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 ...
When it comes to morality, and the understanding of exactly who is involved in pornography and why (I clearly have more information than you do), you're on a different planet.
Perhaps we'd best keep our discussion about politics. I thought we were doing pretty well here before this insulting post of yours.
Maybe next time??
It's been clearly stated here multiple times that laws are based on someone's moral views. That's why we want moral, patriotic conservatives in office. So there are no more laws based on leftist, Marxist values.
I hope we at least agree on that, because if we don't, then you're more liberal than libertine.
It was a comment on your post (#424) where you stated that statutory rape could be consensual. I was simply pointing out that by definition statutory rape cannot be consenual because the victim cannot legally consent. Remedial logic and reasoning. Look into it.
As a conservative republican, I want the law to be enforced like it was before the regime of the illegitimate usurper Barack Hussein Obama Junior.
If keeping the most henious and inarguably obscene materials freely available is so important to you, then you are free to vote for Obama and the Godless porn-loving sodomite democrats.
You're wrong. We both know it. Thanks for trying, though.
Honestly ohio, if you reread your own posts (at least on this subject) you might find that you come off sounding holier-than-thou and arrogant. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is unintentional, but before calling my posts "insulting" you really might want to review the comments you direct at people who disagree with you.
(I clearly have more information than you do),
I really doubt it ohio. I really, really do. I don't have time or space to go into great detail, but I know quite a lot about this issue. I've also lived in parts of Asia where actual sex trafficking is a terrible problem (far, far beyond anything in the states) and a truly awful scourge. In places like Thailand young girls find their way into prostitution in massive numbers, the vast majority of it has nothing to do with Westerners or online porn, and many of these girls will be scarred for life (it's usually the lifestyle of drugs, booze and habitual lying that destroys them). And yet, even there, the overwhelming bulk of it is still individual choices these girls make - rarely having anything to do with coercion (though still far, far more are forced into it than here in the West). And for most, the lifestyle is addictive and they very often like it. Most will say they don't - especially to anyone willing to give them money to leave the scene, but in the end they miss it and go back (trust me, I've known LOTS of people who have tried to help this way and failed). It's often just easy money, a fun lifestyle despite its pitfalls, and more attractive than earning money at a 9-5 job. Trying to crack down on prostitution made up of participants exercising free will doesn't work well either. It just drives those controlling the activity further into the underworld and makes the whole thing even more dangerous to everyone involved.
When it comes to online porn, the overwhelmingly vast majority of it has nothing to do with abused girls. Oh sure, there are some reports floating around that claim 1/4 of all women are sexually harassed in their lifetime - but dig into what is considered "sexually harassed" and you will almost always find these statistics include things so minor they hardly qualify as "harassment". I've lived in places where real trafficking and abuse goes on, and I am all for aggressively prosecuting child abusers, pedophiles, etc - hell, I'd be happy to lock them away forever or execute them since the recidivism rate is so astronomically high. But the typical online porn? Nah, the vast majority of the participants just make personal choices and opt to do it. Heck, a lot of the stuff online is made by women and couples with real jobs/lives that just happen to get a kick out of having sex on video - and sometimes making a buck out of it.
Maybe next time??
As I said before, we will end up voting the same way. We probably agree on most things. I don't surround myself exclusively with people who agree with me, and I am always interested in hearing different perspectives. We disagree completely disagree on this, but the debate has still been worthwhile.
I stand humbly before a Holy God, as much a sinner as anyone here, and knowing it full well.
Aspiring to higher standards for this great nation (because they exist, because they have been part of America since the Pilgrims landed and are part of the fabric and survival of this nation, and because those values are right and good) has nothing to do with being 'holier than thou,' nor 'arrogant.'
It is, in fact, the polar opposite.
Sorry I offended you, Longbow.
We'll talk again about something else.....
Nothing evasive about it. I’m right. I know it.
What are you going to do when the newly created Department of Internet Obscenity deems websites like this obscene, and you have nowhere to perform your holier than thou routine and call people names?
Good night, canuck.
(Is that calling you 'a name?' I sher hope not, eh? ;)
Sleep tight ;)
I always do, Gracie. :)
Maybe in the old days and not saying abuse is not happening now because it is but the vast majority of porn today is amateur porn where couples post their stuff for free or money on their own sites. They are not abused. Youporn=youtube.
The stats today are that 40% of women view porn.
Inb4 women wearing sexy, push up bras, boob jobs, dresses and shirts cut low to show cleavage...all done to accentuate their breast.
And this accentuating crosses all lines of women, conservative and liberal.
Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it the same thing as a young abused girl, trafficked and doing porn as an adult any more right.
Porn is degrading. Porn comes from sexual violence and leads to it, in too many cases.
There is nothing about it that a conservative should be defending.
Recently, we can see what the nanny state is doing about food.
You say porn has no redeeming value. What about junk food, smokes and alcohol?
SRS. What value do potato chips have other than making you fat?
Instead of the gov't getting into the banning business we need to have a revival of personal responsibility and personal outcomes in this country.
You both cited the legal 'age of consent' in your arguments to me regarding statutory rape when I gave it as an example of 'legislating morality' (which you both decry) without violence (which is supposed to be the only reason we do it).
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.
As for consistency, I will leave with this comment on the hostile reaction to Rick Santorum's stating that his administration would 'enforce the law' regarding obscenity. To say that he was mocked for it would be a gross understatement.
To all those doing that, I rhetorically ask (I don't want responses) what you think about Obama's blatant (and impeachable) violation of DOMA. The law about marriage is clearly a legislation of morality with which Obama does not agree, so he is openly not enforcing it.
This is the same thing you are asking of Rick Santorum.....that he disregard, unconstitutionally, the law of the land.
Either you should be cheering Obama on, or you should be supporting Santorum, as you cannot have it both ways.
If the law is the law, then it should be enforced, as Rick said. If you disagree with the law, as President you should seek to have Congress change it, not flagrantly disregard it.
That is exactly what you are asking Santorum to do. Disregard a law you don't like because it regards obscenity.
And that is where libertarianism is one small step away from anarchy......which is not conservative in any regard.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope some lurkers understood my points, even if those mocking me here did not.
It has been depressing to see how many don't understand its danger to the core of our society and the survival of our nation. It has been discouraging to see so many social liberals on what used to be a conservative forum.
No personal offense, but I've had it with the the libertarian liberalism and illogic here, so I'm going to particpate on other threads with fellow-conservatives.
I would not worry so much OhioWfan. The country is becoming more conservative every day. Kids having sex in high school is dropping to 1970's lows, teen pregnancy is way down as well. People who believe in abortions is reversing over the last 15-20 years to a anti abortion stance. The country is righting itself by itself, no gov't action needed.
All we see on TV and the internet is sex and the like but that does not mean everyone is like that. Th vast majority of American people I meet everyday are wonderful folks.
A post on FR today says employers are starting to ask for Facebook passwords so they can read your post.
Don't you understand how dangerous this is?
But I also understand the danger of asking a Presidential candidate to proclaim that he will not obey the law of the land, just as Obama is not obeying the law of the land.
That's why I came to this thread, and I'm leaving with the same thought. I oppose the social liberals infesting this forum, who want no laws regarding obscenity, nor morality.
If you want to change the law, have Congress do it. If you want to have a President who obeys the law and doesn't disregard it, then elect a conservative........like Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, and a Congress who supports him.
Until the law is changed, it needs to be enforced. As long as we have Obama in office, NO law will be enforced. Those who are calling for Santorum to disobey obscenity laws are supporting Obama's doing the same thing regarding other laws now, and that's not conservative in any regard.