
Santorum Pledges Pornography Blackout Using Lawsuits & SOPA-style ISP Filtering - uptown
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/
======
philwelch
So here's the backstory.

Santorum has a microscopically thin but nonzero chance of winning the
Republican primaries. To do so, either Romney has to all but disappear as a
candidate or he has to do extremely well in the upcoming primaries. Even then,
the most likely outcome is a "brokered convention", where literally anything
is possible, up to and including nominating someone who isn't even running
yet.

Santorum knows that he _has_ to win the GOP base this way. And he'll never win
the libertarianish part of the GOP base to begin with (they're voting for Ron
Paul), nor will he win over the sane people (they're either voting for Romney
or staying home in a fog of crippling depression). So his only chance is to
maximize turnout from crazy, evangelical, right-wing loonies of the type
rarely seen outside flyover country.

If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these
crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he _has_ to go
pretty crazy.

~~~
angrycoder
> If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of
> these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has
> to go pretty crazy.

Here's the real backstory.

You have Santorum mixed up with Romney. Santorum really believes all this
stuff, he isn't just saying it to get elected. He is about as puritanical in
his beliefs as you can get. While I respect him for being so open and being
who he is, I frankly find it frightening that he is winning primaries.

~~~
streblo
> Santorum really believes all this stuff

Maybe this is just being pedantic, but: what about his beliefs on higher
education? The man has denigrated the idea of pursuing education beyond high
school, yet he has more degrees than the current president. That just seems
like pandering to me.

~~~
angrycoder
He home schools his kids, which is inline with what he is stating are his
current beliefs.

As for the number of degrees, excess can breed contempt. Also, college is a
great place to have lots of sex and be exposed to tons of secular ideas.

~~~
smsm42
Sounds like you are trying to arrive to predefined conclusion. Given the sorry
state of public education, where schools graduate illiterate people unable to
read their own diploma, if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign
of deep commitment to the child's education. The second argument is even
weaker - it sounds like if he had a lot of degrees, he'd be against education,
and if he had none, he'd be against education. Solid argument needs more than
that. You can see in parallel branch I am very far from being fan of Santorum,
however disliking him does not mean getting to his level and starting to use
prejudices instead of solid argument.

~~~
derleth
> if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to
> the child's education.

Commitment to what aspect, though? Actual educational and personal development
or complete indoctrination in a bubble where no outside ideas can penetrate?

My point is that it's an ambiguous indicator, and can honestly be used by both
sides until we know details about the homeschooling in question.

~~~
smsm42
What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ. However,
education and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive. The debate about
mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the
indoctrination vehicle - otherwise describing the existence of the creationist
theories, which is - the existence of the theories, of course - a scientific
fact would not be controversial, but there's more to it than just that, right?
And educational institutions themselves are deeply political - D/R ratio in
some academic disciplines is 30/1, some institutions are completely
ideologically monocultural, and teacher's union NEA is 6th biggest political
donor, donating almost exclusively to one party. There are also numerous
documented cases of teachers involving pupils into political activities for
the causes of their choosing. So it would be very hard to find an education
venue where indoctrination would not take place.

The whole point of the homeschooling (one of) is that people choose what is
actual education for them, not for somebody else. Of course, you or I may not
like their choice, but why should they care?

~~~
derleth
> What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ.

A good education is one that reflects reality. If your opinion of what reality
is differs from mine, you're welcome to show me wrong using experiments.
Otherwise, you are wrong and are not likely to be a good educator.

> The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see
> the school as the indoctrination vehicle

Not to the extent you seem to think: One side has facts on its side, whereas
the other does not. If you can't see any asymmetry there I refuse to try to
help you.

> Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?

Because I have to live with the laws they have the political clout to force
through Congress. I have to deal with the fact they have just as much
political clout as I do and no idea why the tides come in or why trickle-down
economics is a terrible idea or why banning abortions doesn't magically make
everyone into someone who can raise a child in a reasonable fashion.

------
gfodor
If Rick Santorum becomes president, I think the eradication of porn from the
Internet will be a quaint footnote compared to the other draconian things
that'll come to pass.

