Next Up: The War on . . . Porn?

Just when you thought the Pander-Rama that is the GOP primary season couldn’t get any more ridiculous, three of the four Horsemen of the Idiocalypse have declared an unofficial War on Porn. Or have they?

Morality in Media (MIM) has been leading the unpopular and generally-mocked War on Porn for some time, through pornharms.org and waronillegalpornography.com. Recently, they contacted the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, asking each candidate if they would enforce existing laws against obscenity. They’ve provided each candidate’s response HERE.

Some sources have presented these responses as an all-out “War on Porn”:

The top three Republican presidential candidates pledged a war on porn today which means that they have promised more action to ban porn than to create jobs.

The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn.

Frankly, I find it no surprise to hear such news about Santorum and Gingrich, who have spent their entire campaigns pandering to sex-obsessed right-wing nutjobs . . . I mean, “social conservatives”. But what about Moderate Mitt?

I had to investigate.

While the question to candidates was not spelled out on MIM’s site, it is apparent from the replies that the question to the respondents was not, “will you ban pornography”. It was, “will you enforce existing obscenity laws”.

Santorum responded to MIM with a written statement:

“Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so. Limited Justice Department resources should be used to protect children and women from predators, not limited by state boundaries rather than to sue border states.”

Gingrich replied in person:

“Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”

And Romney? Another 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.”

Interestingly, only Mitt is in favor of a step back from the “Nanny State” and encouraging parents to take some responsibility in the raising of their children.

Some background from MIM’s website:

Under both the Reagan and Bush I Administrations, vigorous prosecutions of the nation’s top pornographers not only led to a dramatic decrease of pornography, but also a significant change in the nature of pornography. The porn industry stopped producing violent-themed pornography such as rape films, as well as themes involving children. In recent years, however, all prosecution of the existing obscenity laws has stopped, essentially giving pornographers a free pass to produce as much of the hardest types of pornography possible. As a result of not enforcing the law, hardcore pornography has now become the majority of available porn and individuals are suffering from a plethora of harms.

…

Pornography is linked to increased demand of sexual trafficking and its role as a gateway to child pornography is a major reason why child pornographers are increasing at unprecedented levels, according to new studies.

There is good news though! Already existing federal laws, upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, prohibit distribution of hard-core obscene pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops, through the mail, and by common carrier. The law is on our side. We simply need a President who is willing to demand that it be enforced.

Does enforcing existing laws which have been ignored since Bush I (Daddy Bush) — that is, ignored during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and the 8 years of the Bush II administration, before being ignored by the 3 years (so far) of the Obama administration — and which target violent pornography and child-themed (but not child pornography) porn amount to a “ban of porn”?

No.

Is it counter to American ideals of free expression and liberty?

Yes. That’s probably why the Fourth Horseman of the Idiocalypse, Ron Paul, hasn’t signed on.

People who are directly causing harm — for example, child pornographers — should be vigorously prosecuted. People engaged in trafficking of children in the sex trades should, as well. But Americans don’t need the Federal government opening our mail to see if that DVD included a spanking scene, do we?

Related articles:

1. Barton Lies Again, Says Obama Dropped The Ball On Child Pornography
2. Pakistan: The Worldwide Leader in… Porn?
3. Oklahoma: Gays, Porn, Abortion Caused Recession
4. Gingrich Tells CBN He Will Fight the 'War Against Religion'
5. Focus On The Family Warns Of The Dangers Of "Emo-Porn"