So Rick Santorum is now going after....porn

[surfsatwerk]

He cant afford handlers.

Which is why he will be found in some sleazy hotel room will half a key of hillbilly meth and a "male friend".

 

[K1052]

This has to be the most spectacular implosion of a major political party that anyone has witnessed in decades.

I've never seen candidates for a national office so blithely alienate enormous voting blocs in order to cater to increasingly narrow base.

 

[werepossum]

Apart from the not news that Santorum is a self-righteous douchebag, the article raises another important issue. If we're really going to start "vigorously" prosecuting "obscenities" in this country, it is time for the SCOTUS to revisit the absurdly vague definition of obscenities in Miller v. California. Not only is the definition meaningless, amounting to "whatever a jury doesn't like," but the "community standard" is ridiculous. It means a federal prosecutor can forum shop for the most socially conservative jurisdiction in the country in order to secure a conviction. In other words, what is "obscene" is whatever the dowdiest moralists in the entire country believe is obscene. By that standard, showing skin above the ankle will fast become illegal.

Mmm, ankle skin . . .

We have one party that wants to "cure" your moral vices and another that wants to provide for them at public expense. Why can't we have a party that says "Do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone and you pay for it"?

 

[zsdersw]

We have one party that wants to "cure" your moral vices and another that wants to provide for them at public expense. Why can't we have a party that says "Do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone and you pay for it"?

Because it's too difficult for a majority of people in this country to avoid the temptation to use government to boss people around.

 

[MotF Bane]

I have to wonder what he's thinking. Is he actually stupid enough to not see this, along with many of his other statements, will completely alienate huge segments of the voting population?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Actually he's doing remarkably well with right-wingnut women. Go figure. D:

That's because their husbands tell them who to go vote for, right before they drive them to the polls so they are always accompanied by a male.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Yes, this is true. Santorum probably thinks that "porn" is an easy target in particular, since the very word is a stigma. In fact, he's probably right in the limited sense that other politicians will be reluctant to challenge him on it openly because they don't want to be seen as "pro-porn." However, what he fails to understand is that porn is enormously popular among people who do not like to talk about it. One study shows that porn consumption is actually higher in states laden with evangelicals. Porn is their dirty little secret.

The difference between a Catholic and a Baptist in a liquor store...the Catholic will speak to you.

 

[Ausm]

Is this guy out of his mind? Doesnt he know there are some economic problems that Americans are a little more concerned about. For a guy that probably hates Muslim's, him and the Taliban have alot in common. He has built up so much baggage trying to win over the kooks in the primary that he'll never be able to dig himself out if he actually gets the nomination.

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

Oh man...now that's small Gubermint!

Oh on a side note my hardline Repuglican oldman would go fetal if this came to fruition.

 

[cybrsage]

Interestinly enough, this is one of the items where women's advocacy groups and the religious right merge...both want to be rid of porn.

 

[zsdersw]

Interestinly enough, this is one of the items where women's advocacy groups and the religious right merge...both want to be rid of porn.

What do you think of Santorum's proposal as outlined in the article in the OP?

 

[cybrsage]

What do you think of Santorum's proposal as outlined in the article in the OP?

You mean this?

If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “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.”

If laws are not to be enforced, remove the laws. If the law exists, it should be enforced.

I have no problem with the Executive Branch doing their jobs.

 

[woodie1]

I have to wonder what he's thinking. Is he actually stupid enough to not see this, along with many of his other statements, will completely alienate huge segments of the voting population?

Since he keeps repeating the same crap over and over it does seem that he is that stupid. Also, I can understand that we have a few nuts in this country that would vote for this guy but he is getting a lot more that a few votes. I'm baffled.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anti-porn feminists are a narrow subset of the left, and some of them aren't even in favor of obscenities prosecution. There is a reason why prosecutions for obscenities happen in places like Tennessee and Texas and never in say, San Francisco.

 

[zsdersw]

You mean this?



If laws are not to be enforced, remove the laws. If the law exists, it should be enforced.

I have no problem with the Executive Branch doing their jobs.

What about the laws themselves?

 

[cybrsage]

That's because their husbands tell them who to go vote for, right before they drive them to the polls so they are always accompanied by a male.

At which point they walk into the polling booth by themselves and pull the curtain closed and can vote however they want.

 

[cybrsage]

What about the laws themselves?

I do not have copies of the laws. Give me links to them so I can read them and I will let you know. I suspect the laws you are talking about also make child porn illegal...

 

[werepossum]

Because it's too difficult for a majority of people in this country to avoid the temptation to use government to boss people around.

Sad but true. Always easier to fix other people than to fix oneself.

 

[woolfe9999]

I do not have copies of the laws. Give me links to them so I can read them and I will let you know. I suspect the laws you are talking about also make child porn illegal...

No, kiddie porn is criminalized under different statutes.

So far as enforcing the laws, what should be done when the budget and resources are limited? The administration has said it prefers to concentrate what resources it has on kiddie porn and child molestation.

 

[zsdersw]

I do not have copies of the laws. Give me links to them so I can read them and I will let you know. I suspect the laws you are talking about also make child porn illegal...

I don't have copies of the laws, but here's a good overview of "obscenity laws":

http://www.lorenavedon.com/laws.htm

There is a distinction between "obscenity" and "child pornography".

http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/Pornography-Obscenity-and-the-Law.html

Should the government, at any level, be able to deny an adult from purchasing or accessing content that shows legal activities conducted by consenting adults?

 

[cybrsage]

No, kiddie porn is criminalized under different statutes.

Ah ok. I did say I did not know what was in the laws. 🙂

So far as enforcing the laws, what should be done when the budget and resources are limited? The administration has said it prefers to concentrate what resources it has on kiddie porn and child molestation.

I will leave that up to the people whose job it is to enforce existing laws.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't have copies of the laws, but here's a good overview of "obscenity laws":

http://www.lorenavedon.com/laws.htm

There is a distinction between "obscenity" and "child pornography".

Those are all state laws. The Fed Gov does not enforce state laws, does it? Wouldn't it have to be a fed law in order for the fed gov to enforce it?

EDIT: The laws listed there are too vague to really be enforcable, imo (unless they do the polling of people to find the current meaning of obscene in reference to pornography). More definitions are needed.

 

[woolfe9999]

If there is any confusion about the nature of obscenities laws, the best place to look is the wiki summary of Miller v. California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

That case set the First Amendment limits on what can be prosecuted as obscenities. The specific state and federal statutes generally mirror Miller. They are not allowed to criminalize anything outside its scope. They could be narrower, but no broader.

The 3 pronged Miller standard:

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what is "obscene" under the law?

Here for example is the Texas obscenity statute. It's similar to most others:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/43.21.00.html

- wolf

 

[zsdersw]

Those are all state laws. The Fed Gov does not enforce state laws, does it? Wouldn't it have to be a fed law in order for the fed gov to enforce it?

Yes, which is another problem with Santorum's proposal, wouldn't you agree?

I know you're hesitant to say anything critical of your chosen candidate, which is why I ask.

 

[cybrsage]

I see that as too vague. How does anyone know what the contemporary community standard is? Wouldn't that change from community to community? For example, man on man porn would be acceptable in San Fran, but not in Garnder, NC (where Scotty McCreery - American Idol winner is from).

 

[amish]

if this is the best the US can come up with the lead the nation, we are in deep crap.

x2

every election this runs through my head.