to take more than $5 in pennies outside the US:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/laws-change-penny-hoarders-cash-thousands-dollars/story?id=15076522#.T2JF68XvoSE

Or how about importing small sponges (perhaps Santorum will beef up the Customs to impound travelers sponges:

http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/laws3.htm


12 posted on 03/15/2012 12:44:51 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
It's good to know Rick's priorities are in order. Jobs, the economy and gas prices? Nah. Internet porn!


13 posted on 03/15/2012 12:55:52 PM PDT by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Legislative branch makes the laws.
The Judiciary interprets the law.
The Executive Branch enforces (federal) laws as written by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.


14 posted on 03/15/2012 1:01:47 PM PDT by Steve495
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
What other “laws” will Santorum enforce. For example, it is a illegal to take more than $5 in pennies outside the US:

I think it was Abe Lincoln who said something to the effect of "The fastest way to get a bad law repealed is to make sure it's strictly enforced."

Or it could just insure that there's not another Republican elected in our lifetimes.

15 posted on 03/15/2012 1:02:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I’m sorry, are you a moderator here? In a bit more than four years it looks like I’ve posted about 60 out of the 5,200-plus articles we have on the site. I’ve contributed here in many ways that you may not know about, therefore, I think you kind of suck for making assumptions.


16 posted on 03/15/2012 1:09:10 PM PDT by Steve495
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
I’m sorry, are you a moderator here?

Are you under the impression that phenomenal moderator powers are required to identify a blogpimp?

In a bit more than four years it looks like I’ve posted about 60 out of the 5,200-plus articles we have on the site.

Yes, it appears you are a major blogpimp. Congrats on staying under the radar so long.

I’ve contributed here in many ways that you may not know about

Well, what I can see is you pimping a blog.

17 posted on 03/15/2012 1:16:30 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
In a bit more than four years it looks like I’ve posted

By the way, your numbers are off a bit:

Since Sep 23, 2009

18 posted on 03/15/2012 1:20:14 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Very well then. Have a great day.


19 posted on 03/15/2012 1:20:59 PM PDT by Steve495
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steve495

A tacit admission, inability to defend.

Have a good afternoon.


20 posted on 03/15/2012 1:41:03 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Not at all, I just don’t feel like wasting my time with you. I originally joined FR quite some time before I ever posted a link here, and I started writing in Dec. 2007, and contributed here before then.

It’s attitudes like yours that keep people away.


21 posted on 03/15/2012 1:46:48 PM PDT by Steve495
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
I originally joined FR quite some time before I ever posted a link here

Apparently long before you even made a single post here.

So.. who were you before and why did you get zotted?

Steve495 Since Sep 23, 2009

I started writing in Dec. 2007

A blog? Is that what you wrote...a blog? Did you pimp it here?
Under what name did you do this pimping?

You seem to think advertising your blog material here is some kind of credential.

It means you are a damned pimp.

Dreadful sorry if this bothers you, but advertise your blog crap on your own dime.

Not mine.

22 posted on 03/15/2012 1:56:06 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steve495
The internet is loaded with it even Craig's list has had problems.

Parents should control what they want their children to watch on tv and there are locks that can stop children via parents control online. With Dole advertising viagra on tv...sheesh that was not done in a tasteful manner. LOL or EWWWWWWW your choice.

"Santorum is not the first presidential candidate to take up the obscenity issue. In July, Michele Bachmann signed a pledge vowing her support of a constitutional amendment that, among other things, called for a ban on all pornography. (It also effectively called for a ban on same-sex marriage.)" The Atlantic wonders if Santorum's wide-scale crackdown on porn could actually work. The Daily Caller found someone who thinks it could. "If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the site. News on Santorum and porn circulating online ..Yahoo had the article

23 posted on 03/15/2012 5:05:09 PM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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