Santorum blames the president for porn

[Zander]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

 

[Peach]

"Pornography loses its First Amendment protections, however, when it becomes obscene or it involves children. At this point, federal and state laws make it illegal to make, sell, own and even look at some of this material. Anyone violating these laws may be fined, sent to jail or both."

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com​

AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?

Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:

Obscenity

Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:

• Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
• Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com


​

*******************************************
That case involved criminal penalties for showing the MOVIE "Deep Throat"*; Sancto said recently he only wants obscenity laws enforced.

*NOT the Watergate man.

 

[Liability]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

 

[Paulie]

"Pornography loses its First Amendment protections, however, when it becomes obscene or it involves children. At this point, federal and state laws make it illegal to make, sell, own and even look at some of this material. Anyone violating these laws may be fined, sent to jail or both."

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com​

AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?

Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:

Obscenity

Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:

• Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
• Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com


​

It's funny that so-called conservatives all the sudden become fans of the SCOTUS when it legislates morality.

 

[Paulie]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

I happen to think it's far too easy for parents to control that.

 

[elvis]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

cybersitter and net nanny.

 

[Peach]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

*****************************************************
I also agree.

 

[Zander]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

 

[rightwinger]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

If the parents would act like parents they can block access and monitor what sites their children visit. Mrs Santorum can do the same for Rick

 

[Paulie]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

So nanny-state the problem, you're saying?

 

[Liability]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.

 

[Paulie]

Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.

Here we go with the double standards.

Some people aren't good at making informed decisions in the marketplace, so more regulation solves that right?

Some people aren't good at budgeting and saving for retirement, so Social Security is perfect right?

Some parents aren't good at packing nutritious lunches for their kids, so we should ban soda and candy and chips at school right?

Some people are not good at dieting, so we should ban fatty foods from store shelves right?

God damn how the fuck do some of you people call yourselves conservatives???

 

[Missourian]

AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?

Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:

Obscenity

Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:

• Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
• Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com


​

so if a couple wants to make a video together, they can't because SAntorum thinks it might offend people? What's your definition of offensive? and who decided who a reasonable person is?
clearly and plainly offensive to whom? A religious zealot like Santorum?

You should acquaint yourself with the law, so you know what you are talking about.

I'll be happy to educate you in the mean time.

A couple making a video would only be subject to state law, unless they transmitted the video by mail, internet, cable etc. across state lines.

My definition of offensive is irrelevant, the community standards are ensconced by state law. Each state is different.

Santorum's definition of obscenity is also irrelevant, the DOJ already had the task force operational under Gonzalez with the Bush Administration. Eric Holder shut it down.

Obscenity Prosecution Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Since you have no idea what I'm talking about, I can only assume you had no problem with this program under Bush.

 

[Caroljo]

The story from a credible source:

(CBS News) ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill. - Campaigning in this Chicago suburb on Friday, Rick Santorum accused President Obama of failing to enforce an anti-Internet pornography law he worked to pass in the Senate and said that as president, he would do more to protect children from inappropriate online content.

<SNIP>

"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. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum administration," the statement on Santorum's campaign website says.


Santorum said the criticism of Obama was posted on the site about three weeks ago. "We'll enforce the law. I don't know what the hubbub about that is. We have a president who is not enforcing the law, and we will."​

Santorum says Obama not enforcing Internet porn laws - Political Hotsheet - CBS News​

I see no problem here. Enforce the law, if you don't like the law, work to change it.

Yes.... (and Lud's title is completely misleading!). Thanks for posting this!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Rick Santorum: Pornography Not A Priority For Obama Administration

Obama is the president of the United States. He holds a completely different office than what Santorum is running for. As president, Mr Obama has no control over porn. (Santorum does not know that and he's depending on others being as ignorant as he is.)

As National Sheriff of Sex, fruitier than a nutcake Santorum will be in charge of everything that goes on behind closed doors. Needless to say, the Catholic church will be immune to any and all laws, so young boys will be no more safe then than they are now.

WASHINGTON - Rick Santorum on Sunday defended his assertion that "the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families," arguing on CNN's "State of the Union" that the department's insufficient prosecution of the industry proves his point.

And from this you read "Santorum blames president for porn"?



Idiot.

 

[Missourian]

AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?

Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:

Obscenity

Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:

• Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
• Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).

Pornography, Obscenity and the Law - Lawyers.com


​

It's funny that so-called conservatives all the sudden become fans of the SCOTUS when it legislates morality.

I don't advocate ignoring Roe V. Wade, which I despise...why would I advocate ignoring anything else?

It's the law of the land until it is overturned.

 

[Liability]

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.

Here we go with the double standards.

Some people aren't good at making informed decisions in the marketplace, so more regulation solves that right?

Some people aren't good at budgeting and saving for retirement, so Social Security is perfect right?

Some parents aren't good at packing nutritious lunches for their kids, so we should ban soda and candy and chips at school right?

Some people are not good at dieting, so we should ban fatty foods from store shelves right?

God damn how the fuck do some of you people call yourselves conservatives???

That "question" doesn't even begin to make sense.

If a system were put into place that disabled any internet user below a certain age (i.e., minors) from accessing internet pornography, is it your contention that this would somehow violate the precepts of our Constitutionally limited government?

Not all things are susceptible to government interference in free markets. Some things are.

Your sophistry doesn't change that fact.

 

[Caroljo]

I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.

Sometimes all it takes is going to some website and you have a pop-up inviting you to some sex site! You don't even really have to go looking for it, it finds you!

 

[EriktheRed]

Obama knows he's going to be re-elected?
Why is he bothering campaigning, assbrain?

Where did any post in the thread say that "[President] Obama knows he's going to be re-elected"? The op AND the reply concerned one of the several R Clown Car Candidates.

Assbrain, indeed.

******************************************
Those "R clowns" are gonna give Obama a tight race, and one may defeat him. Laugh as you wish but Obama is in trouble.

Thing is, these guys trying to take his job are making his "trouble" look less troublesome.

 

[Zander]

While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.

And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.

Here we go with the double standards.

Some people aren't good at making informed decisions in the marketplace, so more regulation solves that right?

Some people aren't good at budgeting and saving for retirement, so Social Security is perfect right?

Some parents aren't good at packing nutritious lunches for their kids, so we should ban soda and candy and chips at school right?

Some people are not good at dieting, so we should ban fatty foods from store shelves right?

God damn how the fuck do some of you people call yourselves conservatives???

I am merely suggesting that we need to make it harder for children to access porn. Did I say it's the governments job?

Methinks you have a hard time understanding the difference between libertarians and conservatives....