6 ms·

Maybe no one else will but you have to call it like it is: this is just pandering to the extreme conservative base of the GOP. "The Obama Administration has tu

by Zimahl 15y ago

Maybe no one else will but you have to call it like it is: this is just pandering to the extreme conservative base of the GOP. "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." You mean the obscenity laws that SCOTUS keeps beating down? They have limited the FCC now so you will at least be able to hear accidental cussing on TV without the stations paying insane fines. The Superbowl/Janet Jackson 'nipple-slip' punishment has been completely reversed. Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. Outside of the few corner cases (public wifi mostly) it's not that easy for minors to get access. At that point it's up to parents to limit exposure through the readily available software. "Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered." They failed with magazines, why would the internet be any different? It's only a different medium in that the content is delivered more easily. That doesn't make it more obscene. All this talk is why Santorum might win the nomination but lose a landslide of an election. While centrist Republicans might vote for him just because he is GOP, his extreme views turn the independents and undecideds off and that's who you need to win an election.

frankydp 15y ago
Extreme social conservatives. You can be extremely conservative in regards to individual freedom without having all the completely counter-conservative opinions of the evangelical enforcement agency. Not trolling just a semantic that bothers me. PS The internet would be different in court in the same way that I don't get sued for leaving my newspaper on the restaurant table for someone else after I am done with it, where if I leave a copy of a movie on the internet for others I potential get extradited. Only half joking. It would be the same insane confuse the jury trials we have now.
rflrob 15y ago
> Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. That seems to be entirely beside Santorum's point. His particular brand of politics is largely against any kind of sexual freedom. Gay rights, abortion, even contraception is something they would like the government to legislate against. To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  > To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop. The problem (for the anti-porn crowd) with that is SCOTUS won't censor anything unless they have a damn good reason to. They wouldn't touch video games because there is already a mechanism (the ESRB) to give parents the power to protect their kids from the 'dangers' within. Consenting adults are pretty much free and clear to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - as far as the current justices appear to be concerned.
  - Jach 15y ago
    Any pot cases making their way to the SCOTUS in the near future?
uptown 15y ago
>Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. How do you figure? If you've got a house with an internet connection, there's a pretty high chance the kid in the house will be able to figure out a way to access pornography unless the parents lock down the ever-increasing list of devices from which this could be accessed. I'm not saying it's something that the government should involve themselves with ... but I also don't know that diligent-parenting can ever be an effective solution to say that porn isn't easily accessible to minors. As for pandering, with Santorum I'm not certain it's the case. Many of the things he supports politically appear to be part of his core beliefs.
- LockeWatts 15y ago
  Wouldn't the better question be, so what if it is accessible? Can't say I know anyone damaged by porn.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    What can be damaging is the stigmatization, shame, and self-loathing created by culturally mandated guilt in response to nearly universal biological functions. Look no further than the average conservative city's Sunday paper for references to some study claiming that use inevitably leads to abuse.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  Once you get internet at your house, how that gets locked down is your problem and no longer requires government intervention. I will not be the person who mandates that the entire internet be censored because a few parents can't take the time to lock down their e-devices. I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  Once you get internet at your house, how that gets locked down is your problem and no longer requires government intervention. I will not be the person who mandates that the entire internet be censored because a few parents can't take the time to lock down their e-devices. I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.
peterhunt 15y ago
Yeah, because 17 year olds can't use the Internet.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  17 year olds can definitely use the internet but they have to access it from somewhere. Like I said, no doubt they can find ways to get there. If mom and dad don't pay for it (unlikely scenario these days) or lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult), it's not as easy to get to as one would think. Personally, I wouldn't put those limits on a 17-year-old, even my own (don't have one yet). However, the overall point is that Santorum doesn't want anyone to have access to porn, even someone over the age of 18. He feels that his definition of obscene should be everyone's.
  - dagw 15y ago
    lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult) Um, I've worked several years as a network admin and dealt quite a bit with firewalls and network security in general, and I'm completely at a loss to come up with a not that difficult way to block porn on the internet in a way that couldn't be circumvented in less than 15 minutes by your average even half way technical teenager. I'm curious to hear what you had in mind. Hell even if are a super hard core network security guru and manage to completely lock down your home network, it's basically impossible to a find a point in any town where you aren't within a short walk of an open wifi network.
    - Jach 15y ago
      Plus you can always fire up MS Paint and draw stick-boobies/penises and fapping comics for massive lulz among your other 12 year old friends. I don't get the idea that people think porn is hard to access or come by even with the most draconian of locks. Okay, so a kid isn't allowed to use his home computer or watch t.v. (The only way to be sure your kid doesn't watch digital porn at home.) He can find porn at the library/school/friend's house/open wifi as you mention. There is also "nudity" one can find in dictionaries-with-sketches, anatomy books, art books, etc. that kids will nevertheless treat as porn because of the forbidden nature of both.

