Will Mitt Romney censor the Internet?

[tweaker2]

Hmmm, is Romney's desire to restrict use of the internet a moral thing, a religious thing, a pandering kind of thing (knowing it will never pass into law) or just another hollow conservative "family values" right wing kind of thing?

If he got elected, he could get the HOR to hold hostage all manner of critical legislation like they usually do in order to legislate his moral and religious convictions into law. But I'm sure as the savvy businessman that he is, he'd also corner the market on the full apparatus for deploying said filters first, so I'd keep a keen eye on that as a warning for what's imminent.

 

[cybrsage]

The article mentions Romney's desire for filters:
"Romney has promised that if elected president he would require every new computer be sold with a porn filter."

They already do, it is called "an internet browser". Take a look in the settings, you can already setup filters in them all.


DOOM AND DEATH TO US ALL!!!!!

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This actually makes a lot of sense. Remember Jenna Jamison recently said she supported Romney? Well, our leaders know the best way to exponentially increase profits, from their experience with running drugs through this country, is to make something illegal. Now that everyone can get free porn the business has seen a big decrease in profits, so I'm sure this would be all about maximizing profits for both the porn and prison systems.

 

[HomerJS]

Only an idiot would think Romney will increase the censorship of the Internet.

If I'm an idiot for thinking that what does it make Romney for actually saying he would.

 

[HomerJS]

They already do, it is called "an internet browser". Take a look in the settings, you can already setup filters in them all.


DOOM AND DEATH TO US ALL!!!!!

Yes there are software filters already available. Romney know that but he want to add a hardware filters to all new computers sold.

Funny how conservatives luv big gubmit as long as it tries to legislate morality.

 

[BoomerD]

When PORN is outlawed, only outlaws will have PORN!

 

[BoberFett]

Is Romney going to filter the internet in the same way that Obama took everyone's guns?

Just another useless techs thread.

 

[sm625]

Dont laugh, the supreme court has ruled that congress could pass a law requiring you to become mormon.... or pay a $10,000 fine. Oh, I'm sorry, a $10,000 tax.

 

[Rakewell]

Maybe Mitt and friends could baptize John Holmes

 

[BoomerD]

Maybe Mitt and friends could baptize John Holmes

They probably already have. They're pretty busy doing "sealings for the dead" all over the country.

 

[OutHouse]

usesless troll thread is a useless troll thread.

 

[cybrsage]

If I'm an idiot for thinking that what does it make Romney for actually saying he would.

A good candidate for the executive office. Having a president who enforces the laws on the books is a good thing.

 

[HomerJS]

Is Romney going to filter the internet in the same way that Obama took everyone's guns?

Just another useless techs thread.

Obama never threatened to take everyones guns. Romney actually said he wanted to censor internet access.

 

[cybrsage]

Obama never threatened to take everyones guns. Romney actually said he wanted to censor internet access.

if he’s elected these laws will be enforced,”

The President SHOULD enforce existing laws.

 

[Lanyap]

I'll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

 

[cybrsage]

i'll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hairy-palmed hands!

fify

 

[HomerJS]

The President SHOULD enforce existing laws.

Adding hardware to PCs to filter out content Romney deems inappropriate is not enforcing the law its right wing big gubmit nanny state.

By his standards all those pics in the L&R forum would be censored.

 

[momeNt]

Techs. Please find a JOB and leave us alone!!!

 

[ky54]

Well, we already know Obama is the greatest threat to a free-flowing internet with his backing of every move by the MPAA and the RIAA. He has not only continued every aspect of the Bush admin's attempts to intercede in terrorist acts but has layered innumerable agencies to monitor the internet of American citizens with no connections to terrorism. Read the damned healthcare act before you want to piss and moan.

 

[woolfe9999]

That is true, but if you read the article it's about enforcing existing laws. I cannot find a federal law which pronounces pornography illegal. Someone from the Gay porn industry doesn't seem nearly concerned as techs.

I do find that what laws exist are aimed at what most would consider out of bounds, such as child porn. Does the OP support that?

The OPs contention doesn't seem to be backed up by the article.




Someone needs to make a Great Scroll out of that.

No, any POTUS who wants to crack down on porn, internet or otherwise, has the legal tools available under existing laws. I'm not talking about kiddie porn here. That is reasonably well enforced already. I'm talking about general obscenities laws which have vague definitions which can be stretched by socially conservative jurors. Federal prosecutors are allowed to forum shop so long as the material finds it way to the forum of their choice. In other words, they can prosecute in the most socially conservative jurisdiction they can find because internet porn goes everywhere.

In some ways, this is parallel to Obama with the medical marijuana laws. Obscenities laws, like marijuana laws (in the case of MMJ) are often not enforced, but any POTUS who wants to "crack down" already has the legal tools available. No new legislation needs to be passed.

Here is the Miller test, which the federal obscenity statutes track:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

You tell me which categories of porn definitely do not fit that definition.

 

[Deeko]

To answer the question posed on the op:

No.

That was easy. I hope you can breath easier now, OP.

 

[NoStateofMind]

But, but, I like sleeping naked.

Oh, and it will happen pretty soon after Mr. Magic Underpants gets elected. IF he he gets elected.

I like where you are going with this. How long will we tolerate kings in the white house?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No, any POTUS who wants to crack down on porn, internet or otherwise, has the legal tools available under existing laws. I'm not talking about kiddie porn here. That is reasonably well enforced already. I'm talking about general obscenities laws which have vague definitions which can be stretched by socially conservative jurors. Federal prosecutors are allowed to forum shop so long as the material finds it way to the forum of their choice. In other words, they can prosecute in the most socially conservative jurisdiction they can find because internet porn goes everywhere.

In some ways, this is parallel to Obama with the medical marijuana laws. Obscenities laws, like marijuana laws (in the case of MMJ) are often not enforced, but any POTUS who wants to "crack down" already has the legal tools available. No new legislation needs to be passed.

Here is the Miller test, which the federal obscenity statutes track:




You tell me which categories of porn definitely do not fit that definition.

Like him or not that's how Max Hardcore(?) went down oun intended. Basically someone from a super conservative area ordered one of his videos and it was deemed against community standards.

 

[woolfe9999]

Like him or not that's how Max Hardcore(?) went down oun intended. Basically someone from a super conservative area ordered one of his videos and it was deemed against community standards.

Yes, that case was in Federal court in Texas, if memory serves.

 

[hal2kilo]

Is Romney going to filter the internet in the same way that Obama took everyone's guns?

Just another useless techs thread.

Am I justified in assuming that your sarcastic response implies that you don't actually believe that Obama's grab'n guns?