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

[cybrsage]

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

For the federal law, I am assuming the community standard would be an average of that across the entire US..since it is one law for the entire US. As such, he would certainly need to find what it is before enforcing the law.

If the laws exist, they should be enforced. If they are not to be enforced, they should be removed. This is applicable to any and all laws and Executive Branch leaders.

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

Now you are being silly. Had you not kept your "I am unbiased but no one else is" blinders on, you would have seen me criticize him a number of times. Must have been that magician I have been told magically makes things vanish before they can be read...

I have yet to make up my mind. I liked Cain - but he proved himself untenable. I REALLY liked Jon Hunstman...but he is out of the race too. Now, I am left with no good choices...

 

[zsdersw]

Now you are being silly. Had you not kept your "I am unbiased but no one else is" blinders on, you would have seen me criticize him a number of times. Must have been that magician I have been told magically makes things vanish before they can be read...

Never said you haven't been critical of him, just said you're hesitant to do so.

 

[woolfe9999]

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).

Yes, exactly. If the prosecutor is federal, since there are federal courts in every state, they can pick which state they want to prosecute the defendant in and then they get the jury pool from that state and the community standard in that narrow area. Doesn't matter where the defendant is based.

 

[cybrsage]

Never said you haven't been critical of him, just said you're hesitant to do so.

Which, of couse, we both know you have no idea about. But hey, whatever allows you never say you are wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes, exactly. If the prosecutor is federal, since there are federal courts in every state, they can pick which state they want to prosecute the defendant in and then they get the jury pool from that state and the community standard in that narrow area. Doesn't matter where the defendant is based.

Really? They do not have to prosecute someone in the state the arrested them? I can see if the crime was in multiple states, yeah, but if the person downloade porn from Calif but lives in Michigan, I thougth they could only prosecute them in one of those two states.

 

[Jaskalas]

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?

Yes.

In the debates he largely came across to me as a little yipping dog nipping at the heels of the other candidates. Was just so abrasive and annoying in his comments.

This is not a guy who can skillfully craft a public message.

 

[woolfe9999]

Really? They do not have to prosecute someone in the state the arrested them? I can see if the crime was in multiple states, yeah, but if the person downloade porn from Calif but lives in Michigan, I thougth they could only prosecute them in one of those two states.

They only have to show that the material was distributed in the state they want to prosecute the defendant in. Before the days of the internet, that may have meant something because in certain states the videotapes and theaters were not available, and the industry avoided direct distribution in those cases. Now with the internet, everything goes everywhere and there is no way to stop it even if the industry wanted to. Hence, yes, they can prosecute wherever they choose. BTW, we are talking about prosecuting the distributor, not the recipient.

 

[cybrsage]

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?

If nothing else, with Santorum you KNOW where he stands on the issues. He does not lie, does not sugar coat it, does not change his stance based on who he is talking to.

If he says he will strongly prosecute porn, you know he will strongly prosecute porn. If he were to say he will close down Gitmo, he will close down Gitmo.

Other candidates (and presidents) say what they know people want to hear, then refuse to do what they said they would do. Santorum would have to be stopped from doing what he says he will do...we all know he will at least honestly and fully try to do what he says.


If you do not like his positions, you cannot count on him tossing them aside later, like other candidates and presidents...


That, while refreshing, is also quite frightening!

 

[Dari]

THIS will be his downfall.

 

[cybrsage]

They only have to show that the material was distributed in the state they want to prosecute the defendant in. Before the days of the internet, that may have meant something because in certain states the videotapes and theaters were not available, and the industry avoided direct distribution in those cases. Now with the internet, everything goes everywhere and there is no way to stop it even if the industry wanted to. Hence, yes, they can prosecute wherever they choose. BTW, we are talking about prosecuting the distributor, not the recipient.

Oh! I was thinking recipient. No wonder I was so shocked! Yeah, I can see how you could prosecute the distributor of Internet porn in any state...unless they put up something where you had to say you were not from that state (or that you are not violating any laws in your state by viewing their materials).

For fed gov use, I would want the defintion of obscene to be an average of the entire nation...I think that would be fair.

Personally, I say we should get rid of the laws altogether. Since child porn, beastiality, etc., already have their own laws, no need for this one. If we find something we missed after this law is removed, we make a new law specific for whatever horrible thing we missed.

 

[zsdersw]

For fed gov use, I would want the defintion of obscene to be an average of the entire nation...I think that would be fair.

How about there not be a government (federal or otherwise) definition of "obscene"?

 

[MotF Bane]

How about there not be a government (federal or otherwise) definition of "obscene"?

This.

