Rick Santorum vs. porn industry

[bmaj]

Article link below in the news today:

dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

Wonderful to see a politician with the guts to be concerned about this horrendous issue which is destroying families in our country. May God bless him.

 

[MidnightSun12]

See, I feel this is the kind of thing that government should be getting involved in. Pornography is an intrinsic evil in our society. I mean, we outlaw child pornography because of the grotesque abuses of children that occur during its production. But what really changes when a child turns 18? Does pornography really become any less damaging for the models just because they’re adults? Obviously an adult has legal consent, but how much say do you think an early-20’s single mother really has when she’s offered a job that pays well, is completely legal and is (quickly becoming) socially acceptable?

 

[bmaj]

Good point, MidnightSun. I fear, though, that Santorum may lose some votes over this because a very large portion of secular society finds nothing wrong with pornography and likely would not want their so-called “rights” and “pleasures” infringed upon. Sad to say.

 

[kbachler]

I think that Santorum’s approach will help us toward self-imposed tyranny.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I don’t know how successful he’d be, but it would certainly be interesting to see him try (or anyone try, for that matter). If nothing else I think it would spark some interesting debates and hopefully raise some awareness about how detrimental porn really is.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

We make child porn illegal, why not all porn?

 

[Gordon_Sims]

We make child porn illegal, why not all porn?

I think the better argument is, “We make prostitution illegal, why not pornography?” In each case, you have people being paid for sex. I know there are some who’d argue in favor of it on First Amendment, artistic or therapeutic grounds, but that doesn’t erase the fact that you’re paying people for sex. If they can arrest John Doe for offering an undercover officer $20 for sex in a parking lot, why can’t they arrest these people for whom they have photographic evidence for the same act? That would seem like a much easier route to take than going after it for obscenity violations.

 

[Nicko]

See, I feel this is the kind of thing that government should be getting involved in. Pornography is an intrinsic evil in our society. I mean, we outlaw child pornography because of the grotesque abuses of children that occur during its production. But what really changes when a child turns 18? Does pornography really become any less damaging for the models just because they’re adults? Obviously an adult has legal consent, but how much say do you think an early-20’s single mother really has when she’s offered a job that pays well, is completely legal and is (quickly becoming) socially acceptable?

Well, consent is the thing - for me - that distinguishes the regular porn industry from the child porn industry. Children cannot give consent. Those who produce and use child porn are therefore accessories to rape.

But you have raised a valid point. Namely, how “free” are the choices made by people who enter the industry? I do not think that you could say that such a choice is intrinsically never free, but it would be hard to find a thinking person who would argue that such a choice is always free. It is certainly an issue that people need to consider.

I think that someone genuinely concerned with such a problem, however, would logically be committed to addressing the exploitation of women more generally.

This does not seem to be Santorum’s approach, so I have no hesitation in saying he is not genuinely concerned by the problem, merely genuinely concerned with getting votes.

A thoughtful Christian - though not Catholic - perspective can be found here.

 

[Nate13]

This does not seem to be Santorum’s approach, so I have no hesitation in saying he is not genuinely concerned by the problem, merely genuinely concerned with getting votes.

Lol do you really think saying you want to ban pornography is a vote getter? I have no hesitation in saying that you just don’t like Santorum because that is a ludicrous notion.

That said I’m not sure I agree that this is the job of the federal government. In order to do so you basically have to argue that even if the women involved are giving consent and are over 18, they are still objectively a victim. This is basically the argument that has to be made in order to hold up laws against prostitution though so there is some ground to work with here. Even if subjectively the women in question may say they are perfectly fine with what they are doing, objectively they are still victims and you can argue a crime is being committed.

There need to be some clear guidelines people can look so they know what is considered obscene and what is not. If it cannot be defined clearly it can’t be upheld. I think to some degree the federal government might be able to step in, but they should step lightly.

 

[bmaj]

…

…I think that someone genuinely concerned with such a problem, however, would logically be committed to addressing the exploitation of women more generally.

This does not seem to be Santorum’s approach, so I have no hesitation in saying he is not genuinely concerned by the problem, merely genuinely concerned with getting votes…

…

I have to respectfully disagree on this, Nicko. I truly think if Santorum was interested in just getting votes, he’d keep his opinions to himself on the porn issue because it is likely to turn many secular voters away from him (maybe even some non-secular ones).
As others here have stated, it sure would be wonderful if the discussions bring the topic more out in the open to help reveal the true evil of it and the damaging effect it’s having on families and our society. It is, very sadly, an extremely effective tool of satan to draw more souls to himself.

 

[kbachler]

I think the better argument is, “We make prostitution illegal, why not pornography?”

I think this argument will backfire. You’ll end up with legalized prostitution.

 

[Kit15]

I think this argument will backfire. You’ll end up with legalized prostitution.

Though you are correct, that really wasn’t his point.

His point was that pointing to the illegality of child porn as a reason for making adult porn illegal is not a fair analogy because of why child porn is illegal in the first place. It has a unique issue that adult porn does not have and that is the use of those who have not reached the age of consent. Adult prostitution and adult pornography are more closely related simply because they involve adults who have reached the age of consent.

 

[ExLibris]

Attacking the supply will be no more effective than the attack on supply in the drug war.

The demand is coming from the rotten morals of Western gentiles, no amount of government fiat can overcome this.

I’m not saying we should do nothing, but I’m not holding my breath for Senator Santorum to fix the problem.

 

[kbachler]

Though you are correct, that really wasn’t his point.

His point was that pointing to the illegality of child porn as a reason for making adult porn illegal is not a fair analogy because of why child porn is illegal in the first place. It has a unique issue that adult porn does not have and that is the use of those who have not reached the age of consent. Adult prostitution and adult pornography are more closely related simply because they involve adults who have reached the age of consent.

I understood his point. I simply thought it was a poor point.

 

[whm]

I applaud Mr Santorum for doing what is right. The decision to do what is right should not be made based on probability of success. It is done because it is the right thing to do.

Right now many people in this country think there is nothing wrong with porn. Voices need to be heard that it is morally wrong and that it does damage people on both sides of the computer screen.

It is not just child porn that is illegal there are obscenity laws on the books now that are not being enforced. There are things shown on the internet that can not be purchased at your local adult store. Many of these people on the internet are being exploited without consent.

 

[yogicat]

While I agree that porn negatively effects the mind, heart, and spirit - I think Santorum should not have brought it up. Porn isn’t a sickness, it’s an epidemic, utter and complete, but it’s a battle we can’t just magically fight. You can’t tell a full grown adult that they are not allowed to look at nudie pictures, you just can’t. It’s unenforceable. Amatuer porn would skyrocket, people would secretly trade in homemade dvds and photos…while I respect Santorum for wanting to fight this, we have to be realistic.

 

[kbachler]

I applaud Mr Santorum for doing what is right. The decision to do what is right should not be made based on probability of success. It is done because it is the right thing to do.

Right now many people in this country think there is nothing wrong with porn. Voices need to be heard that it is morally wrong and that it does damage people on both sides of the computer screen.

It is not just child porn that is illegal there are obscenity laws on the books now that are not being enforced. There are things shown on the internet that can not be purchased at your local adult store. Many of these people on the internet are being exploited without consent.

First, I think its arguable as to whether laws limiting access to pornography (or any information) is right. It’s one thing to do what is right personally, as we start getting into “sin laws” and what we will force others to do, that becomes more difficult. (One could analogize sex and alcohol - prostitution and drunkedness vs. pornography and having a drink). Additionally, there become times that it is very difficult to write a law that clearly distinguishes between pornography and art.

Given those concerns, I think laws that “completely banish” pornography are probably bad ideas.

What’s wrong with focusing on education, rather than on regulation?

 

[whm]

What’s wrong with focusing on education, rather than on regulation?

What’s wrong with focusing on education and regulation?

There is a lot of horrible stuff that is out there. Stuff that may very well not involve a minor, but none the less is horrific exploitation.

Here are somethings that can be banned without endangering the legality Michael Angelo paintings:

No images of animals
No images of sodomy
No images of intercourse
No hidden camera images
No images of bondage
No images of rape
No “barely legal” images
No viewing of any pornography by anybody under age 18.

 

[whm]

While I agree that porn negatively effects the mind, heart, and spirit - I think Santorum should not have brought it up. Porn isn’t a sickness, it’s an epidemic, utter and complete, but it’s a battle we can’t just magically fight. You can’t tell a full grown adult that they are not allowed to look at nudie pictures, you just can’t. It’s unenforceable. Amatuer porn would skyrocket, people would secretly trade in homemade dvds and photos…while I respect Santorum for wanting to fight this, we have to be realistic.

No you can’t magically fight it. It is a spiritual fight. I agree if laws were enforced some people would still risk it. But if it is clear that it X is illegal, maybe some people would think twice about viewing it. Maybe some souls would be saved from becoming a slave to sin. Maybe some person won’t get exploited. You just can’t stand by and allow evil to have a field day. We need to be like the good Samaritan and not avoid the person being victimized by robbers.

 

[kbachler]

What’s wrong with focusing on education and regulation?

Regulation often leads to bad unintended consequences, tends to be expensive, and tends to be ineffective.

There is a lot of horrible stuff that is out there. Stuff that may very well not involve a minor, but none the less is horrific exploitation.

Here are somethings that can be banned without endangering the legality Michael Angelo paintings:

No images of animals
No images of sodomy
No images of intercourse
No hidden camera images
No images of bondage
No images of rape
No “barely legal” images
No viewing of any pornography by anybody under age 18.

What about the legality of some health or sex education books?

What about the legality of some books for medical criminologists?

How about “Where Did I Come From?”

The problem is just not that simple and easy.

Did you know that in just the last few years researchers did an MRI of a couple having sex because we are still working out exactly what happens and how things work. By your argument above - that would be a criminal act.

If a husband and wife decided to make their own home movie - that under your definition is a criminal act. Is that so clear?

I just think that the problem is more complex than you want to make it.