Morality in Media Suggests Another Reason to Vote Against Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich

Morality in Media (MIM) is pleased to announce that "three of the leading GOP 2012 Presidential candidates have made statements committing to enforce existing federal obscenity laws if they are elected." The Justice Department's decision to focus on child pornography, rather than sexual material produced by and for consenting adults, has been one of the few bright spots in the Obama administration's civil liberties record. But those priorities anger social conservatives who think any porn that is sufficiently icky, whether or not its production violates someone's rights, should be punished by prison. Last spring 42 senators urged the Justice Department "vigorously to enforce federal obscenity laws against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography." MIM notes that three Republican presidential candidates have promised to do just that if elected:

Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement: "Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so."

Former Governor Mitt Romney in a written statement: "[I]t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation's obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography."

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting: When MIM's Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: "Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws."

And not a moment too soon, since, as MIM President Patrick Trueman notes, "our nation is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    One of the few times "Chameleon Mitt" is a positive nickname.

  • ||

    I can't believe there are still scum like this chasing the pornography devil. The cat's out of the bag, you fucks. INTERNTZ FTW.

  • RyanXXX||

    I bet Gingrich would say that when HE looked at porn, it wasn't a "moral issue," but now it is.

    Just like he said with pot, and dodging the draft

  • ||

    Newt doesn't look at porn! That's what three wives and some mistresses are for! He's a family man all the way.

  • RyanXXX||

    See, what Mormon heathens like Romney don't understand is that having 3 wives is just fine. The problem is you can't have them at the same time. Much more civilized and moral to dump them when they get sick and find a new, younger one

  • Apatheist||

    With all the shitty things to say about Newt, repeating the one that isn't true (that he dumped his wife because she got cancer) isn't really necessary.

  • MNG||

    The fact that he wasn't laughed off the stage at the debate when he pontificated on the sacred, foundational essence of nature is a testament to something pretty sad.

  • Robert||

    His wives & mistresses look at porn for him?

  • ||

    I have to say that Romney's statement has plenty of wiggle room. He places the primary onus (not anus) on the parent. That is a libertarian idea if ever there was one.

  • RyanXXX||

    Only if you ignore the second half of the statement

  • veemee sashimi||

    Ladies and gentleman, the "modern" Republican Party. Give 'em a hand!

  • GroundTruth||

    One hand only.... I'm using the other for something else.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Pornography pulls at the very thread of the family unit, and will continue to tug relentlessly, and sometimes angrily, at that most sensitive part of society, eventually causing unstable marriages to explode all over the place. That's why we need conservative stalwarts like those three gentlemen to pound on America's door and put a stop to all that pulling.

  • ||

    (knock knock)

    FoE, what are you doing in there? Why is the door locked?

  • ||

    Pulling. Hard.

  • Weird Science||

    Gary: Mom, I never toss off to anything!

    Lucy Wallace: [crying] You told me you were combing your hair!

    Gary: But I was! I was!

  • Austin W.||

    That's not the choice of the people. If you don't want to do so in your personal life, or your family, then don't do so. You don't respect freedom, if you are trying to shove your beliefs on other people.

  • Raston Bot||

    "Addiction among adults and even children is now widespread. Pornography is a common cause of the destruction of marriage. It leads to misogyny and violence against women and is a contributing factor in sexual trafficking," Trueman added.

    It sounds like he's just making shit up on the spot.

    Let's help him:

    He added while pissing his pants, "It makes hair grow on your palms. It causes blindness!"

  • Mainer||

    "contributing factor" = weasel words. I can't offer any proof, but I just KNOW it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    GOOD THING ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY ARE SOLVED SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THIS PR0NOGRAPHY THING.

  • Old Mexican||

    Morality in Media Suggests Another Reason to Vote Against Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich


    You mean besides the fact that they're all big government fascists?

  • Hugh Akston||

    On the other hand, if Newt gets elected, his AG will have no choice but to arrest him for the Nazi sex kitten slashfic he wrote. Unintended consequences FTW?