~~~
electromagnetic
If Rick Santorum becomes president, I think the attempt at eradication of porn
will be the headline of a very short presidency.

The porn industry isn't unified and has virtually no lobbying power, when
(depending on the reports you read) it brings in 1/3 of the revenue of the
movie industry, without ever getting a box office receipt.

When you're talking about ending an industry, not only in the US but trying to
ban the global industry, you're not only going to align them against you very
quickly, but I bet they would be willing to spend a lot of money to smear
campaign you into the ground. Oh and look, they have exceptionally hot women
that (depending on the studies) approx. 40-50% of them have worked as
prostitutes.

Basically, Rick Santorum would be facing an industry with the money and the
means to line you up for a massive scandal that would completely destroy a
"conservative family man" image.

~~~
saraid216
Um. How would it be short? Do you expect insurrection over porn? Impeachment?
I certainly agree that the porn industry would be pissed, but exactly what do
you expect it to do?

~~~
swordswinger12
Clinton was very nearly impeached for the Lewinsky scandal. Don't forget the
first rule of American politics: With money, all things are possible.

~~~
frisco
Clinton was nearly impeached for perjury, not the scandal itself.
Unfortunately, the one bad thing Santorum doesn't appear to be is dishonest.

~~~
swordswinger12
True, but given the boundless ingenuity of the smut industry, I'm sure they
can think of something if they're backed into a corner by Santorum. (hehe)

~~~
electromagnetic
I thought I alluded to what they can think of quite clearly by stating some
studies suggest 40-50% of women in the porn industry do or have worked as
prostitutes or escorts.

I wouldn't even be surprised if the porn industry helped line him up just so
they could knock the entire republican party out of the election in one messy
sex scandal.

Honestly if I had at stake what the porn industry does. I'd be thinking
"regardless of if Obama wins this one or not, next election there's a huge
chance it's going to be republican so lets end Santorum once and for all".

No one, no matter how ardent a republican is going to vote for a 'happily
married father of 8' if he's caught sleeping with an 18 year old porn star.

------
robomartin
One day I would love to be able to vote for a President who does not believe
that the earth is 6000 years old and that a supernatural being materialized
the Universe in seven days.

I mean, we give these guys nuclear launch codes!

I'm sorry if this offends some but this god bullshit really needs to disappear
from our culture before humanity can truly begin to move to a higher level.

Most people would laugh their asses off (and be horrified) if a candidate for
President expresses obedience and belief in Thor. What's the difference
between Thor and all the other supers?

I was once called up for jury duty. When it came time to be sworn in for the
initial selection I told the judge that I could not swear on the bible. He
asked me why. I told him that I happen to know that the Principle of
Conservation of Energy is true and that I could not, in good conscience swear
on something that blatantly violates it in so many ways. He actually chuckled.
I then offered that, if belief in the supernatural was a prerequisite to be
selected into a jury I would gladly swear by Thor to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth, etc. I told him that I like that story a little better
because of the cool hammer. I was respectfully excused. Ironic, being that
they were after the truth.

But I digress, I agree with the fiscal conservatism of the Republican ticket
but their hyper-religious bend and ridiculous social stance sure turns me off.
Santorum is insane.

Where is Joe Piscopo when you need him?

~~~
ars
> I happen to know that the Principle of Conservation of Energy

That is the most ironic attack on religion I have ever seen considering that
the big bang was a huge violation of conservation of energy. (Science
currently has no explanation for it. It may someday, but right now it's
completely unknown.)

Religion actually affirms conservation of energy by saying the energy came
from outside the system, and that the nature of this outside system is
unknown.

