FlipBoard
One of the many great things about living in the United States of America is the freedom to order pay-per-view porn, to watch shameful levels of Internet porn, or relax and unwind on a quiet Sunday night with the ultra-violence of Boardwalk Empire or the gratuitous sex on Game of Thrones. If the Republicans had their way, however, those options would no longer be in play.
According to THR, as part of the new Republican platform, the GOP is seeking to crack down on obscenity laws.
“Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.” Morality in Media CEO Patrick Trueman says this means that prosecutors should be targeting obscene material distributed on the Internet, on hotel TV, on cable and satellite TV and in retail shops.
What exactly constitutes “obscene” material according to the Republicans is an open question, but from the sound of it, Morality in Media — which has gotten assurances from Mitt Romney’s legal director about Romney’s committment to bringing more obsenity prosecutions — wants to extend the FCC’s jurisdiction over cable and satellite transmissions, in addition to broadcast networks.
The good news is, the Republicans won’t get their way. Not because Mitt Romney will necessarily lose the election, but because — regardless of what Mitt Romney and the Republican party want — the Supreme Court won’t allow it. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue, and basically laid down the law: The FCC has no jurisdiction over satellite and cable transmissions.
It does not mean, however, that the Republicans can’t appoint someone to the FCC who will make it tougher on broadcast networks to air “obscene material.” There again, however, the Republicans could be hamstrung by a recent Supreme Court ruling that left open the question of whether the FCC has the power to regular indecency on network television.
What does it all mean? Basically, this: Though little is likely to change because of existing Supreme Court precedent, it doesn’t change the fact that the party advocating a smaller, less intrusive government is the same party that wants to intrude on our television viewing. Regardless of political affiliation, that’s not cool.
(Source: THR)
![[avatar]](https://profilecdn-woven.netdna-ssl.com/photo/4006/profile)
Why we still have the FCC fine structure in place is totally beyond me. Very few of those fines have held up on appeal.
Ron Swanson just shook his head in complete disappointment. S
this is in stark contrast to the GOP’s position on internet freedom.
#1 this is the hollywood reporter, not exactly the most even handed publication
#2 it claims “one republican group”. a bit vague dont you think?
#3 yes there are lots of republican groups that want things to go back to the 1960’s. none of them have any power.
I’m a life long republican and I’ve never heard of this group.
Morality in Media is an old-school religious right group that goes back to the 1960s. It’s been a serious player in the cultural conservative wing of the party.
They got Nixon to start a presidential inquiry on porn in 1970, and then convinced the Reagan administration to have Attorney General Ed Meese hold those massive hearings on porn in the 1980s.
More recently, the Bush Department of Justice granted them a quarter million dollars to investigate obscenity complaints. All their hard work resulted in … let’s see … zero convictions.
Do you recognize your party anymore? I’ve always been a Democrat, but understood the appeal of saying “Hey Government, we’ve got this, stay out of it”. Both parties are completely, to use the most high-brow term I can think of, all up in yo biznazz now. I guess I’m wondering why there aren’t more Libertarians now, because those, while I don’t necessarily agree with, are at least consistent in their ideology.
“I guess I’m wondering why there aren’t more Libertarians now, because those, while I don’t necessarily agree with, are at least consistent in their ideology.”
This x100.
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
From Omar’s link:
Romney signed Morality in Media’s anti-porn pledge along with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, whom he was still battling for the GOP nomination. Since then, he hasn’t mentioned the issue very often.
Romney seemed to say the right words for Trueman in 2007, when he was campaigning for president in Iowa the last time. “We got to clean up the water that our kids are swimming in,” he said in a TV ad. “And by that I mean the pornography, the drug culture, the violence, the sex, the perversion that bombards them day in and day out. So I want to make sure we enforce our obscenity laws.”
Romney has promised that if elected president he would require every new computer be sold with a porn filter.
So, yeah, it seems like Romney’s on board with this.
But as always, that could change at any moment.
[www.youtube.com]
The future is coming…what’s next, the three seashells?
“But as always, that could change at any moment.”
Unlike say Obama’s rock solid stance on gay marriage, the debt limit, tax cuts, public financing, and just about everything else. I’m not a fan of Romney, but Obama failing for 4 years seems like 4 years too long for me. Really, I just wish Gary Johnson stood a chance.
At work, don’t want to Google it, but don’t traditionally red states spend the most on porn?
Top state in terms of online porn site memberships? Utah.
Big Black Dicks, Little Mormon Chicks
HAHAHAH. That is FANTASTIC.
… Wasn’t Belladonna raised Mormon?
Uh, not that I know who that is.
They can have my internet porn when they pry it from my cold, dead hand. Probably my left hand, unless I’m feeling sexually adventurous.
The Republicans are essentially saying, “Don’t look at our fiscal policies or voting records.” It’s like a guy buying a huge truck, a gold tooth, or a large assault rifle – distracting the world from a disappointing penis.
If you won’t want to see it, don’t watch it. We already have warnings before shows that tell you what form of debauchery is going to be depicted, I don’t see why we need to stop showing it in general.
Some of us aren’t complete squares who get the vapors over nudity and simulated sex and violence. You don’t get to make the rules for everyone.
THIS. It’s just more noise from a party that has no job plans, and no plans for the economy besides dumping it deeper into the crapper.
But what if you’re just channel surfing and happen to see a boob? Or, Heaven forbid it, a penis! Can’t be having that.
Just wait…mirrors in bathrooms are next to go.
Because we don’t get enough politics EVERY PLACE ELSE on the web, let’s screw with this fun TV blog. I’ll pass.
You mean the blog that discussed the possible impact this platform could have on TV?
But don’t you see? Republicans (icky) are EVIL and must be stopped!
morality in media has too much of an uphill battle with this. as long as network tv isn’t airing “snuff films LIVE,” i think debauchery will always have a venue on cable and the net. Also, as somebody who *doesn’t* want to see gratuitous sex and violence, I find it REALLY EASY to just not watch. it’s not a difficult thing to do, despite the boobie-boobies.
16 TRILLION in national debt and this is the garbage they run their platform on. I can’t describe how sick and tired I am of the fucking non issues that get debated during election years. On a scale of 1-10 in terms of importance for our federal government to focus its efforts on this is a -60. Stop voting for morons that substitute emotions for actionable policies. They’re only playing you retards lip service so you vote them into their positions of power.
In November I’m voting for Kodos.
/Sorry for the rant. Non stop political ads + all the headaches that the DNC is going to cause in my area has me nearing a meltdown (why yes, I do have two forms of ID to get into MY OWN BUILDING!!). At this point, I don’t care which horrible candidate wins. Just get it over with.
SOMEONE needs to save me…….and I’m definitely a Romney guy.
I really don’t understand why politicians insist on wasting time with crap like this….on both sides, not just the republicans. This country has far more pressing concerns than boobs on tv, abortion, and gay marriage.
Until the economy is fixed and we figure out what the hell to do with Medicare, wasting time with that stuff is like worrying about a scratch on your car’s trunk when there are flames shooting out from under the hood.
Republicans don’t believe in small government, they basically like government to keep people from doing things they don’t like (abortion, tits on TV, gay sex, allegedly), they basically use the “small government” claim so that they can do the things they do like i.e. pay shitty wages, bust unions, and destroy the planet.
Hey, remember when Democrats wanted to take away all our violent video games, heavy metal and rap music? That over generalization seemed to work out pretty well too.
Can’t we just all agree that both parties suck? Yes?
(Though, I mean, if I were to pass judgment, Republicans seem to suck way harder.)
The Republican Party has openly embraced the religious right, and they have problems with tits, premarital sex, abortion, and allegedly they have problems with gay sex. There are parts of the Republican Party that doesn’t give a shit about violence, sex, drugs, etc. That’s the “Ron Paul” wing, for lack of a better term, and they didn’t even let them in the convention. As far as Democrats being pussies? Yes, I agree. As a Democrat it pisses me off there’s some do-gooders that likes to think that they know what’s best for others. Sure, there’s somethings that I’m okay with (e.g. heroin is bad) but I do think there’s some that take it too far. In the defense of my party, I will say that at least Democrats don’t like to label themselves as “small government” but act completely the opposite. They’re open about their more awful platforms.
No, Democrats label themselves “open-minded” and act the complete opposite… but I’d still take that any day over what the Republicans have decided to stand for as of late.
I used to consider myself “Republican” because I AM a small government guy, but neither major party has any interest in that anymore, so I’d rather stick with the guys who aren’t stuck in some mythical Norman Rockwell version of America without gays or sex or abortions.
The only time I see Democrats acting “the opposite” of “open-minded” is when they are debating people with bigoted views. You can’t be open-minded to the views of a person who is not open-minded. “Well, I guess MAYBE black people are terrible. I don’t THINK they are but I respect YOUR RIGHT to think that and attempt to do things to hinder their rights.”
This has very little to do with the FCC – obscenity is not protected by the first amendment and is technically illegal. Obscenity laws are enforced by prosecutors, not the FCC. Consequently, if you distribute obscene material, regardless lf the forum, you can be prosecuted, even if it is via cable.
The issue with obscenity prosecutions is defining what is “obscene” – the Supreme Court has given a standard, but it is understandably vague. It is rarely tested today, generally because we have better things to do, but a Romney administration could make it a heavier focus, which would have unpredictable consequences. that said, likely no court would deem GoT obscene under the current standard.
You can have my porn when you pry it from my cold dead hand… My other hand will be on my penis.
I’m all for porn and totally against censorship and especially the FCC, but your generalization of all Republicans is really stretching it. Chris Johnston and The Evil Twin already said everything that needs to be said on this so I’ll just add, “Politics again?” Yawn…must be a slow news day.