  • MNG||

    "The Justice Department's decision to focus on child pornography, rather than sexual material produced by and for consenting adults, has been one of the few bright spots in the Obama administration's civil liberties record."

    Johmney, your thoughts?

  • ||

    Cracking down on decent American pornographers is only going to outsource good-paying jobs to Eastern European porn sweatshops where the definition of "hottie" is a woman under 180 pounds whose mustache is merely "wispy."

  • MNG||

    Dude, you just tipped off that you've seen very little porn with Eastern European gals.

  • ||

    This is Heresy. How dare you insult the hotness of the Eastern Bloc?

    The Beatles were right, "You don't know how lucky you are, back in the USSR" - they weren't singing about bread lines, comrade, but of Eastern Bloc women.

  • MNG||

    I will say this, just because this Justice Department has "made a decision" about something doesn't mean they don't plan to renege on it asap (see medical marijuana raids).

  • Old Mexican||

    Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement: "Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.


    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    So much for his vow to uphold and defend the Constitution.

  • np||

    Unfortunately the obscenity "exception" to 1st amendment protection, established more than a century after ratification, allows the Feds to make such laws. Of course, even when states allow there's the Commerce Clause (which indeed they all rely on in).

    Problem is that unlike most other laws, legal obscenity can only be judged after the fact, through the courts--it can go to a jury, and/or a judge can rule on it--and is entirely relative and subjective (the Miller test makes it so). Which is why it's hardly enforced.. BUT when it is, people are entirely fucked over with felony charges and years of jail time, even sex offender registration (!), for something they would never had thought.

  • GroundTruth||

    This is always my first thought: how to square the 1st amendment and obscenity laws. Simple answer: you can't! More complex answer: blah blah blah stare decisis.

  • ewps||

    As I look at this article, a pro-Rick Santorum ad is appearing just to the right.

  • Paul||

    I vote that Reason stop covering Santorum altogether.

    He's the Mike Huckabee of 2012. He won in a socon state. His ride is already over.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I vote that Reason gives us one more Santorum thread when he inevitably drips out of the running.

    Preferably accompanied by a photo of his extended family (including the uh...special looking grandbaby) that we can exploit for, say, five years or so.

  • ||

    They could just open up that old thread for good once he officially loses this race. Which should be any day now.

  • Paul||

    Who's the barefoot dark haired country girl on the right?

  • frist||

    With her unique young innocent beauty, perfect shape and proportions Nancy is one very special treat! Just turned 28 this student of architecture, is an absolute stunner with delicate features and hair like a lion’s mane.

    Nancy has a great career in front of her and Petter Hegre tips her to be the girl most likely to be crowned Miss Pennsylvania some day in the future. With her kind and calm personality, Nancy is a photographer’s dream – a girl with the looks, the body and the right attitude. With an enjoyment of all things aesthetically pleasing Nancy’s primary interest is fashion.

    Beautiful in many ways Nancy is a young woman who melts hearts wherever she goes.

    http://www.hegre-art.com/model#action=show&id=158

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I'm going to miss him when he goes. True, he prolly couldn't get elected dog-catcher, but watching the Reason commentariat react to him like a crypt full of vampires exposed to sunlight has been priceless. Particularly because most of his "extreme" views would have been considered uncontroversial in a president at any time before the Clinton administration, and apparently still aren't considered controversial by a substantial number of Americans. While I'm no fan of public morality being micromanaged from DC, it seems to me most of the things he wants to ban are already illegal, making claims of his radicalism a bit of a stretch.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I can see why you'd like Santorum, Slappy. He clearly doesn't have a problem with inbreeding to ensure the purity of the white race. I haven't heard him say anything about relaxing the bans on segregated schools or lynching, but then I don't listen for the same dog whistles as you.

  • ||

    Props on the alt-text, Jacob. I can tell Lucy's lessons are starting to pay off.

  • ||

    I dunno, seems merely descriptive to me.

