Hillary and Porn

Concerned Women For America ^ | June 13, 2007 | By Sarah Rode

[jacknhoo]

Hillary and Porn By Sarah Rode June 13, 2007

In Hillary Clinton’s America, pornography would be legal, accessible and protected. That’s the way it was while her husband was president, according to a woman who would know.

Jenna Jameson is a multi-millionaire feminist businesswoman who has endorsed Hillary because under the Clinton administration her industry flourished. She is very critical of President Bush because his administration has not been kind to her line of work — the production and sale of pornography. Despite branching out into some mainstream projects, Miss Jameson is still considered one of the most famous porn stars around. She said in a recent interview, “The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry, and I wish that Clinton would run again.” I suppose she would know.

President Bush has been routinely critiqued for not doing enough to crack down on obscenity. According to Miss Jameson, however, it has been an uphill battle for her pornographic business:

When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us … and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now.

If Attorney General Gonzales’ lenient policies have been harsh on the adult industry, one can only imagine how tolerant Hillary Clinton’s administration would be of spreading pornography throughout our country.

Former President Clinton ignored the issue of obscenity, and it is safe to assume that Senator Clinton would do the same. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, “Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general … The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans’ tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.”

Fortunately, under the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft renewed the fight against obscenity, making the prosecution of obscenity a priority under his leadership. He stated in a speech in 2002, “Obscenity invades our homes persistently through the mail, telephone, VCR, cable TV and now the Internet. This multimillion dollar industry has strewn its victims from coast to coast.” Although he fought against the proliferation of pornography in America, his successor has been silent on the issue, just like Clinton’s attorney general.

It is unfortunate and inconsistent that Hillary and her “feminist” endorsers not only tolerate but also promote pornography. If they were true feminists, they would reject the objectification of women. It is interesting that in their fight to liberate women, they have instead endorsed the image of women as sexual objects. Pornography exploits women’s sexuality for money. That’s liberating?

[Fledermaus]

Isn’t that her blow-up doll line?

[Mr. Silverback]

Any proposed Amendment should elaborate on what is specifically NOT protected speech.

So...there's not a pro-porn amendment?

And don't give me that hate speech jazz. It is perfectly acceptable to have limits on speech if those limits are necessary for public safety, like bans on sedition, incitement to riot, yellign "Fire" in a crowded theater as a joke, etc. The fact that someone takes that clear, strict Constructionist concept and tries to make it a tool for oppression does not mean there should be no limits on speech. It means that bad people will abuse government, which is exactly what the Framers predicted.

[jdm]

Isn’t that her blow-up doll line?

I'm not sure. Mine got lost in the mail. :O)