The main difference is that Religion hold that the nature of this outside
system will never be known, and Science holds that we may someday know it, but
currently do not.

~~~
robomartin
>the big bang was a huge violation of conservation of energy

Really? There you go! Solved! Thanks!

A few questions, since you seem to know it all (I certainly don't):

    
    
      How does religion explain 250,000 people dead from a Tsunami in Indonesia?
      Or, how about a similar number in Haiti?
      Or, how about the six million Jews?
      And the two million Armenians?
      Darfur? 
      How about the 48 million people dead in WW2?
      Or the 21 million in WW1?
      And the 20 million dead during the great Chinese famine?
    

The numbers are staggering. It's sickening:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll)

OK, so god is powerful enough to create the Universe in seven days and explain
the big bang by a supernatural act of unimaginable proportions. Yet, he/it
can't be bothered to at least save just the children of the aforementioned
disasters and genocides?

But, he/it will help someone not loose their home, pass a final exam, hit the
jackpot or win Suvivor because they prayed? While, at the same time letting a
child die from cancer across town?

And he/it, while being ever-present, all-knowing, all-loving and omnipotent
can't be bothered to stop hundreds of millions of his people from death,
horrible illness, famine, genocide and, let's not forget being raped by
priests. And, while we are on that subject, why haven't any of these priests
been struck by lightning?

Either he/it doesn't give a shit or he/it is indifferent or he/it is petty and
nasty and can't be bothered or he/it is not omnipotent or he/it is less
powerful than the devil or...

Or better yet, he/it does not exist.

Please. Spare me the bullshit.

The thought of having someone like Santorum in the White House scares the crap
out of me. Such ignorance is hard to fathom in this day and age.

And thanks for the down-votes. Keep them coming.

~~~
lotharbot
Please take the time to read the guidelines [0], and show respect the Hacker
News community by following them. We do not take kindly to violations.

Of specific note, from the guidelines:

\- _"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have
something genuinely new to say about them."_

\- _"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."_

[0] <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

------
Zimahl
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.

~~~
uptown
>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
Wouldn't the better question be, so what if it is accessible? Can't say I know
anyone damaged by porn.

~~~
nitrogen
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.

------
grammr
Several of the most popular porn sites are in the Alexa top 100 (ish) in the
U.S. You don't get that kind of traffic without having a massive number of
Americans watching porn regularly.

There's a perception that watching porn is taboo, but that's probably because
it's not a socially acceptable topic of conversation. Everyone does it or has
done it.

There is absolutely no way that this idiotic pledge of his can have a net
positive gain for him. If anything, this will probably encourage otherwise
non-voters to vote against him.

~~~
zerostar07
Indeed, with Utah being #1 in porn consumption, how did his advisors ever
justify these proposals?

<http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11821265>

------
veidr
Obviously, the notion that Santorum could somehow scrub out the tubes and
eliminate Internet porn is laughable.

However, it is unfortunately very plausible, if he or some other religious
extremist became president, that hundreds or thousands of citizens (a more or
less random selection from the millions that occasionally view porn) might be
arrested, caged, fined, and otherwise abused as part of a dysfunctional and
technically incompetent 'war on porn'.

(The morality of it is interesting, too: what's worse, jerking off while
watching a blowjob video, or apprehending a human being under threat of
violence and putting them in a cage?)

~~~
Cabal
This sort of thing makes me wonder what those of us in the lifestyle would be
subjected to under such a president. Midnight raids in our homes?

------
ugh
I … don’t … understand?

So everyone and their mother are complaining about big government and one of
the two guys who has good chances of becoming the nominee is in favor of doing
draconian (fascist, even) big government stuff. What?!

American voter, what’s going on? I’m only confused. I have given up making
sense of it.

~~~
swalkergibson
It's the neo-conservative campaign slogan.

Get out of my business, and get into my bedroom!

~~~
InclinedPlane
I think you're mistaking "neo-conservative" with social conservative.

------
petedoyle
Neither the dailycaller.com article nor the statement on ricksantorum.com
mention SOPA or ISP filtering. They also don't mention creating new laws
(which a president cannot do as part of the executive branch).

Santorum's statement mentions that he'd appoint an Attorney General (also in
the executive branch) that would _enforce existing_ obscenity laws.

Its fine to disagree with Santorum on this, but its a bit misleading to say
he'd force ISPs to filter content (or that he'd have the power to do so).

~~~
jmspring
True.

Santorum is just the most recent incarnation of the moral majority that want
to dictate how you should act in your private life. Part of the same group
that screams about the government intruding on gun rights, religious rights,
etc. A hypocrite.

While, I am hopeful he won't get the votes to event be considered for the GOP
nominee, I do hope someone like Larry Flynt will crawl out and destroy yet
another moralist.

What happens between consenting adults in their private lives has nothing to
do the government.

A long time optimist (and citizen of) that people in the US will do the right
thing, I am glad that I have an exit opportunity to saner parts of the world.

The fact that Santorum and his brand of politics has traction , on some level,
scares me.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_What happens between consenting adults in their private lives has nothing to
do the government._

Most people who say this don't really believe this. Should I be allowed to pay
a consenting adult $3/hour to clean my bedroom, while I talk about how much I
dislike people of $PROTECTED_CLASS?

[edit: to clarify my position, I have no objection to any consensual
activities between adults. This includes gay sex, low wage labor, unlicensed
medicine, etc.]

~~~
Drbble
When you bring money and power dynamics into the equation, he notion of
consent gets complicated. Consent means free engagement in activity not due to
pressure, economic, social, or otherwise. A parent and child or student and
teacher having sex is frowned upon by many liberals, not because they are
prude, but because they believe consent is not possible in that case.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yes, liberals have justifications for their preferred intrusions on personal
freedom just as conservatives do.

And in both cases, I believe that their appeals to personal freedom are mostly
intellectually dishonest post-hoc justifications for pre-existing beliefs.

 _A parent and child..._

You'll note that in my post, I explicitly referred to consenting adults (just
as jmspring did). Is there some reason you believe these two adults are
capable of consenting to gay sex on film in return for money, but those same
two adults are incapable of consenting to cleaning bedrooms and listening to
racial epithets for less money?

------
mynameishere
He's feeding slop to the low-IQ quartile of voters, nothing more.

That said, I remember advocating a simple manner of obliterating the porn
industry a long time ago. (Not porn, mind you, but rather the nasty business
of actually producing it.) Just reduce copyright protection of pornographic
material to 1 day. After this, what's currently piracy would become ultra-
cheap, legal trade, and it would be quickly unprofitable to finance new
material.

~~~
rflrob
Strictly speaking, you could probably even revoke copyright protection for
porn entirely. The relevant clause of the constitution reads, "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries." IANAL, but it seems like you could take an originalist
interpretation and say porn is in no way a useful art, and that even if it
were, while congress has the power to do so, it can probably choose not to
exercise that power provide protection to some suitably broad class of works.

~~~
prodigal_erik
They're still trying to figure out whether porn reduces rape. If so, that
would make porn more useful than the average work of fiction, which is merely
entertaining.

------
MartinCron
To be clear, he's advocating cracking down on "obscenity" and not
"pornography". With the notion that pornography can be legal but obscenity is,
by definition, illegal.

The fact that we still have obscenity laws on the books is, well, obscene.

It's all moot, though, as there's no chance he'll get the nomination, let
alone the presidency.

~~~
Zirro
Has any kind of border between "normal" pornography and obscene been defined?

~~~
nostromo
Yes, it's called the "Miller test" and it was created before the internet:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test>

The big question here is what the hell are "community standards" when talking
about the internet?

~~~
Zirro
I see. Well, the "community standards" on 4chan for example, or even among
younger generations in general today are likely to be different from the
casual Internet-users.

I suppose Santorum would go by the "community standards" of his voters, no
matter if they are Internet-users or not.

------
wpietri
Which reminds me of this fine graph:

<http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=550>

It shows the American states on a scatterplot. Color is voting preference; the
X and Y axes show search frequency for "god" and "free gay porn".

~~~
Drbble
"oh god oh god oh god" is frequently heard in porn movies...

------
protomyth
This type of stuff is why I expect Romney to be the actual nominee. Going by
everything else, I would seriously doubt they put Santorum in the VP slot.

I do wish we could get a TRUE small government candidate from either party.

~~~
uiri
Ron Paul

Not that he has a real chance at the nomination, but there you go. Most people
don't actually want a small government. They want a government which fixes the
problems that they perceive in society (whether that be porn, guns, abortion
or health care).

