Quantcast

Could Mitt Romney Really Ban Porn?

mrosen814 2012/07/24 21:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In 2007, Mitt Romney said he wanted to ban as much porn as possible. “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.”

A 2007 video of Romney promising to place porn filters on every new computer can be viewed below. Do you think Mitt Romney can ban porn? Or at least make it a lot more harder to watch than it is now?


Read More: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-real...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • NPC 2012/07/24 21:02:11
    No
    NPC
    +20
    is this another issue that the Liberals are interested in now ? Will Barack debate this one on TV ?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • P. Sturm 2012/09/15 00:34:32
    No
    P. Sturm
    I'm afraid campaign ads will always be with us.
  • True~Male 2012/08/24 00:46:53
    No
    True~Male
    +1
    There are many people who enjoy porn --I'm one -- Many conservatives enjoy their PORN -- Watching porn is no big deal these days. If it makes you feel good watch it . I have no regrets or feel I lack morals just because I like Porn . It is what it is !! Good Clean fun !!
  • InoYamanaka 2012/08/06 19:42:17
    Yes
    InoYamanaka
    +1
    He could put a ban on it, but it'd be really difficult to enforce. Considering that most porn is on the internet.
  • houseofkriscarpenter 2012/08/05 18:29:38
    No
    houseofkriscarpenter
    +2
    I believe watching or doing porn is our rights and decision and no one else's . If you don't like it don't watch it. It's that simple! Your not the one on camera doing it. so why get yourself so fired up?? And if y'all are going to worry about ur kids looking up porn online. Then don't get them a damn computer, and let them pay for one on there own after 18. I'm sure theres plenty of things to keep them bissy in the mean time. You guys are just so hook on religion that you can handle others people sins. Y'all can just SUCK MY A**!!!
  • Cat 2012/08/03 03:11:33
    No
    Cat
    Especially internet porn because children are generally more IT savvy than their parents and will easily override the safeguards if they have a mind to do so.
  • james.s.taylor1976 2012/07/31 10:46:35
    Yes
    james.s.taylor1976
    yes and he should !
  • ¤Creepy... james.s... 2012/09/14 18:22:08
    ¤Creepy Lumberjack¤ >-QC-<
    Those who say that are usually the biggest masturbators ever but are ashamed of it.
  • marty 2012/07/31 06:36:59
    No
    marty
    While this might get the HTTs all ecstatic, it would just piss the rest of us normal people off.
  • lyle 2012/07/30 22:38:47
    No
    lyle
    just wanna see him ban the bum
  • strange_armour 2012/07/30 18:17:24
    No
    strange_armour
    +2
    He can try, and we can just make our own porn, like I'm already doing :)
  • docdj strange... 2012/07/30 22:17:49
    docdj
    You Nasty!

    ;-)
  • splmcken57 2012/07/30 17:59:53
    No
    splmcken57
    No he couldn't - besides he won't be the next president anyway
  • Cat splmcken57 2012/08/03 03:14:47
    Cat
    If he is reelected he still won't be the "next" president. He will still be the "current" president, duh.
  • Groundskeeper Willy 2012/07/30 17:29:23
  • docdj Grounds... 2012/07/30 22:27:31
    docdj
    Actually not true in this case. A 'freedom of expression' is considered to be a 1st amendment issue or 'freedom of speech'. It can be enforced locally and it is, because
    laws differ state to state regarding 'porn'. Here's a little info for you to chew on:In the summer of 1973, the Court decided a group of pornography/obscenity cases that set the standards for the future of pornography. In his Dissent in one of these cases, Justice Brennan wearily admitted:

    "Our experience since Roth requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth: that there exists a definable class of sexually oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Governments. Assuming that such a class of expression does in fact exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of 'obscenity' cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms."[3]
    Unfortunately, this realization came too late and without support from the majority of the Court.

    Thu...
























    Actually not true in this case. A 'freedom of expression' is considered to be a 1st amendment issue or 'freedom of speech'. It can be enforced locally and it is, because
    laws differ state to state regarding 'porn'. Here's a little info for you to chew on:In the summer of 1973, the Court decided a group of pornography/obscenity cases that set the standards for the future of pornography. In his Dissent in one of these cases, Justice Brennan wearily admitted:

    "Our experience since Roth requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth: that there exists a definable class of sexually oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Governments. Assuming that such a class of expression does in fact exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of 'obscenity' cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms."[3]
    Unfortunately, this realization came too late and without support from the majority of the Court.

    Thus, in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

    "(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

    (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

    (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
    This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national. This change swung the pendulum back toward a more conservative definition of "obscenity" by local, some times rural communities.

    As many had complained that these rulings were so vague that they were impossible to comply by those trying to obey the law, the Court set forth examples of what was "hard core", or that which the Court considered obscene and illegal. The Court's list of illegal acts was as follows:

    "(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

    (b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals."[4]
    Clarifications and Today's Definition

    Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:

    Jurors are to apply the standards of the area "from which he comes for making the required " decision as the "community standards" for obscenity; [5]

    "[A]ppeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust [6] and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group; [7]

    "[A]verage person " includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children; [8]

    Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.[9]
    Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – "indecent" materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show "nonconformance with accepted standards of morality."[10] After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.
    (more)
  • Common Sense Conservative 2012/07/30 17:18:09
    No
    Common Sense Conservative
    +1
    Where does he ever say he wants to ban porn?
  • Mr. Won... Common ... 2012/07/31 15:20:46 (edited)
    Mr. Wonderful
    Romney is just pandering to right wing idiots and right wingers being idiots they lap it up.