The Supreme Court rulings will be meaningless because it’s expected the next president will likely be appointing 2 replacement judges during his presidency.
Agreed.
This is like when Romney said abortion rights weren’t an issue this election because the Supreme Court handles that stuff, like those next 2-3 nominations won’t put that in the balance.
In the future when going to view online porn when you click on the ‘girl on girl on girl’ video, instead of watching said wonderness, you’ll get Mitt singing ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’, hence Mitt Rolled will be born.
The fact of the matter is that neither party has the high ground on individual liberty. Anyone who claims otherwise is a hack.
Agreed.
The key here is that the two parties define individual liberty in wildly different ways.
The Republicans are for it in economic terms (no government regulations, low taxes, no social safety net) but against it on social issues (government limitations on reproductive rights and gay marriage, restrictions on porn and gambling, etc.)
The Democrats are the reverse, for it on social issues but against the idea in its pure form in economics.
Libertarians are for it all the way, but from where I stand, that gives you a law-free paradise like Somalia.
Otto Man, I love all the supporters of Ron Paul who completely disregard the fact that, unless it is an issue specified in the Constitution explicitly, he doesn’t believe the feds should be involved, meaning he wants to strip almost all of the power of the Feds, and even to some degree the states, leaving pretty much everything up to local governments….the same local (and state) governments that CONTINUALLY try to subvert the Constitution as it is.
If you do that, prepare for state run churches with mandatory and the return of slavery overnight in many southern and midwestern states.
In all seriousness, two things come to mind:
1. For a candidate who wants to focus on rebuilding the US economy, it seems counterproductive to start cracking down on a $14 billion per year industry.
2. Does this mean Jenna Jamison will change her political stance?
This is how I define the differences in the two parties ideals…..Democrats say “We want this. Having this will make our lives better.” Republicans say “We don’t want you to have this. You not having this will make our lives better.”
The only issue where the reverse is true is on guns.
The argument isn’t really about Democrats vs. Republicans, it’s just that the Republicans are the ones currently fighting for it. It’s about anyone who thinks that they’re the only true adults capable of making decisions, so they should be able to say what everyone can see/do. As mentioned above, the Democrats have done this too with music and video games.
No one is saying everyone has to watch everything that’s out there. They’re not even saying you have to be okay with it existing. You’re free to heap scorn upon those who watch this stuff, but you don’t have the right to tell adults that they can’t watch something* just because it violates your morals. If someone’s pursuit of happiness involves seeing a cock on tv, that’s not really your problem.
*And clearly I’m not taking about snuff films, kiddie porn, or bestiality here
I live in a Conservative county and I can’t buy liquor on Sunday because a bunch of buttwads go to church and our local school board keeps getting sued because they INSIST on holding prayer before their meetings….
So yes, the Democrats have tried to keep objectionable material out of the hands of children before (which I think everyone can agree is fine, even on the pornography front)….but Republican policies are FAAAARRR more restrictive, invasive, and counter to freedom.
Even if you want to look at the health care law…..REQUIRING you to DO something is different then PREVENTING you FROM doing something.
Oh….we also had the Sheriff arrest a couple for making pornography and posting it on the internet….in their own house.
Because of, you know….obscenity laws.
How about the Government not do anything and let parents worry about what their own spawn do or don’t get a hold of? This hand holding from the Democrats is exactly why I can’t bring myself to vote for them. I can easily teach my son that it’s wrong to discriminate on race/sexual orientation and that evolution is real, but I can’t however not pay taxes that 50% of the population, not only doesn’t pay, but get refunds for. Keeping it out of the hands of children is a bullshit excuse, and it saddens me to see you use that argument to defend censorship. You can disagree with my politics, but at least consider how poor of an argument hiding behind “access to children” is.
[coweb.cc.gatech.edu]
Honestly, is that not the exact same reasoning the Republicans use to teach “abstinence only” sex ed programs: to protect the children?
Why is it the only thing that evangelicals and feminists agree on is that it should be nearly impossible for me to jerk off?
Hey, if I wanna fuck a goat, I’m sure there are a couple of Senators and House Members who want to get in on it.
Nah.
Not even Bill wants to fuck Hillary.
Obscenity, when used in a legal context and what I’m assuming Romney is referring to when he’s talking about “enforcement,” is material that you can say yes to each of these three things:
(1) Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient [read: sexual] interest,
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The definition is certainly malleable, but I think social conservatives would find themselves grasping at thin air if they actually tried going after anything significant. Enforcing obscenity laws really isn’t going to do anything. A censorship-friendly FCC might though.
Potter Stewart knew it when he saw it, so I say we make him supreme overlord of obscene material. What’s that? Oh…when did that hap…. 1985, you say? Ok, screw it. Make me the overlord. All your porn must go to me.