Is Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?

[Jimmy Snyder]

That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.

 

[mheslep]

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? ...

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Current federal “obscenity” laws 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. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

 

[lisab]

I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?

I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...

 

[Evo]

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

 

[Char. Limit]

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

 

[mheslep]

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition.

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

Why? Did you read my prior post?

 

[lisab]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

But just think how many jobs will be created by trying to enforce a law against hardcore porn! We'd create a Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices*, which would soon be bigger than the TSA, commensurate with the "problem" it's trying to solve.

* if "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" doesn't ring a bell - google it.

 

[lisab]

Graphic depiction of sex.

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.

 

[mheslep]

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.

Eh, not graphic. R doesn't show genitals doing their thing.

 

[Evo]

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

You still haven't answered Char's request.

 

[mheslep]

Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

 

[Char. Limit]

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. You can't say the same about forum rules.

 

[mheslep]

You still haven't answered Char's request.

From before...

... He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

 

[micromass]

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

As much as I value the PF rules, they do not make a legal document. Hence, they don't really need exact definitions.

Since you are talking about an actual law, then you DO need an exact definition. Can you give us the exact definition??

 

[Evo]

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

Still waiting for the federal law Santorum is referring to that makes "hardcore porn" illegal.

He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

From the links I posted, apparently it is not true. There are vague guidelines for obscenity that is determined at the local/state level. I can't find anything more specific. Maybe Santorum doesn't know the law? You'd think he might have wanted to check that before he made claims.

Seems like he's handed the nomination over to Romney, IMO. Unless more of Santorum's followers would back Newt, I guess that's possible. What a mess if it comes to that, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws.

Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

...You can't say the same about forum rules.

I'd say that about any set of rules.

 

[micromass]

Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

No. Laws absolutely need to be exact. Since if they're not exact, then they're vague and up to interpretation. We don't want this.

 

[SixNein]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

 

[micromass]

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

Please state the specific law.

 

[SixNein]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

That is what he is referring to...

 

[micromass]

And obscenity laws depend on the local community.

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

 

[SixNein]

Please state the specific law.

I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law

 

[SixNein]

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

He could appoint someone who can enforce it. In other words, bring a lot of cases against internet web sites... in hopefully, very conservative and highly religious communities.

 

[SixNein]

I'm surprised people are surprised. The bush admin made a law (2257 law) where all photographers of sexually explicit material must provide ID's of the models to all buyers of the content. In other words, webmasters buy it, and they get photo ID's too. Imo, it creates a security hazard for the women because anyone pretending to be a webmaster could buy those photos and get the ID's online.

I'm surprised women in America even do it now for fear of being stalked or having their identities stolen. They take a huge risk... but they are mostly young.

 

[Evo]

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

 

[SixNein]

The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

Well yes and no. Hardcore porn generally involves penetration of some kind; as a result, it is a candidate for obscenity. Just ask Larry Flynt. He almost got 25 years for his mag. In fact, he was sentenced to twenty five years, but got off due to a technicality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles

The chilling effect alone would kill half the sites. Who would risk prison for a few extra bucks a month?

 

[Evo]

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

Santorum Backtracks on Langauge Stance in Puerto Rico

Rick Santorum tried to mitigate any damage his earlier remarks — in which he said English should be the island's official language — might have done to his campaign

"As in any other state, you have to comply with this and any federal law. And that is that English has to be the main language," he had said to the paper earlier, referring to the commonwealth's upcoming referendum on whether to become a U.S. state. Those comments ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many pointing out that requiring English to be the main language would violate the U.S. Constitution, which does not designate an official national language.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

 

[SixNein]

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

I'm more afraid of his base. Social conservatives seem to desperately want a theocracy. They want to see a Christan Government ruled with a divine pretense. Keep in mind, they elected him into office. Mr. Santorum has served for 12 years as Senator. So he has been a part of our government for more than a decade.

People pay a lot of attention to the President, but they don't care about congress. So they elect people like Santorum and Bachmann and wonder why the government is broken.

all of this is IMO

 

[Galteeth]

The practical effect of a crackdown on pornography would be the loss of jobs, since Santorum can't crack down on foreign-produced pornography.

 

[ThomasT]

Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.

 

[lisab]

Be very afraid!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

 

[edward]

Be very afraid!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. This video is so far over the edge that only my nutty sister -in- law will believe it.

 

[skeptic2]

The irony is that Santorum criticizes both high gas prices and a nuclear Iran, ignoring the fact that the former is a result of trying to prevent the latter.

 

[mheslep]

The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. ...

Yep. Here's the king of all scary adds for perspective. It was broadcast only once during the Goldwater-Johnson election, and that was enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

 

[skippy1729]

Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.

It is puzzling. If there are any "values voters" or "religious right" voters who don't already know where Rick stands on these issues they must be living under a rock. Yet he continues with statements that alienate many other Republicans and independents. Almost all Republicans would vote for him anyway but independents are the key.