~~~
Osiris
I agree. I am baffled by people that talk about the need for fewer environment
regulations and smaller government, but then they push for large military
spending, the creation of the DHS and TSA, and advocating things like this.

To me, many conservative commentators sound more like they want an Orwellian
society than a free society: Don't get in the way of business and only think
and do what we want you to think and do.

I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it,
including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally
objectionable.

~~~
tsuraan
_I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it,
including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally
objectionable._

Ok, I wanted to stay out of this political discussion, but I just can't stand
seeing this Ron Paul fawning go uncontested. Ron Paul is a social
conservative, and he legislates as one. He is so anti-choice that he has
introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four times; this act wouldn't just outlaw
abortion, it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at
conception. Love it or hate it, but please don't claim that Ron Paul is
anything other than a social conservative, legislatively speaking.

EDIT: As pointed out below, I was mistaken (ignorant) of the difference
between contraceptive and contragestive; I still stand by my disappointment
that the strongest libertarian voice in this country is steadfastly anti-
choice, but I was incorrect on the matter of the common forms of birth
control.

~~~
Osiris
I realize the comment came off and being a huge Ron Paul fan, but I'm not. I
was only pointing out that one can appreciate his consistency in the face of
opposition in certain aspects from his own party.

I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion about how Romney's
political strategists dictate the man's political rhetoric in order to be able
to placate or appeal to specific demographics. In other words, the man isn't
genuine. He doesn't say what he really believes, only what his strategists say
he should be saying to get the most votes.

I wish more politicians could be more honest to their core values and beliefs,
but as a student of Political Science I understand the rules of the game
incentivize this type of behavior.

Did anyone what The Adjustment Bureau? The guy gets elected because he was
stopped the game and was honest with his supporters, though I doubt that would
work in real life.

------
Qweef
Excellent use of tax dollars, freedom of speech, and small government.

------
patrickod
It saddens me that, even in a quest to convert the hardcore/crazy right-wing
that Santorum would even consider pledging things like this. Not only will
such a law never come to fruition but it makes a mockery of politics to even
suggest such things. Call me a naive idealist if you will but I'd like to
think that Presidential candidates would try and campaign on real issues, not
fire and brimstone nonsense.

------
saryant
He's just trying to bait Romney. Nothing to see here.

------
NameNickHN
I wonder what took them so long to crack down on pornography. It's been a
while since the Prohibition got rid of all the alcohol. Maybe they were too
exhausted from putting all those copyright violators behind bars. But since
sharing of movies, music and books has been so successfully staunched
recently, it seems to be time to tackle the next big thing. Go Santorum.

------
cellularmitosis
I wonder how conservatives would feel about something like reddit gonewild,
which is still pron (well, just nudes), but has the distinction of clearly
being consensual and positive for the women participating in it.

------
Confusion
Well, that makes sure that half the men that previously would have voted for
him will still pay lip service to him, but won't actually vote for him. He
thoroughly misunderstands what voters actually want.

------
martythemaniak
One of the most dangerous ideas in politics today is that "The truth lies
somewhere in the middle", which is what allows lunatics such as this to be
taken seriously.

------
plink
Does the chiaroscuro effect in that photo come from a torchlight procession in
front of his dais?

------
rickdale
Well, I guess its time to get a bigger hard drive and start downloading as
much as possible before July. Hooray for porn!

------
zaroth
You gotta love how the comment thread on that site nests so deep it ends up
like 10px wide.

------
bickfordb
Consider all the lawyer jobs that will be created!

------
funkah
This country is focusing on everything but our actual problems.

------
SODaniel
Santorum, I am sorry but what a F __king joke this man is.

------
kellenfujimoto
If Santorum is elected president, I will throw up.

------
chrishough
Another crazy Republican out to destroy our freedoms. What a loser.

------
seanp2k2
From the title, it sounds like Santorum just lost (lol)

------
InclinedPlane
To all of you Democratic party muckers out there who have been registering as
Republicans and voting for Santorum in primaries in the hopes that he will be
a much weaker candidate against Obama (see, for example:
<http://tinyurl.com/DailyKOSClownShow>).

Fuck. You.

That is all.