    The FACTS are no president has the power to ban anything. So its all empty talk. Besides Romney is just babbling out loud about something that is already available if anyone wants to "block" or filter porn there are many software packages, some free that more or less do that. So as usual it is just more hot air and noise to excite the simple minded right wing wackos that are always too stupid to get anything right.
  • Common ... Mr. Won... 2012/07/31 16:43:44
    Common Sense Conservative
    Looks like he's excited you.

    Brilliant!!!
  • Mr. Won... Common ... 2012/07/31 23:26:36
    Mr. Wonderful
    Romney is as exciting as a bowl of cold oatmeal. He's too bland. He should start wearing a funny hat or something. Maybe dye his hair red-orange and let it grow out like the Aurora shooter.
  • Common ... Mr. Won... 2012/08/01 20:46:00
    Common Sense Conservative
    Looks like you're getting more excited about Romney.
  • Cat Mr. Won... 2012/08/03 03:29:06
    Cat
    Keeping in mind that the president represents America to the rest of the world, would you rather have a bland, stodgy business man or an exciting guy with a funny hat and long orange hair as your president?
  • Cat Mr. Won... 2012/08/03 03:24:17
    Cat
    "The FACTS are no president has the power to ban anything."
    (Where are the rest of the "FACTS" in this statement?)

    If what you say is true, does the president have the power to ban the arrest and deportation of illegal aliens for no other reason than that they are here illegally?
  • Mr. Won... Cat 2012/08/03 03:38:17
    Mr. Wonderful
    +1
    Read the Constitution. I never understand why some people think any president can do whatever he wants.
  • Horace 2012/07/30 17:02:38
    No
    Horace
    If he had really wanted to do it he wouldn't have said so ahead of time, he just would have done it once he got into office. Besides the president has very few powers, he is bound extremely by the senate and the House, both of which would have to approve of something like this. Its a shame though, pornography really is morally repugnant.
  • Playerazzi 2012/07/30 13:32:42 (edited)
    Yes
    Playerazzi
    Actually, I do think he can provide a filter for every computer in the home.

    After all, we have a filter on movies in the guise of movie ratings (X, R, PG, G, etc.), and limiting who can enter porn establishments, so I see no problem providing this voluntary filter for each computer.

    In our home, our internet provider gives us a certain amount of content filtering, from the minimal (porn, violence) to more and more restrictive levels (up to FB, R-rated movies, and even more). The level depends on us. IMO, it would be a good thing if such voluntary filters are available on every computer.

    I'm liking this guy more and more.
  • Howling Hank 2012/07/30 11:32:33
    No
    Howling Hank
    Let's hope not....
  • Mongo 2012/07/30 06:01:24
    No
    Mongo
    First amendment need I saymore.
  • Mr. Won... Mongo 2012/07/31 15:27:28
    Mr. Wonderful
    +1
    Nope, that says it all.
  • warrior goddess 2012/07/30 05:45:23
    No
    warrior goddess
    Because nature always finds a way...
  • Gangstersteve1993 2012/07/30 02:58:01
    No
    Gangstersteve1993
    They haven't got the balls to do it. ( no pun intended) Looks like the world wants to bang porn crazy sods must be stupid.
  • Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/30 02:57:43
    No
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    I have no issue with "filters" to keep kids from watching porn. As long as it is the parents who are making the choice to turn it on. That's not banning anything.
  • Playerazzi Steve ☮... 2012/07/30 13:33:33
    Playerazzi
    That's exactly what he's talking about, it seems.
  • Cat Steve ☮... 2012/08/03 03:35:59
    Cat
    Should kids be exposed to see soft porn?
    MichelleHo
  • Steve ☮... Cat 2012/08/07 00:49:20
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    LOL! What a shrew. It makes me sick that she and her litter get to live like royalty at our expense.
  • taylordoesntdeserve 2012/07/30 01:48:59
    No
    taylordoesntdeserve
    I sure hope as hell he won't. In some cases, porn can be healthy for relationships because it ignites "passion" in couples easier. Sometimes, doctors recommend watching porn together if a couple is having troubles.
  • 2468 2012/07/29 22:52:50
    No
    2468
    +1
    Seems hypocritical when he is making money off of porn sold in hotel rooms.
  • Storm 2012/07/29 16:58:03
    No
    Storm
    +1
    No way
  • ray 2012/07/29 16:52:25
    No
    ray
    its a good idea to put a filter to block porn from children watching it on the computer, i was on mp3 rocket and i was uploading some skateboard videos of mullins doing tricks for my 2 youngsters after it was done loading i watched it and it was 3 black guys plugging up a white girl and they werent using skatboards, mullins wasnt on there skateboarding it was hardcore porn and my kids dont need to see that. i believe if you dont like porn dont watch it. i dont watch it but i know people that do like it and if they want to watch it more power to them
  • Manuel 2012/07/29 16:43:42
    No
    Manuel
    +2
    LOL....HE CAN'T EVEN STOP SENDING JOBS OVER SEAS....MAYBE HE SHOULD SEND PORN OVERSEAS AND GET THE JOBS BACK HE BEEN SENDING THERE FOR DECADES...LMAO
  • Charles Braley 2012/07/29 16:08:53
    No
    Charles Braley
    +5
    Can we say; Larry Flint v. U.S. Gov't???
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/24 15:26:49

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals