Porn titans not worried about Rick Santorum banning their business

Rick Santorum has made a campaign promise to bar "hardcore pornography" from American websites, magazines and television, but industry giants who produce much of the nation's porn aren't worried that the crusading candidate will stop the multibillion dollar industry from churning out the next "Deep Throat."
"I don't see a danger," Michael Lucas, New York's largest producer of gay adult films, told Yahoo News. "There's no danger that he will be the Republican Party nominee."
Santorum's campaign posted a position paper on its website in February that vowed to "vigorously" enforce obscenity laws and restrict the distribution of hardcore pornography, which it says has reached "pandemic" levels. The former Pennsylvania senator said he will "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." A spokesman for Santorum's presidential campaign did not return a request for comment.

Porn titans not worried about Rick Santorum banning their business | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

While I like some of the guy's views, this shit is just out of hand. :rolleyes:

Well, here you go, America's "silent majority"... you've been waiting patiently for the day when (post-Reagan), there would be another Presidential candidate who would just stand up and be counted for being conservative, moral, and unapologetic about his conservatism. It would appear to me that here he is. It does beg the question, however... can you stand it? Have you personally been desensitized so much that this seems extreme to you?

If there were more effective ways to keep pornography out of the eyes of children, I might disagree with him. There aren't. This is the kind of move necessary to protect America's children. He's got my vote.

I like Santorum
Try as they may, the media keeps rooting for Romney. The media did the same thing with McCain 4 years ago, and the second McCain had the nomination, they attacked him like a pack of rabid dogs. I didn't listen to them last time, and I won't do it this time either.
I don't condone Obama-care, therefore, I refuse the idea of Romney-care. What's wrong is wrong. I don't care who's name is in front of it.
Santorum is as conservative a candidate as I think we're going to get, unless Ronald Reagan comes back before the zombie apocolypse. I'd vote for him!

Santorum's position from his site Enforcing laws against illegal pornography

There are three key words being used in it. Obscene, illegal and hardcore. Illegal is fairly clear. Child pornography is illegal. Obscene gets us Miller v. California from 1973 as the clearest point I could find. For Hardcore I'll start with the Wikipedia entry : commonly includes explicit depictions of sex acts such as vaginal or anal penetration, cunnilingus, fellatio and ejaculation and/or extreme fetish acts.

The meaning of the line from the pledge shown below is made murky by the use of Hardcore and Obscene. It starts with obscenity laws, then switches to hardcore with the implication hardcore is obscene.

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography

Now hardcore and obscene may be thought of interchangeably by many, but they're different under the law currently.

In looking for more recent cases than Miller I found mention of Supreme Court in Brockett v. Spokane Arcades on Features - Constitutional, Federal and State Legal Definitions of Child Pornography, Obscenity and "Harmful to Minors" of Interest to California Libraries | LLRX.com Following that was this quick blurb "Jeffrey Douglas, a Santa Monica lawyer has tracked nationwide obscenity prosecutions since 1987. He found that of the materials that have been judged obscene -- by a judge or a jury-- there are several common elements: explicit showing of excretion, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, or any type of non-consensual sex."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. No critters or corpses, clear. No rape or incest, slightly less clear as depictions of said acts by consenting adult actors gets challenged. Nothing about two unrelated adults going at it like rabbits though. Finally "explicit showing of excretion", which brings us to the most recent obscenity case according to the Christian Science Monitor article.
2006 DoJ indictment announcement : #06-343: 06-01-06 Federal Grand Jury Charges Arizona And California Companies And Their Owners With Obscenity Violations

Again to Wikipedia for the outcome : In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled "American Bukkake 13", "Gag Factor 15", "Gag Factor 18" and "Filthy Things 6". The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 - "Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution") against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution.[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether "sperm showing through ejaculation" is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of "18 USC 1465 - Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution".[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of "18 USC 1465 - Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution" for having shipped JM Productions' film "Gag Factor 18".[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being "obscene" has not been specifically stated at this point.

Where are we at now?

When he says "I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture." it's unclear. Porn is illegal to sell to kids, yes. That doesn't fit how I'm reading it though and I can't read 'widespread' as meaning critters and corpses, so obscene doesn't fit either. Hardcore is widespread and fits the wording of the statements, but isn't currently illegal. Is the intent to go back after content the DoJ stopped pursing in 2007? Different content entirely?

I really don't know.

