Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum Answers Question On SOPA: ‘There Are Limits To Freedom On The Internet’
Mediaite.com ^ | 01/08/2012 | Josh Feldman

Posted on 01/09/2012 10:12:29 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan

In the midst of all this talk of jobs and wars and families, one of the issues the Republican presidential candidates have not addressed that much is the internet. Specifically, their positions on regulating the internet. Over the weekend, Rick Santorum was asked by a New Hampshire resident during a campaign stop if he supported or opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which would give the government more authority to regulate the internet and crack down harder on piracy.

Considering how much the Republican party of late has been concerned with government overreach, Santorum has been a surprisingly strong defender of big government conservatism in this race. And his opinion on online piracy remains consistent with these principles. Santorum explained that from his perspective, not every right or freedom is unlimited, and there need to be regulations in place to limit the extent of a certain right.

“There is, and can be, a limitation on that. You know, freedom of speech. The things you can’t say. You can’t cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. And there are limitations to all freedoms. They’re not absolute rights. They are rights that have responsibilities that come with them, and if you abuse those rights… then you have a consequence of you using that right.”

Santorum identified piracy as an abuse of one’s rights. While acknowledging that the internet can be “a powerful force for good,” he argued that making it a “regulation-free zone” would be the wrong approach. He did not specifically say that he endorsed SOPA, given that he admitted he is not very aware of the bill’s provisions. But he did give an incredibly forceful argument for cracking down on piracy and the unrestrained right to do whatever you want on the internet.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: pipa; regulation; santorum; sopa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last
To: Vendome

Santorum is a big-government social conservative IMO.


51 posted on 01/09/2012 11:44:08 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Vote Perry


52 posted on 01/09/2012 11:50:01 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

O M F G. Stupidity by Santorum. I guess he doesn’t get online much. He should speak to Rep. Darrell Issa, who is leading the charge against the SOPA disgrace.


53 posted on 01/09/2012 11:57:44 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
I guess I don’t understand what is wrong with what he said.

Rights are not unlimited, I guess that would include the right to life hmnnnn.

54 posted on 01/09/2012 11:58:38 AM PST by itsahoot (Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
Santorum is a non-starter. He is for the huge intrusive nanny state.

I did a lot of reading on Santorum over the weekend. I came to the same conclusion. He doesn't seem to have a strong instinct for Liberty.

Santorum's view of good government would not be as Liberty oriented as Jefferson's view of good government, which follows:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

55 posted on 01/09/2012 12:27:01 PM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; Jim Robinson

Read on some post that he is NOT a NBC, like our Senator Marco Rubio???


56 posted on 01/09/2012 12:32:21 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: danamco; LucyT

Ping!!!


57 posted on 01/09/2012 12:34:01 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
I guess I don’t understand what is wrong with what he said. Of course there have to be limits: committing crimes over the Internet, sending threats, etc.

I don’t think Santorum wants to limit free speech, rather he’s probably taking the above into account.

Having said the above, there might be language buried in the proposals that might be troubling...don’t know.


There are already laws against software and music and movie piracy, but SOPA is not about piracy, it's about controlling what you do or say on the internet. It has fancy language designed to make it look like it's just about piracy, but it also has deliberately vague language that makes it all to easy to shut down websites.

It would take minutes to get a site like Free Republic shut down, and Jim Robinson would have an incredibly hard and probably expensive time in getting it back online, since he would have to appeal to multiple authorities, all of whom might turn him down or ignore him.
58 posted on 01/09/2012 2:49:23 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Has Perry publicly declared that he’s against SOPA?


59 posted on 01/09/2012 2:51:17 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
Oh and he voted for the TARP

Whatever you're smoking, I would throw the rest of it away.

60 posted on 01/09/2012 3:02:10 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?


61 posted on 01/09/2012 3:52:14 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?


62 posted on 01/09/2012 3:52:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?


63 posted on 01/09/2012 3:53:22 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
The things you can’t say. You can’t cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

When a post on the internet can cause a riot where people get trampled and killed, then I would agree it's time to discuss limitation.

Until then...why are we discussing it...to save some music mogul his livelihood?

64 posted on 01/09/2012 3:57:57 PM PST by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I think I speak for all FReepers when I say that I am totally afraid of what the government tells me to fear and I know that they know I’m not a terrorist, but you might be. If they say they have to stop your terror speech and they say it will keep me safe, I believe them. This is America! I believe the government! I’m a free FReeper because I trust the government! They need more power to keep me safe! I think it was Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson who said “Ask for safety and the government provides!”.


65 posted on 01/09/2012 7:34:02 PM PST by MichiganConservative (T. Jefferson's warning come true: THIS morning you woke up a slave to government and central bankers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“There’s no way Santorum could’ve voted for TARP and GM bailouts if he wasn’t in office at the time.”

I wish more people would provide links with their comments. There’s so much false information going around.


66 posted on 01/09/2012 10:25:31 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

ping


67 posted on 01/09/2012 10:28:45 PM PST by Gene Eric (C'mon, Virginia -- are you with us or against us?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Do I need to answer you all three (3) times???

http://sheilab.hubpages.com/hub/IS-RICK-SANTORUM-ELIGIBLE-TO-BE-PRESIDENT


68 posted on 01/09/2012 11:12:41 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

Yes I was wrong on the TARP (see post 16).


