Santorum on Internet Porn (got your attention...didn't it?)

[Tarheel]

I'm surprised that no one has posted on this subject today (AUChizad must be taking a nap...?).  I've not been a big political fan of Rick Santorum but not for his values, family, and religious views; I'm more concerned about his fiscal credentials and the fact that he supported the loathsome turncoat ex-Senator Arlen Spectre (D-Penn) among other things (I think he's a Big Government Republican for example).  This might be another good reason not to support him...especially since "obscenity" is so vague legally, as I understand it, and that's the basis of his approach to prosecute US distributors.  And then there's the tyrannical, Chinese approach (my words) that he proposes for locking out access to international sites...

From The Daily Caller, all emphasis is my own:

‘Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers with pants down
 
By Steven Nelson - The Daily Caller   11:37 PM 03/14/2012

Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is elected president.
 
The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.

Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
 
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.”
 
Although the idea of Santorum vanquishing Internet pornography may seem far-fetched, a serious effort to combat online smut might actually be successful, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller.
 
“If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so,” explained Volokh. “Here’s the deal: In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene.”
 
There are a few approaches that Santorum could pursue in an attempt to eradicate Internet pornography. “It wouldn’t be that difficult to close down a lot of the relatively visible websites that are used for the distribution of pornography, if they’re in the United States,” said Volokh.
 
Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered. But that would leave foreign-based sites untouched.
 
To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh.
 
But the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it.
 
“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained.
 
Most contemporary prosecutions for the receipt of pornography are because the government cannot prove its suspicion that the accused has committed more serious crimes, said Volokh. He speculated that there aren’t more prosecutions because “that prosecutor isn’t going to win a lot of votes in the next election.”
 
The government would probably need to “find some extra money in the budget for additional porn prosecutors,” joked Volokh. He also cautioned that there would be significant outcry because “sometimes it’s viewed by husbands and wives who watch it to spice up their sex lives.”
 
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that “What constitutes obscenity remains maddeningly vague,” but added that he’s not entirely convinced Santorum would be successful in an attempt to snuf Internet porn.

“What Santorum would consider obscene is obviously far greater than many Americans,” he said. “Sexual films of consenting adults that are watched by consenting adults are generally presumed to be pornographic but not obscene.”
...
In a primary season laser-focused on talk of “job creation,” said Turley, Santorum’s anti-porn proposal would “attempt to criminalize an industry that is supported by millions of Americans.”
 ...
Santorum...promised in his anti-porn statement to appoint an attorney general who would carry out his wishes.
...

Source:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/#ixzz1pDVv9Rrz

[AUChizad]

Fuck this guy. Seriously. Fuck this guy.

Who the fuck is on board for this besides



Also saw where he wants Puerto Rico to "Speak Amurican".

Did I mention, fuck this guy?

[AUTiger1]

Legislation of morality is a good idea!  Why haven't we tried this before? I bet the results would be outstanding.

[Tarheel]

fudge this guy. Seriously. fudge this guy.

Who the fudge is on board for this besides


...

I don't make a habit of denigrating someone's faith but...I'm not gonna lie; this ^^^^^^ did make me chortle.

[Buzz Killington]

I can just picture the lynch mob coming for him...pitchforks and fap rags in the air.

[AUTiger1]

The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.   

I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree.  This is not being conservative.  A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life.  This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shit on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fuck this guy.

[Tarheel]

The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.   

I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree.  This is not being conservative.  A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life.  This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shitake on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fudge this guy.

Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world.

[AUChizad]

Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world.

Fuck-king-THIS.

It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.

[GH2001]

Fuck-king-THIS.

It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.

While I don't think he is as bad as you do, I pretty much agree with you and TH as well. I don't like the legislating of morality. I wouldn't worry, this kind of shit would never pass the house as even many in the GOP wouldn't go for this.

[GarMan]

Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world. 

Definitely agree there... 

At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency.  Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority  to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate.  And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again.  IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues. 

[GH2001]

Definitely agree there... 

At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency.  Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority  to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate.  And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again.  IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.

THIS...all of it. Especially the bold.

I hate to see Chad stroking over something that will never feasibly happen.

[Snaggletiger]

You are my porno, my lovely porno.  You make me happy when skies are gray.  You'll never know porn, how much I love you.  Please don't taaaaake my porno away. 

[Tarheel]

Definitely agree there... 

At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency.  Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority  to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate.  And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again. IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.

In ref. to the comment in bold above you are probably correct in that which leads me back to my original comment in the first post.  Rick Santorum has some political weaknesses which he would rather not have vetted so this issue makes for a "con-veee-nient" distraction.  (I just had to channel Dana Carvey's 'The Church Lady' there...).

[AUTiger1]

In ref. to the comment in bold above you are probably correct in that which leads me back to my original comment in the first post.  Rick Santorum has some political weaknesses which he would rather not have vetted so this issue makes for a "con-veee-nient" distraction.  (I just had to channel Dana Carvey's 'The Church Lady' there...).

Oh you mean like the fact that he really isn't a fiscal conservative? 

[Tarheel]

Oh you mean like the fact that he really isn't a fiscal conservative?

Yes, that could be just a tiny, little problem for his surging campaign hopes.

[AUChizad]

THIS...all of it. Especially the bold.

I hate to see Chad stroking over something that will never feasibly happen.

But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?

If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.

I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.

You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shit from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shit is too crazy for the position?

After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.

[Tarheel]

But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?

If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.

I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.

You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shitake from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shitake is too crazy for the position?

After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.

Well, a president could just do what The Pharaoh does and appoint a Czar to implement his presidential edicts along with his cabinet chiefs; bypass Congress and the Supreme Court altogether.

"Internet Porn Czar", now who would you put in that position?

[GarMan]

But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?

If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office. 

Well, assuming that much of this is just grandstanding and distraction, do you honestly believe that he would do any of this if he were to be elected?  I mean, isn't this along the lines of Barry Soetoro claiming that he was going to shutdown Guantanamo Bay and bring all of the troops home during his first year in office?  Nobody in their right mind thought that any of that could be possible, and it wasn't.  But, he kept saying it...  And, people voted for him over those issues.

[Tarheel]

I can just picture the lynch mob coming for him...pitchforks and fap rags in the air.

The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.   

I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree.  This is not being conservative.  A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life.  This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shitake on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fudge this guy.

fudge-king-THIS.

It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.

While I don't think he is as bad as you do, I pretty much agree with you and TH as well. I don't like the legislating of morality. I wouldn't worry, this kind of shitake would never pass the house as even many in the GOP wouldn't go for this.

Definitely agree there... 

At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency.  Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority  to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate.  And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again.  IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues. 

You are my porno, my lovely porno.  You make me happy when skies are gray.  You'll never know porn, how much I love you.  Please don't taaaaake my porno away. 

Well it is refreshing to see us all stand united on at least one issue: legislating internet porn.


It's either a good sign...or perhaps the Mayans might be right...

[GH2001]

But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?

If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.

I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.

You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shit from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shit is too crazy for the position?

After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.

Truth is, Santorum is a neocon and to a bigger degree so is Mitt Romney. I like Newt economically because he's about the only one on the stage who has concrete proof and results from his policies he touts. I like Paul economically in principle but I see nothing he's ever done worth a hill of beans other than to flap his gums about endless wars, bombing someone to hate us and ending the Fed (which is a good thing in itself). He's becoming full of propaganda to me. I hear a lot of generalizations with him, and to just say "i'll end the Fed" with no plan to actually do it? Means nothing to me. I like numbers, detailed plans, %'s, steps, etc. I saw Newt as the only one who did that aside from Cain and Huntsman.

Like I said, the thing with Newt is - he has put his proposed ideas into play/law once before and the results were phenomenal (94-2000). There is a reason he was very hated in DC and the neocons formed a coup to rid of him. He pissed off way too many good ole boys in the GOP. That's a good thing IMHO.