Santorum blames the president for porn

[Paulie]

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?

Yeah, I have a BIG problem with that. It's impossible.

 

[EriktheRed]

He knows damn well he won't be elected POTUS. He just wants to develop a following to keep the $$$ rolling in after the election.

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.

The stupid wingnut dickhead negged me and said this, too:

Shut your cocksucking pole smoking pinhole, you assfucking little beaaaaaaaaaaaaatch

Classy little POS, aren't you.

 

[elvis]

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.

I'm no fan of Bush, Obama, or Santorum.
and you talked of "reasonable person" and "clearly offensive" in regard to state laws. Why are these state laws in place and how do they define these terms? Who defines "community standards" and why should people be subjected to them in their own homes? If it's a state to state issue, why does Santorum want to stick his nose in a state issue?

 

[Liability]

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?

Yeah, I have a BIG problem with that. It's impossible.

No. It's not impossible. But "impossibility" is different, anyway, than the nonsense you had previously spewed.

 

[Peach]

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.

*******************************************
As DAYS go by, the Republican candidate will become more moderate I do believe.

 

[Full-Auto]

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....

This is an issue I have dealt with recently.

My solution was to sign them up with there own email addy Identifying them as minors, going further in telling the program what is acceptable. After careful monitoring I havent had one single incident.

 

[elvis]

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.

and I meant the universal "your". Seemed obvious. Sorry you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Paulie]

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....

Who do you think is going to do it? The free market? They make BILLIONS off porn in the free market, there's no way anyone but the government is going to force them to change their system in any way that might hinder business.

What's the great idea for enforcing this? How does an internet site guarantee no access to children? You can create all the requirements in the world and people are still going to get through.

There's too much money in porn to expect the market to police itself on the issue. So that leaves only government.

 

[Full-Auto]

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....

Who do you think is going to do it? The free market? They make BILLIONS off porn in the free market, there's no way anyone but the government is going to force them to change their system in any way that might hinder business.

What's the great idea for enforcing this? How does an internet site guarantee no access to children? You can create all the requirements in the world and people are still going to get through.

There's too much money in porn to expect the market to police itself on the issue. So that leaves only government.

You can not legislate away stupidity. This is the parents responsibility and no one elses.

 

[Missourian]

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.

I'm no fan of Bush, Obama, or Santorum.
and you talked of "reasonable person" and "clearly offensive" in regard to state laws. Why are these state laws in place and how do they define these terms? Who defines "community standards" and why should people be subjected to them in their own homes? If it's a state to state issue, why does Santorum want to stick his nose in a state issue?

I would imagine "community standards" are established by the community, i.e. local, county, state.

It becomes a federal issue when the obscene material is transmitted by mail, television, internet, etc. across state lines.

These are the same laws that give the FCC the right to fine CBS for the infamous "wardrobe malfunction".

 

[Peach]

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.

and I meant the universal "your". Seemed obvious. Sorry you don't know what I'm talking about.

***********************************************
The OPTF did not BEGIN until 2005; was Bush II pro porn for 4 years?

 

[EriktheRed]

******************************************
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.

*******************************************
As DAYS go by, the Republican candidate will become more moderate I do believe.

Of course. There's all this great material from the primary that can still be used, though.

 

[Paulie]

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?

Yeah, I have a BIG problem with that. It's impossible.

No. It's not impossible. But "impossibility" is different, anyway, than the nonsense you had previously spewed.

I'm all ears, my man. Shoot me some ideas.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Santorum is just making sure that Mitt Romney wins the nomination.

 

[Liability]

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....

This is an issue I have dealt with recently.

My solution was to sign them up with there own email addy Identifying them as minors, going further in telling the program what is acceptable. After careful monitoring I havent had one single incident.

Good. VERY effective -- at home. It's akin to how my wife and I handled it -- at home.

Now, when some other parents are not as knowledgeable in their own homes, and their kids have a less restricted (or unrestricted) access to the lures of the interwebz, how do we prevent our kids from seeing such material when they go over to their pals' houses?

Is it really so outrageous to contend that possibly the government might have a valid role to play in this?

 

[rightwinger]

If not for the internet, how are kids going to learn about sex?

 

[Liability]

Yeah, I have a BIG problem with that. It's impossible.

No. It's not impossible. But "impossibility" is different, anyway, than the nonsense you had previously spewed.

I'm all ears, my man. Shoot me some ideas.

Really?

You have no notions of how the gubmint might be able to craft properly limited legislation that makes a child's access to internet porn more difficult?

I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

 

[Full-Auto]

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....

This is an issue I have dealt with recently.

My solution was to sign them up with there own email addy Identifying them as minors, going further in telling the program what is acceptable. After careful monitoring I havent had one single incident.

Good. VERY effective -- at home. It's akin to how my wife and I handled it -- at home.

Now, when some other parents are not as knowledgeable in their own homes, and their kids have a less restricted (or unrestricted) access to the lures of the interwebz, how do we prevent our kids from seeing such material when they go over to their pals' houses?

Is it really so outrageous to contend that possibly the government might have a valid role to play in this?

I would be willing to entertain some ideas but I am still left with the belief it will end up just as the war on poverty or drugs.

 

[Paulie]

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....

This is an issue I have dealt with recently.

My solution was to sign them up with there own email addy Identifying them as minors, going further in telling the program what is acceptable. After careful monitoring I havent had one single incident.

Good. VERY effective -- at home. It's akin to how my wife and I handled it -- at home.

Now, when some other parents are not as knowledgeable in their own homes, and their kids have a less restricted (or unrestricted) access to the lures of the interwebz, how do we prevent our kids from seeing such material when they go over to their pals' houses?

Is it really so outrageous to contend that possibly the government might have a valid role to play in this?

Isn't this where you as a parent are supposed to meet the parents of the friends where your child goes to hang out?

Isn't that where you're supposed to inform yourself of the situation you're allowing your child to be involved in?

What you're advocating for is just another example of nanny state bullshit.

 

[Liability]

If not for the internet, how are kids going to learn about sex?

Look. We learned in the gutter. So can they.