69 posted on 01/09/2012 11:18:08 PM PST by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Let's face it. The internet is just too, um, frothy a place for Ricky. It's 2011, and he's still somewhere in the 20th century.

Go Newt!

70 posted on 01/09/2012 11:39:47 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’d call him a “cultural conservative”, which is the same as a cultural collectivist. The big government part is redundant. This is the opposite of one of Ronaldus Maximus’s keys to success.


71 posted on 01/10/2012 5:49:41 AM PST by E Rocc (November 2, 2010: The beginning of the end of the kleptocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’d call him a “cultural conservative”, which is the same as a cultural collectivist. The big government part is redundant. This is the opposite of one of Ronaldus Maximus’s keys to success.


72 posted on 01/10/2012 5:49:56 AM PST by E Rocc (November 2, 2010: The beginning of the end of the kleptocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

73 posted on 01/11/2012 10:17:43 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Didn’t even look at the article yet... The headline grabbed me quick enough — what limits is he talking about??? This goes for ANYONE who suggests “limits” - are they talking about RESPONSIBILITY for one’s actions (like not providing child pornography on the internet, or support for known violent terrorist groups), or are they trying to take over the power to control a vast majority of things on the internet in the name of “our own good”? There’s a difference between the two actions.

Live killings or videos, terrorist or other criminal propaganda or providing access to illegal materials (like child pornography for instance) or providing support to or materials from known criminals, or is he talking about the “people” and our right to access information.

Google is already rolling out “personalized” search results based on what you and your friends look at one the internet through Google+ instead of the “whole net”. How long till they roll that out for “everyone”? With politicians who support this line of thinking as “friends”, it wouldn’t surprise me if they all support this SOPA legislation.

SOPA gives too much power to the government, plain and simple. Any politician who doesn’t see the danger inherent in that shouldn’t be President, IMO.

[Now I’ll go and read the article - don’t throw stones at me if this is some hit piece on him, OK? I don’t like bad journalism just as much as I dislike bad politicians.]


74 posted on 01/12/2012 3:57:08 AM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

That’s a pretty damning statement of his personal view of things. L(l)ibertarians I have known have all felt that the “bedroom” was a place for consenting adults, period - some believe that not to be true. Is he one of those people? I’m not saying that anyone should get special rights depending on whom they choose as a partner, just that if anyone decides to do that I don’t need to treat them as second-class citizens, either.

I have the right to be “left alone” only as long as I’m not violating someone else’s rights with my actions. Society has the right to hold me accountable for actions which interfere with others who come in contact with me - libertarians would never tell you otherwise. We ALL have a right to protect ourselves and those we care about from those among us who wish us harm.

[If anyone believes homosexuality to be religiously or morally wrong then it does not then become a person’s duty to then treat them disrespectfully or with malice. People are supposed to be treated as they would want to be treated in regards to all of “God’s children” while at the same time protecting the innocent and vulnerable from those who wish to do them harm in any way. ALL JMHO.]


75 posted on 01/12/2012 4:12:22 AM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

I agree with you... And, if they only did it to the most egregious violators and left the “benign” criticisms alone people wouldn’t necessarily realize it right away either. Yes, there should be some enforcement of laws involving the internet (like harassment, defamation or slander/libel).

Any legislation that is made to deal with violation of federal laws (that ARE allowed by the Constitution) - for instance defense reasons (dissemination of viruses, or hacking by a foreign gov’t, etc..) must be extremely narrow in focus if they are made. They can only limit someone’s ability to continue violation of others, and not give gov’t the power to silence critics from any “side” unless they are being outright in their desires to harm others, are actively hurting others, or giving others a platform on which to actively commit illegal acts.

Basically, I don’t see why we need a new law as most things are already “illegal” anyway and can be dealt with in other ways. Anytime the government wants to pass laws like this I don’t think you can blame people for being skeptical of their true intentions in doing so.

Again, all JMHO.


76 posted on 01/12/2012 4:25:47 AM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]




Boop Their Tiny Tamarin Tootsies!

Before You Pass Out From Acute Cute
Support Free Republic


Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly sign-up

77 posted on 01/12/2012 7:23:21 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Santorum's disappointing response on SOPA has caused me to support Gingrich.

I had been dithering over the two, but any candidate that finds SOPA or any similar regimen acceptable is not acceptable to me.

78 posted on 01/16/2012 1:45:28 PM PST by snowsislander (Gingrich 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Yeah SOPA is horrible tyranny but Issa has his own OPEN bill. I think any of these bills that involve government and the Internet will just lead to increasing government power, loss of our liberty, and the ruining of the Internet and our freedom.

Leave the Internet alone. No more laws to regulate the Internet.Government will find some line in a 3000 page Internet law and use that line to destroy the Internet and our freedom , no matter how much good the politicians and media say this law will do.

SOPA and Issa's Open bill can go in the trash bin as far as I'm concerned. It's good Issa is fighting SOPA but he is doing it to favor his own bill.

79 posted on 01/19/2012 4:28:47 AM PST by Democrat_media (China is destroying all our jobs and manufacturing ability. China makes everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Santorum needs to quit and allow Gingrich to win. Santorum is just helping Romney.Santorum is wrong in supporting this horrible tyranny called SOPA.


80 posted on 01/19/2012 4:30:30 AM PST by Democrat_media (China is destroying all our jobs and manufacturing ability. China makes everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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