Politic: 2012 Edition
If you were not planning not to vote at the 2012 election you NEED to reconsider. Because the fate of porn rest in your hands.
Republican Presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, may hold
the most unpopular stance in American history: he wants to ban as much porn as
he can. A 2007 video of Romney promising to place porn filters on every
new computer have resurfaced after his legal adviser “assured” President Reagan’s anti-porn legal
crusader that Romney sticks by his pledge to curtail porn and resumes
prosecution under latent federal obscenity laws.
“Computer pornography has
given new meaning to the words ‘home invasion,’” Romney said at a 2007 Values Voter summit, “If I am
President, I will work to make sure that every computer sold into the home has
an easy to engage pornography filter so that every parent can protect their
child from unwanted filth.” Federal obscenity laws used to prosecute porn
moguls, such as Hustler’s Larry Flynt,
have largely been limited to child
pornography since
the rise of the Internet, but there’s an open debate as to whether they could
be reactivated.
According to The
Daily Caller, Romney’s foreign and legal policy
director, Alex Wong, personally assured former Justice Department porn
prosecutors Patrick Truman and Bob Flores, that a Presidential Romney would go
after porn peddlers with a pitchfork. “Wong assured us that Romney is very
concerned with this, and that if he’s elected these laws will be enforced,”
Trueman told The
Daily Caller. ”They promised to vigorously enforce federal adult
obscenity laws.”
Prosecutions fell out of
fashion with the Clinton administration (thanks the Gods for Clinton), whose Attorney General, Janet Reno,
didn’t feel the need to make it a priority. The momentum carried over to the
Bush administration. “My understanding was that after 9/11 hit, [Attorney General
John Ashcroft] was advised that he’d look frivolous if he did pornography
cases,” Trueman said.
The hasn’t stopped die-hard
moral crusaders from keeping the promise of obscenity prosecutions on a legal
respirator for a time when they can be resuscitated. Utah Senator and libertarian arch-nemesis,
Orrin Hatch, recently wrote a strongly worded letter urging current Attorney General Eric Holder to
resume the porn purge. Even the Utah Attorney General’s website is
keeping hope alive, stating:
“Many people believe material must be legal if it is
available in their community such as at a store, on television or on the radio.
This belief is false. The mere fact that the material is available does not
mean it is legal, but law enforcement cannot seize suspected pornographic
material without a court order… Citizen complaints are crucial for prosecutions
to occur.”
Legally speaking, porn isn’t
protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court gave porn prosecutors a
present in Miller
v. California (1973),
declaring that “patently offensive” material that appeals to prurient interests
must confirm to contemporary “community standards.”
The ability of a particularly
squeamish community to ban porn was once confined to certain geographical
locations, but, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation warns, the
Internet reaches all communities, and at least one previous court held this to
mean that content should conform to the community “most likely to be offended
by the message.”
“I think they would probably
prosecute”, Flynt said, of Romney’s potential attorney general, but he isn’t
worried, “they have nothing to do with the success of the prosecution.”
Cracking down on morally
objectionable material might be an unpopular move, but past Attorneys General,
such as Alberto Gonzales, have been known to stretch the legal limits of the law to ram through the interests of the
current president.
Comments
Post a Comment