• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Santorum gone too far

That moron has an interesting set of priorities.

People are out of work and it is going to take some serious attention to detail to repair the damage that twelve years of war has done to our military, and some fool thinks we need to hjire a few more porsecutors toi hunt down and destroy pron sites.

Freakin brilliant.
 
Rush wants free porn, Rick wants no porn... *acquiressuspectFrenchaccent* zese Republicans are crazy!
 
The hell? I thought the whole conservative idea was small government, yet almost everything I've seen this nomination run has been about enacting more rules restricting people's lives. Banning 'obscenity' is really one of those very slippery slope things - when is something obscene, and when is it art?

Are those even mutually exclusive? And then - what is even objectively obscene? Censoring and/or banning art and imagery due to 'obscenity' is literally what they're still doing in parts of Russia today to preserve 'morality' and it's heinous that this is an electable platform in the US.
 
Well he's lost the male vote after already alienating the female vote.
 
Fishstick said:
The hell? I thought the whole conservative idea was small government, yet almost everything I've seen this nomination run has been about enacting more rules restricting people's lives. Banning 'obscenity' is really one of those very slippery slope things - when is something obscene, and when is it art?

Are those even mutually exclusive? And then - what is even objectively obscene? Censoring and/or banning art and imagery due to 'obscenity' is literally what they're still doing in parts of Russia today to preserve 'morality' and it's heinous that this is an electable platform in the US.
Click to expand...

This is because they view the role of government not to help people but control them.
 
Fishstick said:
The hell? I thought the whole conservative idea was small government, yet almost everything I've seen this nomination run has been about enacting more rules restricting people's lives.
Click to expand...

That seems to be universal. Here we have a couple of parties who pledge to very liberal principles, yet they constantly want government interference with all kinds of things.

I think the secret lies in the vote fishing. They assume that some of their potential voters are against something, then advocate forbidding it. They then hope that the same voters for get all the other things. Which, I'm sure, does work to a certain degree.

Hans
 
Rick is definitely not a small government conservative.

There's a quote where he makes it quite clear that leaving people alone is not what he's all about.
 
Policenaut said:
I haven't really paid much attention to what he's been saying because I don't believe he has a chance of winning but this is nuts. Santorum wants to ban porn. As far as I'm concerned "obscenity law" runs against the first amendment.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/v...-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

You can take our lives, but you can never take our porn.
Click to expand...

Just a small point of correction:

I actually looked at RS's page: :cough, ack, gag:

This is the actual quote
http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography
Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.
Click to expand...

Which is what the article said, however the conclusion the Internet Pornography would actually go away is ridiculous. A municipality which bans the sale of pornography (Greenville, IL) and so people have to buy Playboy outside city limits would have a tough sell. They could not license a cable providor that carries pornography. But I don't think they could effect IP/TCP distribution or satellite dish service.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Which is what the article said, however the conclusion the Internet Pornography would actually go away is ridiculous. A municipality which bans the sale of pornography (Greenville, IL) and so people have to buy Playboy outside city limits would have a tough sell. They could not license a cable providor that carries pornography. But I don't think they could effect IP/TCP distribution or satellite dish service.
Click to expand...

In the 80s I lived in a county in Florida that attempted this; it lasted long enough for me to skedaddle. Not that I was much into the porn, it was the principle.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I think the secret lies in the vote fishing. They assume that some of their potential voters are against something, then advocate forbidding it. They then hope that the same voters for get all the other things. Which, I'm sure, does work to a certain degree.
Click to expand...

If your voter base is comprised largely of morons and whackadoodles and self-righteous fanatics, I'm sure it does. Look how much traction Ron Paul gets out of advocating legal weed and military disengagement.

Santorum is doing outreach to the religious whackjobs, but is totally committed to the care and feeding of the 1%. It might work
 
What my plan is, no matter who is nominated, I will put together a pamphlet in September; "40 Freedoms Republicans want to take from YOU in 2012" In which I put everything like this any Republican has proposed this election season.
 
Republicans have been trying to crusade against porn forever. Reagan was particularly active in that he actually continued efforts after he got elected...
Recall the "blue ribbon" panel he put together, headed by anti-porn crusader Edwin Meese?

It was rather amusing. The panel was stacked with anti-porn types, yet they couldn't come to a consensus. A "majority" opinion was issued decrying the harm done by pornography, while at the same time the "minority" side (almost equal in size) issued a rebuttal indicating they could find none.
Across the country at that time, prosecutors were out-doing themselves trying to bust mom & pop stores for renting naughty videos and trying to close down adult bookstores.
The trials of these people tended to result in hung juries or acquittals.

No one could come up with a workable definition of pornography. The "I know it when I see it" definition did not hold up as a quantifiable method to use legally.
 
He's got my vote now, I hate naked people letting me take pictures of them naked, they're disgusting when they strip naked and pose for me in private settings with good lighting and an air conditioner running let's get those on a platter with some berries and fruits, put a little between them, there that looks good, okay, hold that for a moment.
 
I shudder to think what kind of expensive huge new government agency would be needed to try and stop us from seeing boobs on the internet.
 
I think the article is nonsense:

Yeah, quotes from legal scholars blah blah blah. Porn didn't pop into being in the 90s. The porn on the internet is the same porn sold coast to coast for decades in America. Is there illegal porn on the Internet that Santorum could target? Yes. Could he make difference? Incrementally, Yes. Can Santorum significantly restrict porn on the Internet. No. For a number of reasons. I'll list 3.

Chief among those are "no prior restraint" you can't decide ahead of time, with few exceptions, what acts are considered obscene. Another is that in America communities are allowed to decide what is and is not obscene based on prevailing mores (see Berger; Community Standards). The Federal govt cannot dictate to communities what their prevaling mores are. Finally, Community Standards is being chipped away by the courts as being too restrictive. So, unless we are talking non-consensual sex acts, there's not much any president can do. There's too much precedent and little legal foundation for a president to work from. Not that there is none. There is some wriggle room but the courts do not look like they will open that but are more likely to close those holes.

The author of that article needs to be fired. I suspect the editing and writing are for political reasons and not to provide accurate information.
 
Last edited:
I think it is genius.

If it looks like he is going to win, then people will start stockpiling porn. Adult bookstores will see record sales1 and USB-drive sales will skyrocket thus raising the economy. There will be no need to actually hire prosecutors or investigators. Mere rumors of an upcoming ban will be enough to make America number one again. U! S! A!


1) for example, see the record sales of bullets when President Obama was about to take office.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom