Skip to comments.Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores
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 dont 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 ...
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.
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.
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.
It's 12 in Vatican City. (Really)
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?
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. :)
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).
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.
She has a policy of “look don’t touch” (unless it’s her, and not if we’re in public).
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.
I asked you a while back to quote a law, ANY LAW, absent somebody's morality at it's base.
Nothing but crickets since.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I definitely see your point, jwalsh.
I guess I do most of this for the lurkers who aren't off the liberaltarian deep end. :)
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.