Rick Santorum Says He'll Crack Down On Pornography

Does anyone know which laws he is talking about? He says there are already laws against pornography that aren't being enforced?



Is this true?

I don't know of any current statutes (maybe someone can expand,) but the Supreme Court has left open the regulation of hardcore pornography. Roth v. U.S. rejected Hicklin (1868) and said that sex isn't synonymous with obscene but it does become obscene when it appeals to the prurient interest; there are statutes against using the mail to send obscene materials. Miller v. California went further and laid out a 3 part test for obscenity and basically said that hardcore porn can indeed be regulated.

I'm not sure exactly what Ricky was talking about, but there are some interesting legal questions brought up by this.
 
Don't worry, in reality, Santorum could never fully ban pornography. His corporate masters would never allow that. It would be like drugs. Highly regulated, and provided by a small Oligopoly of companies.

"Do you have a license and prescription for that pornography? Very good, we at Time-Warner-Disney have a fine selection of adult entertainment for your enjoyment. Whatever you like, it's all available now. Sure it's very expensive, but with qualified Medical Insurance, your cost will be limited to a reasonable co-payment for every movie ordered. Senior citizens, ask about our Medicare Part X specials, with absolutely no cost to you!"
 
Last edited:
Crack the whip on porn Santa boy!

crack_the_whip_by_milksaphire-d35l739.jpg
 
There is no quicker way to increase the demand and intensity thereof for pornography than to make it more scarce. A government gun will never curb personal depravity, it will only intensify it.
 
"A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences." If Rick had actually read these studies, he would know that the issue is still highly controversial among scientists and psychologists-there is definitely no "smoking gun" to prove his claim. Someone plz send the Rickster a copy of "Defending Pornography" by Straussen.
 
We should enforce existing laws, if they in fact do exist. Pornography is a terrible scourge on the country, but I don't see it being enforceable to ban it. Personally I would love for it to be completely banned, but politically, I don't want the Federal government to have that kind of power.
Says who? Studies are far from conclusive.
 
Hey Rick, I'm not trying to regulate your life, why do you feel it necessary to regulate mine?

What have I ever done to you?
 
Last edited:
Did you even read what I wrote?

I did.

"...but politically, I don't want the Federal government to have that kind of power"

And on one level, I agree with you.

I live in a dry county, no alcohol sales allowed, and it doesn't really bother me at all. In fact last time a ballot measure came around to legalize sales of alcohol at the county level I voted against it, not because I'm against alcohol, but because I think the County level is the appropriate one to decide this issue, and I personally don't mind living in a dry county.

I would not vote for the same measure at the State level or at the Federal level, and if I lived in a different county that allowed alcohol and wanted to ban public sale I may or my not support the ban depending on other circumstances in the county. I would most likely be against a ban unless there was a clear and obvious linkage between public alcohol sales in the county and violent crime.

Porn falls into the same category for me, at least I should say public sale of porn (can't rightly see regulating someones behavior in their home just like I don't agree that private possession, consumption or manufacture of alcohol should be illegal). So I could see some counties allowing public 'porn shops' and others not, just like some counties allow public bars and others don't.

But I would be leery of the State regulating porn for all citizens, and completely against the Federal government doing so.

Seems to me that decentralized power and inhomogenous laws and regulations on cultural issues allows people to somewhat self-segregate, and that isn't always bad. If a community wants to have laws not shared by other communities that's entirely different than one law for everyone in a State or in the USA or the World.
 
The constitution was written to restrain the federal government.
ALL new federal legislation that does not repeal existing legislation bastardizes the constitution.
 
Thank God we have Pope Ricky to fight evil doers, porn watchers, prostitutes, and most importantly the gays.

 
^ you forgot the single moms, poor 'Blah' people, contraception users and gamblers.
 
Rick Santorum isn't stupid. He's probably only saying this so he'll get the nomination, but not beat Obama.
 
When you say you want to "ban" pornography, do you mean you want it to not exist because people no longer demand it, or you want to use violence against non-violent citizens?

Maybe he's targeting the rapist demographic:



How the Web Prevents Rape

All that Internet porn reduces sex crimes. Really.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html

By Steven E. Landsburg|Posted Monday, Oct. 30, 2006, at 2:22 PM ET

Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that's a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.

If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetrators—the group least likely to use such dating services.

Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you're living with your parents, it's a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.
 
Back
Top