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
click here to read article
I'd really like to know your opinion. Thanks.
Santorum is addressing the fact that Obama is not enforcing the law.
The laws against pornography are something that the majority of Americans support.
Yes, morality begins in the home, but if laws against pornography are not enforced, or scoffed at, good parents trying their best to keep their kids safe from the evil of pornography, are fighting an uphill battle.
It is not inappropriate in the least for every one of our candidates to be addressing this issue.
(I'll ignore your strange reference to Prohibition, as it has absolutely no relevance to the conversation).
“Morality begins in the home, at the family level, and is taught through example. The American family is no longer what it was 3 decades ago. What you see on the Internet these days, as well as what the younger generations are doing to promote this kind of thing, is a direct reflection that morality is no longer a priority or is being taught or enforced at the family level.”
THANK YOU for saying this.
Years ago I read the following (sorry I can’t quote the author): “If people spent one tenth of the time they spend trying to change the country on trying to change themselves; the country would not need to be changed.”
It is the FAILURE of parents, families, and churches that we find ourselves in moral decline.
Agreed, Joe 6pk. Too many on the far left help these goals along because they don’t want society looking down on them when they don’t live up to traditional morals.
lol.......good points, Antonius.
What other kind of porn is illegal besides kiddie porn and beastiality (in most states anyway)??
Not an apples-to-apples comparison; and not really even true. Terrorism would find a different lousy excuse if there were no such thing as oil.
We already had laws against terrorism, but 9-11 happened anyway. Just because we have laws doesn't mean anything's being done to substantively enforce them. That's the point Santorum is driving at, here; a point the Obama administration -- and even the Bush administration before him (think :illegal immigration) -- is unwilling to admit.
NOBODY has to expand government to quash porn or terrorism; SOMEBODY has to enforce existing law. THAT is what Santorum is committing to do, for a change.
What are you babbling about? This whole marxists using pornography to defeat our nation line of argument is utterly ridiculous. You sound completely absurd saying dumb things like this. It is the marxists governments in particular that seek to shut down, filter, monitor and otherwise patrol the internet - not free people in free countries.
You sound like some fundamentalist from the Saudi religious police, or a fanatical Imam in a Madrassa on the Pakistani border with Afghanistan. The idea that internet porn is being used to destroy their cultures is exactly the backward, boneheaded stuff they preach. No one is using porn to defeat our nation. I don't know where you got this silly conspiracy theory from, but it's absolute nonsense.
That... and the Hottentots!
Prohibition is ABSOLUTELY the example of legislating morality. (History is difficult for you, I know) The Women's Christian Temperance Union, sold the government on the fantasy, that ALCOHOL was the root of all immorality, evil, addiction and depravity, and if they could just make it illegal, people would start living “righteous” lives again by law, Church attendance would grow again, and America would be saved from eternal damnation!
The very opposite happened. It actually increased the behavior they were trying to control or stop.
I'm certainly no fan of pornography, but can't your debating point about needing to help well meaning parents be used for any area the FEDERAL government wishes to become involved in?
Say ... what to eat? Just wondering.
I was being sarcastic with the comparison. I think both are fallacious premises that rely on manipulating statistics to get people to fall in line. The same as global warming. There was one person who posted that because murderers watched porn, porn makes you likely to murder. That is ridiculous.
My argument is whether or not obscenity laws belong in the Federal Government. If the executive’s job is to enforce the law, then he should. I just think there should be fewer laws. A city can ban porn from billboards, Washington doesnt need to.
As far as the Prohibition reference, it is very relevant to the discussion. People who want porn will be able to get it regardless of laws. The only thing is, they would be getting it from the same people who currently supply pot and cocaine, and the porn they get will be FAR more hard-core.
It doesn't matter what laws we have on porn production when people can download hours of it from an encrypted connection to an overseas server, and when hours of porn video will fit on a tiny flash card. Any laws you try to enforce will be counter-productive.
The military has a maxim: "Never issue an order which you know will not be obeyed". The corresponding maxim for politics is "Never create a law which will be openly flouted by a large percentage of the population", because doing so produces contempt for the law in general. Moral issues need to be handled by persuasion and social censure.
Not going to happen - our guys need to stop falling into the traps - at least Newt will either call such questions irrelevant and chastise the questioner; or he will talk about something relevant with disregard to the question. I wish and hope Santorum starts doing the same. I'm a Newt guy, but Santorum will do - if he can stay focused on the more relevant issues and not get sidetracked, he might have a chance. Else, if he's our guy, he'll have his fanny handed to him.
From the Congressional record in 1963 of Communist goals...
18. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
19. Break down culture standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and T.V.
20. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity, as "normal, natural, healthy."
21. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
22. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
"Boneheaded fundamentalist?" I think not, Longbow. It's a documented fact that the Communists in the 1960's tried to destroy American morality, and it's an obvious fact that in this year, 2012, they have almost completed their goal.
Some of us are fighting it. Obviously, some are not.....
And when Dubya was blathering on during his 4th SOTU address about baseball, how many folks on FR rightly called him out for that nonsense? I sure did. U?
Have you noticed that Santorum supports seem to be, en masse, completely unaware of history... and how their ideas on government enforcement of morality have already played out, time and time again?
It’s like looking at a leftist, who keeps saying that communism will work... we just need to get the right people in charge.
Statism never works in the long term. The more you get, the quicker the nation collapses. Adding G-d to it doesn’t make it work any better.
The laws are on the books and not being enforced.
We are not talking about new laws, new 'prohibitions' as it were, but enforcing the laws and ending the lawlessness of the current administration.
PapaBear, as to your question regarding what is more important...... It is a straw man, and nothing more. No one, including Santorum, has said that pornography is the most important issue. Stop falling for the leftist media ploy to discredit all conservatives by setting up a false comparison, and above all, don't do it yourself.
Understanding that morality is a very real, and very important issue, doesn't displace the issues of the economy, the debt, foreign policy, or any other issue.
THIS, you know. So no more games, OK? It seems like desperation to make a point that has no merit.
Good for you my friend, I hope you keep fighting.
But this is an election year, and: Some of us are unemployed. Some of us are losing our homes. Some of us have family in Afghanistan. Some of us are hurt by the rising gas prices. Some of us are horrified by our increasing national debt.
Please, don't diminish these concerns or the people who bear them. Thanks.
Look, The war on porno sex, The war on welfare programs, The war on drugs...
Is it lack of morals that we are in the deep doodoo we are in? That there are single mothers? that welfare is better than working? The problem is there are some problems that are difficult to reverse. There is no turning back from those breeding in the first place, because they couldn't take care of themselves. It's like those who got into debt knowing they couldn't afford it. Yet some sort of bailout is now demanded by those who have not from those who have.
See here from Pat Buchanan - "The white community must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with ladders of opportunities?"
"Untold TRILLIONS have been spent since the 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream." Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, bla bla bla...
"White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to."
Those who have and are taken from, need to be heard not just lectured from those who demand and want to continue to take more from the productive of society.
What deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?
What is wrong with Santorum's prognosis and what is Santorum's cure for our country again?
“This whole marxists using pornography to defeat our nation line of argument is utterly ridiculous. You sound completely absurd saying dumb things like this. It is the marxists governments in particular that seek to shut down, filter, monitor and otherwise patrol the internet - not free people in free countries.”
Yeah, the internet freedom in China is legendary. Regardless, the Pompous Pencil Neck’s supporters stand ready to castigate everyone who doesn’t subscribe verbatim to their moral code as sinners, non-conservatives, and unpatriotic...a sure path to defeat by Obama.
Which is why I view the nationwide 55-mph speed limit law as, quite possibly, the most destructive law that we ever had. For it was flouted by every driver in America at one point or another. Which then led to a general contempt of law in general.
Same for all speed limit laws. Every driver has violated them at least once.
It is not an important issue in the election of 2012.
It just is not.... and your emotional sarcasm is forgiven :)
Actually, you have revealed quite about about yourself by your use of the leftist catch phrase "legislating morality." American law is based on "legislating morality" (I won't return your silly insult about ignorance of history).
The laws against murder, theft, drunk driving, etc, etc, and the laws already on the books regarding obscenity, child pornography, etc. are ALL about morality. Do you seriously wish to posit the argument that they should be eliminated?
Now stop being obtuse, and stick with the real issue, OK? You'll never convince me that you want the laws on murder and child molestation removed, so your 'legislating morality' bunk falls flat on its immoral face.
Oh, wow. That's really an emotionally-driven argument that has no basis in reality.
How is it that one's concern about morality indicates to you that one is not concerned about the economy, or Afghanistan (just talked with my son who is there), gas prices, or the national debt.
I will forgive your emotional reply and wait for any rational response to what I've said.
As a matter of fact, the lawlessness of Obama and his Marxist minions, makes it even more important this year.
I would say that all those laws were enacted not because G-d said they were bad, but because you cannot have a society grow and prosper without them. And that those that submitted and passed them did not do it for the sake of the Lord.
Oh, Ohio, my friend (and I mean that...we've been through a lot over the years) I am not saying that morality does not matter. It does. Without question.
But the majority of Americans hear these soundbites from Santorum and read the media spin and conclude he's out of touch with their problems.
I want headlines with Santorum's name to include: "energy policy" "jobs" or "spending cuts" or "Iran" or "Afghanistan".
We're all convinced Santorum's a moral man. Now he needs to convice all that he has the plans and the "stones" to reverse Obama's course.
That is really my bottom line point.
And, Ohio most important: please know your son will be in my prayers for his success and safe home.
But you keep on making personal innuendo and supple attacks, thinking you are clever and coy. Don't worry about me, it looks like you have plenty of issues of your own to deal with, one of them being the need to control the world around you. (Just like your hero)
The leftist (false) argument that we should not 'legislate morality' is not based in the reality of what the laws we almost all agree on are there for.
Your right, and if anything Santorum’s determination to ignore the 1st amendment Prohibition on federal speech law is a reason not to vote for him.
The 1st amendment doesn’t mean congress can only make laws against Obscenity it means congress can’t make any law against ANY speech period. This is the domain of our States not Washington D.C.!
I never claimed that I did. I just assumed that you didn't want to make murder legal. Was I wrong? And how, exactly, was my assuming you are moral 'innuendo' or a 'supple attack?'
btw, as for this 'hero' nonsense. I came to the thread for the issue, not who said it.
I want the Obama administration to obey the laws on pornography, because pornography harms people, destroys marriages, and destroys lives.
Now unless you have something cogent and relevant to add, or unless you want to argue FOR the legalization of murder, which I very much doubt (though again, you may correct me if I'm wrong), there's no reason to continue this conversation.
This discussion is pointless. Moralists are so confounded by logic they resort to the left’s tactic of “if you’re against x then your for y”. In this case “if you’re against regulating the internet you’re for porn”.
I just went through the whole thread. If I had a nickel for everytime the moralists referred to people against regulating the internet as “porn hounds” or “immoral”.......one guy even claimed some Freepers supported kiddie porn.
I’m also amazed at the people talking about the communist’s goal of undermining the family. They site a list which starts at number 21 or something. How about some focus on larger communist aims like the progressive income tax, national health care, or public education.
Crickets. There are moralists here that support big government. Period.
My point is that, regardless of what Santorum says about anything, he will be labeled and attacked by the left, so why should we ask him to not address issues that are important to this country? ALL of them.
He has spent much time talking about the economy, the reprehensible Obamacare, and the media ignores him completely.
We CANNOT let what the left will do with our candidates' words define what we expect them to say. They would be doing the same thing with Gingrich if he were as close to winning the nomination as Santorum is.
They demonize ALL of us, so asking Santorum not to address the lawless Obama administration as he has here, seems to me, to be fighting the wrong battle.
Once again, it is not a matter of making morality a higher priority than the economy. It is addressing all the issues that are problematic with Barack Obama, and his ignoring the law is most definitely among them.
“Obscenity already has a well established legal definition.”
All I could find was vague, problematic definitions like “patently offensive” to prevailing local community standards. A president trying to enforce such a definition would be opening a can of worms. So I must be missing something.
Please tell me, what is the well established definition that is not being enforced?
water is gushing into the Titanic through a 90 metre rip in its hull, ice from the berg is littering the deck, the ship is listing and the problem on passengers’ minds is how to stop men from drilling holes in the ladies’ shower /s
“What’s more of a pressing national problem, in your opinion: jobs, taxes, escalating national debt, Iran getting the bomb and blowing up the Middle East, decimating the Constitution, porn?”
In Santorum’s opinion, it starts with the last of your list.
And that’s understandable from a guy, who in his whole life only had the leadership of a household full of baby cribs... He couldn’t manage anything else. In his own words, he recognized that he is neither a manager, nor a visionary. I think he will remain a pater familias, as he is not made of presidential or leadership material.
“That may well be, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are all laws that ‘legislate morality.’ If we did not have laws to do that, there would be no laws against murder or a father having sex with his daughter.”
Typical. No understanding of force and consent. Using overblown rhetoric to make the case.
Just because you amoralists can't focus on multiple things doesn't mean that those of us who are across the board, anti-Communist conservatives can't talk about the issues in their entirety.
I SO agree. It's why I can't even watch Fox any more :^D
But I do wish Santorum would .... oh, I don't know how to put this ... wise up, maybe?
Would it be so awful the next time a reporter asks about a social issue to say: "You know me. The people know me...and they know where I stand. Now let's talk about what you're afraid to: (pick one: jobs, fuel prices, judges, Iran, etc....).
This is all I'm asking of Rick Santorum....catch up with us: The media is out to destroy you, so play them a little better!" :)
I'm glad you're here, Ohio.
Sorry if you, as an amoralist, can't deal with historical reality.
Yeah cuz if I’m concerned about the economy like the majority of Americans are, I’m really going to care about this. Look, his first priority should be the economy. I have NO clue where he stands on that. I don’t know his ideas. I hear platitudes and vagueness from him and his supporters only seem to care that he has conservative values. He’s like the 0bama of the right...all the right credentials but no specific ideas. That’s why he’s simply not ready. Even Romney has expressed more specifics than Santorum. There’s plenty of time for him to play King Pious after the pressing concerns of the nation have been dealt with.
Stop calling people against regulating the internet “amoral”! What is wrong with you? There are very good reasons to oppose regulating the internet. None have anything to do with supporting porn.
Get a clue.
Wow. Do I agree with THAT!
Maybe some day, he'll actually do that some day....... soon! Wouldn't it be sweet? :)
(And I don't watch Fox either, other than an occasional look at Hannity....Brent Bozell, or somebody like that).
Tom Lehrer explains all:
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can’t shut,
If it’s uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I’ve never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
“To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance.”
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they’re hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I’m still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let’s face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I’m glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man!)
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I’ve got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they’re trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I’m a market they can’t glut,
I don’t know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let’s hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don’t let them take it away!
Yeah! We agree on the media!!! :^D
Gotta go ... Saturday grocery shopping (ouch!) calls!
Catch up later.
And one who uses the term 'moralist' as an insult, shouldn't be throwing stones. Especially at the wrong target.