So let's look at something else. This phrase "on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier" had a copy&pasted feel so I went to see if it had been. Turns out it's directly lifted from the petition at WarOnIllegalPornography.com. Rather than clearing things up though I find they're the ones who wrote that "obscene(hardcore) pornography" in the first place. I get the impression they'd like hardcore to be be ruled obscene. That's changing law though, not enforcing current.

Displayed prominently in their recent blog posts section is "FCC v. FOX – Biggest TV Indecency Case in 40 years before U.S. Supreme Court Now". What does Bono dropping an F-bomb have to do with illegal pornography? Sure, both under the umbrella of decency, but far ends of the spectrum and the site isn't "WarOnEverythingRude", is it? Another post "Man watched violent, pseudo-child pornography on Delta flight – NO ONE CARED" Whoa, that headline grabbed my attention. It was such a shocking claim that I watched Dawn's seven and a half minute YouTube video about the event.

It's ...informative.



And yet in the end, I'm still unclear what the pledge means in actual prosecutions. Whether Santorum's your candidate or not, what kind of pornographic content do you take him to mean? What would you like to see banned?

And no, I don't think this is a big issue in the election, in fact let's leave the election out of it, but since there's nothing on TV on a Saturday night (make that Sunday morning, Australian GP came on before I finished writing :biggrin1: ) this seemed interesting enough to analyze.

The biggest problem with Santorum and Gingrich is that they're trying to out-conservative each other, which in turns alienates the majority of independents and a large voting block. I want the Republican Party to win and unfortunately for some of you folks, Santorum is NOT the one to beat Obama. Remember what they said about Reagan: he wasn't conservative enough.

Frankly I don't think there's one great candidate so I'll take Romney to win it all. But if Santorum takes the primary and loses in the general election, well then...Americans deserve the government that they elect. Maybe four more years of this president is what's needed before everyone is taxed to oblivion and average Joes will be robbing 7-11s and stealing gas.

Back to the OP: Don't. Fuck. With. My. Porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Napalm

I like Santorum
Try as they may, the media keeps rooting for Romney.

---

although that's the narrative that the right keeps pushing, that's not really what's happening in the media at all. Every story in the last 3 weeks is how Santorum has all the momentum in the world and ignores the fact that it's nearly a mathematical certainty that Romney locks up the nomination. If media coverage of the GOP stuff is unfair at all, it's unfair to Romney by constantly replaying over and over again the goofy rich guy stuff he says ("I don't follow nascar, but some of my friends are team owners") while not really paying much attention to the completely batshit crazy stuff Santorum has thrown out there (in Holland they are constantly euthanizing old people who wear the wrong bracelet or something to that effect). I know the super far right has a massive persecution complex about not getting a fair shake by the liberal elite media, but Santorum should be somewhat thankful that the lopsided media coverage is adding momentum to campaign that literally has zero chance of winning the nomination.

Sorry for that break from fantasyland, conservatives. Continue talking about how awesome Rick Santorum is for wanting to stamp out porn while at the same time bitching and moaning about the Nanny State federal government that is too big :yo:

Quote:

---

"I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

---

I'd call that pretty clear. He is directly referring to "illegal" pornography. Sounds to me that its all about the rule of law, and that definition is fine by me. In fact, I still believe in the rule of law. I like it clearly defined, but what's more, I like it strictly enforced. I consider it a guiding principle to a well-ordered and civilized society. When it comes to pornography, I think that it is reprehensible that it is so difficult to keep "Mary had a little lamb" in a google search from turning up images of Mary the meth head sucking on a wooly penis.

Yet there are a number of federal laws that seem to go completely ignored as if by civil disobedience. For those of us who have devoted our very lives to the enforcement of law, it would seem to me quite an affront for people to brazenly ignore the law especially without response by those elected and appointed to prosecute such offenses. I wonder if we can name another set of laws being rampantly ignored by... ? Oh, yes. How about the federal government, (currently under socialist rule), which would rather waste millions of dollars trying to throw a County Sheriff under the jail for enforcing valid laws that it refuses itself to enforce?

I refer of course, to the same federal government which, due to the political advantage of lax enforcement and pandering null prosecution, continuously allows its very own citizenry to be systemically burdened and fall victim to rampant violent crime, frequently at the hands of a 'ghost' presence of persons unidentifiable, undocumented, unregistered, and who have done absolutely nothing to qualify for citizenship in this nation. Those people are defying this nation's laws daily, and we have a government that is supporting it. It is not a conservative or liberal issue. It is a law and order issue. It is a public safety issue.

Don't agree with the law? There is a process to change it. Pursuing that process is a citizen's God-given right, guaranteed under the foundational document of our government. However, to simply ignore the law is counterproductive to order and good government. It is widespread defiance; a precursor to anarchy. If you, as a law enforcement officer cannot recognize the products of rampant defiance of law, then perhaps you should take another high school level history class.

Quote:

---

Sorry for that break from fantasyland, conservatives. Continue talking about how awesome Rick Santorum is for wanting to stamp out porn while at the same time bitching and moaning about the Nanny State federal government that is too big.

---

Bob... that's actually beneath even you. That is probably the most sophomoric, elitist, arrogant, ignorant, and flippant comment I have ever heard from you.

The reports by media projecting Romney's electorate votes are projections which, in and of themselves, are exactly what was referred to by the media being Romney-slanted. No electoral votes have been cast as of yet, and in fact, the GOP primaries are close and hotly contested. There, that's the factual report. All else is speculation. The media's primary function is to report facts as they exist. Projection and speculation are editorial, but then again, the media intentionally fails in its duty to qualify it as such, and in so doing, brazenly attempts to dupe the public. In that, they are mirror images of the socialists.

Now then. Let's go back to political spin 101. As much as you socioliberals like to throw the defecate of your own party at the faces of your opponents, it is not the act of enforcing the laws already on the books that makes America a nanny-state, it is the creation of new life-invasive laws, new healthcare bureaucracies, new Czars, new forms of entitlements, etc. It seems to me that you Socialists have cornered the market on that.

Bump for Bob.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...omeatmeese.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countybear

I'd call that pretty clear. He is directly referring to "illegal" pornography. Sounds to me that its all about the rule of law, and that definition is fine by me. In fact, I still believe in the rule of law. I like it clearly defined, but what's more, I like it strictly enforced. I consider it a guiding principle to a well-ordered and civilized society. When it comes to pornography, I think that it is reprehensible that it is so difficult to keep "Mary had a little lamb" in a google search from turning up images of Mary the meth head sucking on a wooly penis.

---

Since the rest of the post was about other things I'll stick to this section. Did an experiment. Googled "Mary had a little lamb", hit 'more results' and scrolled through the list until they wouldn't show any more. On page 24 there is a naked young woman holding a lamb, though no nipple or even sideboob is shown. There was a naked statue in the list. I tried searching for "Mary" and got one exposed breast shot after 'load more results'. Last tried "tits" as the search term and by the very end had 12 pictures of exposed breasts, a third of them male and hairy.

All I did was a straight up factory stock Google search. Not logged in, default Safe Search of Moderate.

Change to Safe Search to Off and there's a graphic drawing as the very last result for "Mary had a little lamb". (reported it as an Offensive Image) "Mary" showed more and "tits" resulted in boobs a plenty now. I had to do something to get those though - admittedly easier than flipping through a whole box of National Geographic, but the market's the same. Boys who want to look at boobs will find them. By default they'll be as dissatisfied as I was with the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I get your point that porn is a mouse click away - and not so many years ago Google served it up everywhere making "Safe Search" a joke. Market reacted. I ask which is more responsive, Google or Federal legislation? Which is the better remedy to pursue?

Lot of interesting reading over at MoralityInMedia.org that I meant to get to, but already running long again. (they did damn fine work with the Romanians, and I give them credit for bringing up violence too) That's the core group (since 1962) that sponsors the WarOnIllegalPornography.com, and the recently defunct (maybe coming back) ObscenityCrimes.org, still operational PornHarms.com. Once again though I was shocked, but not awed, when I clicked the "Magazine Smut" and found instead of Hustler they were targeting Sports Illustrated and Cosmo. Can't start and end with "smut" unless you want to ban everything objectionable by your personal standard. It's little wonder their history has been been mostly a highlighted by Congressional Proclamations and the V-chip. Anyone here recall how you celebrated the 'Protection From Pornography Week' the President declared back in October of 2003? Have these efforts proven to be an effective remedy?

Inappropriate≠<Indecent≠<Porno graphic≠<Hardcore Porno graphic≠<Obscene <-clearly defined.
I put more trust in market influenced engineers than politicians and their lobbyists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countybear

Bob... that's actually beneath even you. That is probably the most sophomoric, elitist, arrogant, ignorant, and flippant comment I have ever heard from you.

---

well, I DID go to college, which makes me a snob according to Santorum....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

well, I DID go to college, which makes me a snob according to Santorum....

---

Yeah, yeah... and I'm still just a cop who acts stupidly when I do my job well, clinging to guns and religion...

Quote:

---

I get your point that porn is a mouse click away - and not so many years ago Google served it up everywhere making "Safe Search" a joke. Market reacted. I ask which is more responsive, Google or Federal legislation? Which is the better remedy to pursue?

---

I'm all about letting the free market dictate its own compromises as well, as long as that market is one of legal trade. When it is a market of contraband, let's say for human sex trafficking, then enforcement of existing law certainly should prevail.

Quote:

---

Lot of interesting reading over at MoralityInMedia.org that I meant to get to, but already running long again. (they did damn fine work with the Romanians, and I give them credit for bringing up violence too) That's the core group (since 1962) that sponsors the WarOnIllegalPornography.com, and the recently defunct (maybe coming back) ObscenityCrimes.org, still operational PornHarms.com. Once again though I was shocked, but not awed, when I clicked the "Magazine Smut" and found instead of Hustler they were targeting Sports Illustrated and Cosmo. Can't start and end with "smut" unless you want to ban everything objectionable by your personal standard. It's little wonder their history has been been mostly a highlighted by Congressional Proclamations and the V-chip. Anyone here recall how you celebrated the 'Protection From Pornography Week' the President declared back in October of 2003? Have these efforts proven to be an effective remedy?

---

Morality in media is a free market entity. I am not discussing their standards, I am discussing the rule of existing law, and its aggressive enforcement. Apples and oranges. I would think the Nanny State argument would actually be better applied to that technology than to the enforcement of existing law, but seemingly the only ones who took issue with it was the American Civil Liberties Union. I suppose they are also the only ones who are using it too...

Quote:

---

In 1994 the technology was presented at a Violence on TV conference in France and later again at a conference in Belgium. This is where Al Gore first became familiarized with the concept of the V-Chip and the exposure helped him to advise Bill Clinton which led to the decision to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[8] Once the V-Chip gained the ability to block multiple shows at the same time interest in the technology expanded significantly. In January 1998 exclusive rights to the V-Chip were sold to Tri-Vision Electronics Inc...

One of the driving forces of the development of the V-chip was the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by President Bill Clinton. The television industry was given the opportunity to establish ratings for its programming. The act also ordered that half of all television sets at least 13 in. after July 1, 1999 had to have the V-chip installed and that all television sets at least 13 in. sets after January 1, 2000 had to have it installed. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission supported the act and worked to enforce it.

According to a 2003 study, parents' low level of V-chip use is explained in part by their unawareness of the device and the "multi-step and often confusing process" necessary to use it. Only 27% of all parents in the study group could figure out how to program the V-chip, and many parents "who might otherwise have used the V-Chip were frustrated by an inability to get it to work properly."
The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a telephone survey in 2004 of 1,001 parents of children ages 2–17. The results of that survey showed:

• 15% of all parents had used the V-chip
• 26% of all parents had not bought a new television set since January 2000, when the V-chip was first required in all televisions
• 39% of all parents had bought a new television set since January 2000, but did not think it even included a V-chip
• 20% of all parents knew they had a V-chip, but had not used it.[13]

A March 2007 Zogby poll indicated, among other things, that 88% of respondents did not use a V-chip or cable box parental controls in the previous week, leading the Parents Television Council to call the television industry's V-chip education campaign a failure.[14] However this poll did not measure whether parents were aware of the V-chip and chose not to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip

---

I guess new legislation and mandates tend not to work... especially when they require people to adapt to new technology, especially when its not well explained... but hey, it helps get some politicians elected.

Quote:

---

The addition of the V-chip into the Telecommunications Act was helpful to attract American voters for the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.

---

It can arguably said that Santorum's words are political banter, much as the V-chip was Clinton/Gore's knee jerk response to Columbine and helped propel them into the spotlight as "champions of anti-violence" in the eyes of the American people. My point is, I'd rather have a Presidential candidate who offers to stiffen enforcement of existing law than one who proposes "new and improved" laws to layer over "old and poorly enforced laws" any day. Bob's allusion was to hypocrisy over bigger government. My retort was that the enforcement of existing law wasn't necessarily a call for bigger government, but more a demand that government do the job that it is intended to do, rather than sit as the fat, tax-sucking bureaucracy that it tends to inherently become.