by Zimahl 15y ago

frankydp 15y ago

Extreme social conservatives. You can be extremely conservative in regards to individual freedom without having all the completely counter-conservative opinions of the evangelical enforcement agency. Not trolling just a semantic that bothers me. PS The internet would be different in court in the same way that I don't get sued for leaving my newspaper on the restaurant table for someone else after I am done with it, where if I leave a copy of a movie on the internet for others I potential get extradited. Only half joking. It would be the same insane confuse the jury trials we have now.

rflrob 15y ago

> Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. That seems to be entirely beside Santorum's point. His particular brand of politics is largely against any kind of sexual freedom. Gay rights, abortion, even contraception is something they would like the government to legislate against. To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop.

Zimahl 15y ago
> To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop. The problem (for the anti-porn crowd) with that is SCOTUS won't censor anything unless they have a damn good reason to. They wouldn't touch video games because there is already a mechanism (the ESRB) to give parents the power to protect their kids from the 'dangers' within. Consenting adults are pretty much free and clear to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - as far as the current justices appear to be concerned.
- Jach 15y ago
  Any pot cases making their way to the SCOTUS in the near future?

uptown 15y ago

>Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. How do you figure? If you've got a house with an internet connection, there's a pretty high chance the kid in the house will be able to figure out a way to access pornography unless the parents lock down the ever-increasing list of devices from which this could be accessed. I'm not saying it's something that the government should involve themselves with ... but I also don't know that diligent-parenting can ever be an effective solution to say that porn isn't easily accessible to minors. As for pandering, with Santorum I'm not certain it's the case. Many of the things he supports politically appear to be part of his core beliefs.

LockeWatts 15y ago
Wouldn't the better question be, so what if it is accessible? Can't say I know anyone damaged by porn.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  What can be damaging is the stigmatization, shame, and self-loathing created by culturally mandated guilt in response to nearly universal biological functions. Look no further than the average conservative city's Sunday paper for references to some study claiming that use inevitably leads to abuse.
Zimahl 15y ago
Once you get internet at your house, how that gets locked down is your problem and no longer requires government intervention. I will not be the person who mandates that the entire internet be censored because a few parents can't take the time to lock down their e-devices. I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.
Zimahl 15y ago
Once you get internet at your house, how that gets locked down is your problem and no longer requires government intervention. I will not be the person who mandates that the entire internet be censored because a few parents can't take the time to lock down their e-devices. I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.

peterhunt 15y ago

Yeah, because 17 year olds can't use the Internet.

Zimahl 15y ago
17 year olds can definitely use the internet but they have to access it from somewhere. Like I said, no doubt they can find ways to get there. If mom and dad don't pay for it (unlikely scenario these days) or lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult), it's not as easy to get to as one would think. Personally, I wouldn't put those limits on a 17-year-old, even my own (don't have one yet). However, the overall point is that Santorum doesn't want anyone to have access to porn, even someone over the age of 18. He feels that his definition of obscene should be everyone's.
- dagw 15y ago
  lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult) Um, I've worked several years as a network admin and dealt quite a bit with firewalls and network security in general, and I'm completely at a loss to come up with a not that difficult way to block porn on the internet in a way that couldn't be circumvented in less than 15 minutes by your average even half way technical teenager. I'm curious to hear what you had in mind. Hell even if are a super hard core network security guru and manage to completely lock down your home network, it's basically impossible to a find a point in any town where you aren't within a short walk of an open wifi network.
  - Jach 15y ago
    Plus you can always fire up MS Paint and draw stick-boobies/penises and fapping comics for massive lulz among your other 12 year old friends. I don't get the idea that people think porn is hard to access or come by even with the most draconian of locks. Okay, so a kid isn't allowed to use his home computer or watch t.v. (The only way to be sure your kid doesn't watch digital porn at home.) He can find porn at the library/school/friend's house/open wifi as you mention. There is also "nudity" one can find in dictionaries-with-sketches, anatomy books, art books, etc. that kids will nevertheless treat as porn because of the forbidden nature of both.