.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh! I was thinking recipient. No wonder I was so shocked! Yeah, I can see how you could prosecute the distributor of Internet porn in any state...unless they put up something where you had to say you were not from that state (or that you are not violating any laws in your state by viewing their materials).

For fed gov use, I would want the defintion of obscene to be an average of the entire nation...I think that would be fair.

Personally, I say we should get rid of the laws altogether. Since child porn, beastiality, etc., already have their own laws, no need for this one. If we find something we missed after this law is removed, we make a new law specific for whatever horrible thing we missed.

Yes, and you're right about specificity of the laws being desirable. Kiddy porn laws are nothing like these vague obscenities laws. The lines of demarcation are pretty clear with those laws. They have nothing to do with whatever a jury somewhere decides is "patently offensive." You just can't use actual minors in sexual depictions, period. There may be some vagueness in borderline cases about what is a sexual depiction, but on the whole, those laws tell you pretty clearly what you can and cannot do. Not so with the general obscenities laws.

When it comes to the First Amendment, specificity is critical, otherwise there is a chilling effect on expression as people feel they must bend over backwards to accommodate a vague restriction.

 

[zsdersw]

Which, of couse, we both know you have no idea about.

Well, you've yet to make a thread that's critical of Republicans in general or Santorum in particular, so what would you prefer I view that fact as an example of?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.

It really is strange. Santorum was speaking in Puerto Rico the other day and made a point of reminding them that if they wanted to be a state, they would have to adopt English as their official language. What a bizarre, insulting thing to raise, and what better way to ensure that their few delegates will go to Romney? Santorum is a strange ranger.

 

[cybrsage]

How about there not be a government (federal or otherwise) definition of "obscene"?

There are laws which require it. Have to remove those laws first.

 

[momeNt]

Santorum is easily the scariest candidate of my lifetime.

I could see the armed forces doubling in size under him as we steamroll the middle east, and our police force being replaced by the national guard busting down doors of people viewing pornography, committing homosexual acts, and whatever else he wants to enforce in his Christian militant law.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, you've yet to make a thread that's critical of Republicans in general or Santorum in particular, so what would you prefer I view that fact as an example of?

Until you are actually willing to say you are wrong when you are wrong, why should anyone care about anything else you say?

Being unwilling to admit when you are wrong removes any strength your posts may have had.

 

[cybrsage]

It really is strange. Santorum was speaking in Puerto Rico the other day and made a point of reminding them that if they wanted to be a state, they would have to adopt English as their official language. What a bizarre, insulting thing to raise, and what better way to ensure that their few delegates will go to Romney? Santorum is a strange ranger.

What he said is true. An odd truth to say at that moment, but it is still the truth.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

If nothing else, with Santorum you KNOW where he stands on the issues. He does not lie, does not sugar coat it, does not change his stance based on who he is talking to.

If he says he will strongly prosecute porn, you know he will strongly prosecute porn. If he were to say he will close down Gitmo, he will close down Gitmo.

Other candidates (and presidents) say what they know people want to hear, then refuse to do what they said they would do. Santorum would have to be stopped from doing what he says he will do...we all know he will at least honestly and fully try to do what he says.


If you do not like his positions, you cannot count on him tossing them aside later, like other candidates and presidents...

That, while refreshing, is also quite frightening!

Agreed on all counts. That being said, given the choice between a candidate who is, by all appearances, pretending to be an arch-conservative to get support from his party's conservative base, and one who actually appears to be sincere about his extremist religious conservative views, I'll take the former every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[zsdersw]

There are laws which require it. Have to remove those laws first.

Do you think those laws should be removed?

 

[cybrsage]

Agreed on all counts. That being said, given the choice between a candidate who is, by all appearances, pretending to be an arch-conservative to get support from his party's conservative base, and one who actually appears to be sincere about his extremist religious conservative views, I'll take the former every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If Santorum was less extreme, I would vote for him in a heatbeat. If he was more centered in his views and still also had the conviction behind them, that would be an amazing combination.

EDIT: Time warped back a few!

 

[cybrsage]

Do you think those laws should be removed?

Personally, I say we should get rid of the laws altogether. Since child porn, beastiality, etc., already have their own laws, no need for this one. If we find something we missed after this law is removed, we make a new law specific for whatever horrible thing we missed.

Yep.

 

[zsdersw]

Until you are actually willing to say you are wrong when you are wrong, why should anyone care about anything else you say?

You'll find more who care about what I say than what you say about me, independent of your opinion on the matter.

 

[cybrsage]

You'll find more who care about what I say than what you say about me, independent of your opinion on the matter.

Watch out, your hubris is showing again.

EDIT: Time Warped...