  • np||

    Rise in pornography proportional to decrease in rape:

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/for.....itical.php

    "Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law says that the correlation between a newly-documented drastic decline in sexual violence in the United States and a major increase in social access to pornography - most recently over the Internet - casts doubt on widely-accepted government findings on the causal connection between pornography and criminality and suggests that one impact of porn may actually be positive..."

    While we obviously can't say that it causes a decrease or prevents rape; we can certainly say that it does NOT cause such criminality.

    But then again, I suppose these fuckers aren't concerned with logic and rationale discussion about actual, tangible harm than "morality"

  • protefeed||

    While we obviously can't say that it causes a decrease or prevents rape; we can certainly say that it does NOT cause such criminality.

    No, we can't even say that. "Correlation does not prove causation" applies to negative correlation too.

    It, at most, is evidence that one's pet theory might need to be reexamined.

  • np||

    Actually we can. If your assertion is that it causes something then a negative correlation is disproof of that assertion.

    Correlation most certainly does not prove causation, AND in order to prove real, logical causation, it must also be falsifiable (otherwise it would just be axiomatic).

    Essentially you're asserting a this: A -> B (A implies b; A causes B; if A, then B) where A=porn and B=rape

    The only way to prove that logical proposition is to show then whenever A happens, B must happen (as a necessary consequence) And the only way to disprove it is to show that when A happens, there exists a case where B does not.

    If B happens without A (rape without porn) it neither proves nor disproves. But if A (porn) occurs but B (rape) does not, that is by definition disproof. And we can show that through a negative correlation.

    You can work this out with boolean algebra, but intuitively it also makes sense.

    It is also very same reason why even if you had in your own study, from a certain sample size, a 100% correlation, you cannot prove A (porn) -> B (rape). Why? because all it takes to disprove it, is to show another sample where A -/-> B (A occurs, B does not) i.e. people watch porn, that person does not rape.

    (this is also my pet peeve with the term bandied about "to induce". Real, actual induction is nowhere the loose vague arbitrary definition people in the legal profession make it out to be)

  • ||

    The headline should read "Santorum to Prohibit Googling Santorum"

  • RyanXXX||

    +1

  • ||

    But pro-censorship candidate are the serious ones, right? The one who actually believes in the 1st amendment is the whackjob.

  • ||

    Sounds pretty reasonable to me dude. Wow.

    www.Plus-Privacy.tk

  • Jamie Kelly||

    Touch my fucking porn, and I will cum on your wife's tits then slap her while she licks up the sloppy seconds.

  • ||

    This is hilarious, because actual children (prepubescent) are not interested in pron. If they run into it on the internet, beyond some "What is that?" type questions,they summon mom to get them back to the actual kid stuff they were looking for. Only teenagers+ like teh pron. This is not about the childrenz but protecting stuffy socons from having to answer uncomfortable questions and making sure physically mature but politcally underage humans discover things by trial and error rather than observation.

  • Gojira||

    Couldn't have said it better myself. And since I'm awesome at everything, that's a pretty big compliment.

    Just out of curiosity, are you an actual practicing pagan? Had some friends who were into that in college, and I've always kind stayed interested since then.

  • ||

    Yes. Though being a Pagan AnCap is pretty weird, most neopagan types are hardcore socialists, and most AnCaps I've run into are atheists.

  • Gojira||

    It's interesting. I was into it for awhile before I decided I just wasn't into religion and went athiest, but I always found it to be the most genuinely peace-loving, balanced form of religion I ever came across.

  • Gojira||

    And to lend credence to your thought, shortly after becoming athiest, I went full AnCap.

  • ||

    Well no rulers means no rulers don't it? But my flavor of paganism is the the Universe itself and all its bits are divine, names and forms are just convenient tags for limited understanding. Call it Pagan Deism/Animism. I just happen to interpret the Wiccan Rede to be An it Coerce none, do what you will.

  • Zack||

    First they came for the porn, and I was silent becau- Hey wait a second! Not my porn!

  • Priestess||

    I would have never discovered the joys of yaoi if not for the internet...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement