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 don’t 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 ...
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. :)
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.
Fail.
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.
Period.
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.
WTF?!?
The age of consent is the age in which society determines a child is now an adult. That's it... and it's for all matters. Bank accounts, jury duty, voting, prison, EVERYTHING!
That was *NOT* an example of legislating morality, but an example of how it *WASN'T*.
Basing your conclusions on faulty impressions is a very bad thing. It's even worse when you then use those conclusions as 'proof' of your righteousness.
And trying to proclaim your righteousness unto all the world is the height of hubris. So much so that I find it obscene (Rick ought to do something about that, maybe ban it?)
As for my "righteousness" it is precisely the opposite. It is because none of us is righteous that those of us who aware of our need understand that we must seek absolute standards beyond ourselves. The Founders understood the sinfulness of humankind and set in safeguards in our Constitution to prevent abuse, and also understood that the system wouldn't work without morality.
Again....it is understanding that I am NOT righteous that makes me understand how human nature works, and what it will do unbridled.
This, a social liberal like you cannot comprehend. And this, therefore, is my last attempt to help you figure it out. Good luck.
And this accentuating crosses all lines of women, conservative and liberal.
Well, there is always the burqa! Because burqas are so liberating for women since the garment frees them from the degradation of men looking at their breasts. Maybe we should be more like Saudi Arabia? We can create a Department of Morals and Virtue and hire thousands of regulators to scan the internet for T&A.
Before the internet the only form of communication people had was the TV and radio and we know who controlled those mediums. The problem with TV and radio is it is a one way communication with zero rebuttel allowed.
The internet has allowed like minded people to get together from areas all across the country to voice their opinions, change public opinion and hopefully the gov't. Banning what consenting adults view on the the 'net such as with LEGAL porn, whether a person likes it or not is a slippery slope.
The internet is our only form of defense we have against a tryannical gov't. Having the gov't take control of it in any way is bad news.
Keeping porn off of TV..fine. I have no problem with that but keep our only true voice of freedom open with zero gov't control
“Rick is thinking about the millions of people in America who have quit watching TV shows and have quit going to movies because of content.”
______________
Hi Maryhere-
I understand your (and Rick’s) concerns; however, you have pointed out in your reply above what I think should be the logical (and Constitutional) remedy; simply quit watching these types of films and TV programs. If enough viewers do that the ratings/reviews will fall accordingly and the promoters and advertisers will flee.
Certainly, if you have small children or impressionable adolescents, you, as a responsible parent, should monitor the films and TV they view; just as you would monitor what they read or with whom they associate.
That said, there are many intersting and informative programs on various cable and “dish” channels; although, I will admit that even these have to be monitored for the accuracy of content; as many have thinly veiled, revisionist, political agendas behind their historical and scientific documentaries. If you do not have access to these many similar programs are available on DVD and many local libraries provide these at little or no charge.
My main point is that it is our responsibility as citizens to be both vigilant and proactive in the care and protection of ourselves and our children. When we start foisting those responsibilities onto government we are well started down the pathway to tyranny.
Regards,
-Geoff
Thanks for that. I think I’ve finally got it!
So your well-established definition of pornography is that the offender is “the most heinous pusher of the most revolting perversion imaginable.” Funny but I don’t recall ever seeing that language being used by the courts before. Is that from the Ninth Circuit perhaps?
Anyway, I’m not arguing with you. I certainly don’t want to be on the side of Obama and the Godless porn-loving sodomite democrats.
I wrote in post #481 "The age of consent is the age in which society determines a child is now an adult. That's it... and it's for all matters. Bank accounts, jury duty, voting, prison, EVERYTHING!"
And you quote it as "Legislating the age of consent for which someone can legally have sex with another is precisely legislating morality." With which you then construct an argument based on an idea that wasn't even in the original post.
Age of consent is not specific for sex. It is simply a measure of when society says that you are not a child anymore. Sex laws came afterward, using the already existing age of consent as a convenient yardstick.
Again....it is understanding that I am NOT righteous that makes me understand how human nature works, and what it will do unbridled.
And yet, you have no problem telling everyone that does not believe the way you do that they are wrong, to the point of insults (not to me, but others have commented on it). Have you not heard the phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
As for something we have in common.....have you ever hiked Bright Angel Trail to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (and back up!)? It's AWESOME! (Even for us old folks! :)
godzilla, I'm finally heeding the advice of a wise FRiend upthread not to try to reason with social liberals, as it is an exercise in futility.
I saw that you posted to me, but chose not to read it, and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
(Even though I am. :)
Gee, thanks. The old ‘I won because I say I won’ cr@p.
I figure you’ll respond to this with some other misquote. It’ll fit ya...
“You already know what the legal definition of obscenity is because you said it was vague and problematic.... You should take your support for the disgusting communist Obama and his sodomite pornography agenda somewhere else. Support for Obama and his policies in favor of obscene pornography are not welcome here.”
My, my, aren’t we touchy. Not used to having people disagree with you, I see.
The definition I quoted to you was “patently offensive to prevailing local community standards.” Pray tell, Sherlock, what are “local community standards” on the internet? Is it the local community standards of New York City or of Enid, Oklahoma? Or do you think they are the same?
I was a criminal defense lawyer for twenty years, and I can tell you that trying to enforce “local community standards” on the internet is definitely problematic, and if you would open up your brain for two seconds and actually think about it instead of leaping into attack mode, you would see that I have a point.
That is incorrect. The legal precedent is "the average person applying contemporary community standards," you added the word "local." The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite.
President Bush successfully prosecuted obscenity cases involving fisting, vomiting, urination, torture, bestiality, rape and defecation.
Now it is entirely up to you to explain how any average American would not find the depiction of such acts to be prurient and offensive. Just don't expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.
Take care.
My GF and I did part of the Appalacian Trail last year. 10 days total. We carried everything in our packs-food, tent etc.
We want to do something this year for a 5-6 day stretch but have not decided where yet-probably on the mid west or east coast.
Hiking is the best.
We were just in Tennessee, but it would be great to do the whole trail sometime.
At least one can dream!
Try the Grand Canyon, if you haven't already. It is absolutely AWESOME way down in there, especially tenting by the creek at Phantom Ranch. It's incredibly beautiful in May when the cacti are blooming.
I really, really want to do that again sometime too. As for now, it's hikes on a local bike trail and through the neighborhood. :)
“That is incorrect. The legal precedent is ‘the average person applying contemporary community standards,’ you added the word “local.” The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite...don’t expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.”
Tailgunner Joe is a good handle for you, blasting away without checking too carefully what you’re shooting at. You quoted the first of four parts of the test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California. Part 4 is where the “local” comes from:
“The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a ‘national standard.’” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34
And why did the Supreme Court say that it was proper to use a local community standards instead of a national standard? Because, according to the Court, it is impossible to enunciate a national standard:
“Page 413 U. S. 30
Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the “prurient interest” or is “patently offensive.” These are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. When triers of fact are asked to decide whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would consider certain materials “prurient,” it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation. The adversary system, with lay jurors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions, has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community, guided always by limiting instructions on the law. To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national “community standard” would be an exercise in futility.
Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable “national standards” when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter
Page 413 U. S. 32
of fact. Mr. Chief Justice Warren pointedly commented in his dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 378 U. S. 200:
“It is my belief that, when the Court said in Roth that obscenity is to be defined by reference to ‘community standards,’ it meant community standards — not a national standard, as is sometimes argued. I believe that there is no provable ‘national standard.’ . . . At all events, this Court has not been able to enunciate one, and it would be unreasonable to expect local courts to divine one.”
It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City. [Footnote 13]
The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a “national standard.” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34” (finish)
So my “absurd sophistry” in fact comes from the very language of the Supreme Court.
Good luck overturning those convictions! Bwahahaha!
I’m not arguing with you anymore. You’re a genius. Sorry it took so long to realize it.
I accept your surrender.
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.