Rick Santorum is continuing his faith-based campaign with a pledge to wipe out pornography in his Administration. The problem is that pornography is lawful and now a multi-billion dollar industry. It is obscenity that can be criminalized, but what is obscene remains exceptionally vague and ill-defined. Indeed, many may find parts of this presidential campaign to border on the obscene.
Santorum has proclaimed “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.” He pledges that he will “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.”
What constitutes obscenity remains maddeningly vague. Indeed, many find laughable Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s test for pornography in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
Santorum shows the dangers of the fluid test described by Stewart. What Santorum would consider obscene is obviously far greater than millions of Americans who either work or patronize porn sites. Federal courts are reluctant to define movies or pictures as obscene based on such different opinions in society. For that reason, Santorum’s view of the standard appears to fall well outside of the accepted view of the case law. Prohibitions have focused on areas like child pornography, snuff films, and animal abuse. Sexual films of consenting adults that are watched by consenting adults are generally presumed to be pornographic but not obscene. The Court has also emphasized the difficulty in determining what is obscene and what is artistic or literary. For many years, great novels were defined as obscene under the community standards that Santorum appears to favor.
However, the Supreme Court’s poorly conceived precedent in the area has left the standard of obscenity ill-defined — creating an opening for someone like Santorum to seek to limit what adults can view as part of new crackdown on immoral lifestyles and values.
Santorum’s suggestion of a crackdown, however, ignores the fact that this material is widely available on the Internet with thousands of foreign sites. An attempt to prosecute standard pornography would result in bizarrely uneven enforcement. It would also attempt to criminalize an industry that is supported by millions of Americans much as prohibition sought to criminalize alcohol consumption. The difference is that today’s “speakeasies” are found in virtual space on the Internet. He may find that Wall Street would be a bit peeved with the attempt to eradicate an over $12 billion a year industry.
I would bet against such an expanded effort in the courts if it targeted explicit sexual acts between consenting adults. Such a crackdown was attempted under Ed Meese in the Reagan Administration with limited lasting effect.
Ironically, the more promising avenue for regulation would not be to try to widen obscenity laws but to extend prostitution laws. There has always been an odd contradiction in criminalizing prostitution between consenting adults while allowing the same person to accept money to have sex before millions. For libertarians, the prohibition on prostitution by consenting adults is a denial of individual choice and freedom. I oppose laws that criminalize such personal choices on morality grounds. However, if prostitution laws are valid, it would seem easier to extend them to sex for money in pornographic settings. I would argue against such laws on constitutional grounds, but I would likely be in the minority. I believe that such films have first amendment protection beyond the privacy protections afforded to consenting adults. (Privacy itself is hard to maintain when you are filming sexual encounters for millions to view.).
Regardless of the approach taken by Santorum, what he is advocating is a return to the enforcement of morality codes through criminal prosecution. It would threaten tens of millions of adults to conform their conduct to the moral dictates of Santorum and his followers. It is the type of state-imposed morality that we have criticized in other nations. Indeed, a Santorum Administration might want to consider one more commission — a favorite reaction of Washington in appeasing the public. He could call it the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
Source: Daily Caller
Great link OS. The Right cannot give up its porn!
Commoner: No one “likes” porn but lots of people consume it …”
I think you have hit on something truly vital.
I know that no one on this blog actually uses pornography. All we know about porn is what we see on TV or what we hear on NPR.
But the truth of the matter is that porn is a multi billion dollar industry. That implies more than availability. The only way that porn could possibly be a multi-billion dollar industry is if people actually consume it. That means that in one of the most important and meaningful ways possible people express a real preference for pornography.
Individuals go out and put down their hard earned money to pay the cable bill and access the adult channels. Individuals visit their neighborhood book seller put down their hard earned cash and walk out with a plain brown bag filled with porn.
The simple fact is that pornography is one of the few community standards that unites us across lines of class, education and income.
Who would have thought – pornography bringing us together in a truly meaningful way.
Mike Spindell thank YOU! for Katie Goodman… 🙂
Woosty,
Marie’s a treasure, thanks for the link.
For Sanatorium to wipe out what he calls Pornography had better fire off all of the nuclear, hydrogen,and thermonuclear war heads to make the surface of the earth look like Venus that has a surface temperature that is 400 degrees. That would ensure that all naked things God made being pornographic would be wiped out. We are pornographic too.
Masturbating having heterosexual sex, sex with another species, and gay sex should be no problem, but vandalizing the property of another is a problem. When he is sober should in good conscience make restitution for what he did.
OS
lol
It would be a Republican who would NEED a manual, or who would write one.
Solicit sex workers? He’s got it all bassackwards. All you have to do is stand there with a drink in your hands, be red in the face, overweight, too tight a collar, and sweating profusely while oggling the ladies openly.
If you’re not solicited within five minutes, then your BO or your halitosis must be incredible. Or that fart was something else than you thought it was.
Did I tell you how this untraveled young man in the Tokyo Hilton in ’64 screwed up by offering to pay my part of the tab with what turned out to be an international class sex worker. She later dressed me down over the phone (not in public) and gave me instructions on how these things should be handled. All I could do was to apologize for my rube background, this being my first time, etc.
She said gimme your number in Honolulu and I’ll call you when I get to Hawaii. She did. This is only part of my first night there. The rest without her was better, much….
We are a society bowing to many idols. Clothing is one of them. So mush so that it is sex without the idol being sex starved or it is no sex with the idol on. That is the problem. No longer worship the idol named clothing, and a balance will occurs. No clothing does not have to always = sex. No one likes porn? Look at the basics of what Porn is. It is naked. So is nature. Nature has sex in it too.Therefore if a human does not like porn they subconsciously do not like nature that God made ether.
Jason Russell Arrested
NBC San Diego is reporting that Jason Russell, the co-founder of Invisible Children, the advocacy group behind the “Kony 2012” viral video, was detained at 11:30 am on Thursday morning for allegedly masturbating in public.
TMZ reported Friday afternoon that law enforcement officials don’t plan to bring charges against Russell.
According to TMZ, Russell was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. Police also told TMZ that he was vandalizing cars.
Masturbating having heterosexual sex , sex with another species gay sex should be no problem, but vandalizing the property of another is a problem. When he is sober should in good conscience make restitution for what he did.
“Porn subscriptions and porn site hits disproportionately originate from Red states. No one “likes” porn but lots of people consume it and regulation of internet porn is far more difficult than getting 7-11 to stop stocking Playboy and Penthouse.”
Whadda ya mean noone likes porn? If noone likes it why do they view it?
W are a society bowing to many idols. Clothing is one of them. So mush so that it is sex without the idol being sex starved or it is no sex with the idol on. That is the problem. No longer worship the idol named clothing, and a balance will occurs. No clothing does not have to always = sex. No one likes porn? Look at the basics of what Porn is. It is naked. So is nature. Nature has sex in it too.Therefore if a human does not like porn they subconsciously do not like nature that God made ether.
It took a Republican candidate to write a manual on how to pick up a call girl with a minimum of fuss and bother. Essential reading for Republican travelers and politicians:
Montana Cowgirl has mined for pure political gold. Read the rest here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/16/1075087/-GOP-candidate-published-a-manual-on-cruising-for-sex
When he is finished with this “interlude,” I believe Ricky S will attempt to enter the priesthood.
Oro Lee,
That’s a great joke. 😀
*********
seamus,
You’re on fire today too. Figuratively speaking of course. At least I hope it’s figuratively. To be on fire any other way would be disfiguratively.
The devil is the prosecutor. Jesus is a freer. That means that Santorum is willingly controlled by the devil. Ron Paul is not controlled by the devil. Ron Paul is the smallest in stature of all of them, but he has a Superior spirit in him.
Oro Lee,
You were a font of knowledge today! Thanks for the King Corn vid. I had heard of it but not seen it. I watched the whole thing this afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed it. (Poor choice of words but I trust you know what I mean.)
When Tex gets home and we sit down to a corn-infused Pizza Shop delivered dinner, I plan on blaming you.
Mark 10:25 : “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
“For those who bless the poor, God promises to bless them (Ps 41:1-3; 112; Prov. 14:21; 19:17, 22:9, 14:31, 28:27; Isaiah 58:6-10).
But, He promises to judge those who oppress the poor (Deut 27:19, Prov. 17:5, 21:13, 22:16, 28:27; Isaiah 10:1-4; Eze 18:12-13, 16:49).
So, obviously, as part of his crusade to make the U.S. a more moral (and Christian) country, Santorum, will strive to create a more progressive tax system, criminalize off-shore tax shelters, stop taxing capital gains a a ridiculously low rate, stop using property tax as the primary basis (to unevenly) funds schools.
He will begin to address the un-Christian inequities of this country as soon as he has imprisoned Rush Limbaugh for suggesting everyone who’s insurance pays for birth control be mandated to post their sexual activities on Youtube.
Long live the Holy Roman Emporer! Long Live Santorum!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum
Mike Spindell 1, March 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I have always been pro pornography, with certain exceptions and I believe people against it have sexual issues. However, I have been waiting for the appropriate chance to show this, since it perfectly applies to Santorum:
========================================================
Way cool Mike.
Porn subscriptions and porn site hits disproportionately originate from Red states. No one “likes” porn but lots of people consume it and regulation of internet porn is far more difficult than getting 7-11 to stop stocking Playboy and Penthouse.
Bishop Santorum will always have an approving audience where ignorant is a virtue! The most absurd recently is to tell the American citizens in Puerto Rico they have to speak English because of a nonexistent Federal law! Well, ,maybe the over the top is the comment about euthanasia in the Netherlands! Hard to decide which is the most idiotic! All Religions are based on misogyny, guilt and fear, they just have different holidays!
Some of my worst friends are RACISTS.
How about yours? Are they too?
These comments are depressing, which is not kosher before St. Patty’s Day. So I leave you with the following, which you have heard before and will hear again umpteen times this weekend —
A genteel, elderly Irishman walks into a pub in Dublin, the sort of pub where everyone knows your name but no one knew this gentleman. All eyes are on him as he orders three pints of Guinness, takes them to a small table in the corner, sits down and drinks out of each mug in turn.
When he finished he returns to orders three pints more. The barkeep says to him, “ Far be it from me to tell a man how to drink his ale, but a pint goes flat after it’s drawn; it would taste better if you bought one at a time.”
The old man replies, “Well, you see, I have two brothers. We were three fine lads and loved each other dearly. We all left home the same day. One is in America, the other in Australia, and I’m here in Dublin. When we parted, we promised that we’d drink this way to remember our days together. So I drinks one for each o’ me brothers and one for meself.”
“Far be it from me,” says the barkeep, “to interfere with such a fine family tradition,” and draws three pints.
The old man becomes a regular at the pub and always drinks the same way: he orders three pints and drinks them in turn. And everyone knew his name and loved him dearly.
One day, after many years, the old man comes in and orders two pints. All others fall silent and a pall hangs over the place. The barkeep solemnly draws two pints which the old man takes to his table and drinks in turn.
When he comes back and orders two pints more, the barkeep says, “Far be it from me to intrude on a man in his hour of grief, but me and the boys wish to extend our condolences on your great loss.”
The old Irishman looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eye and he laughs. “Oh, no, everybody’s just fine” he explains, “it’s just that me wife had us join that Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking, but it hasn’t affected me brothers none.”
SwM,
“Some of my worst friends are RACISTS.
OBAMA IS NOT ONE OF THEM”