Pornographic Politics: Did the Daily Caller ‘Pull a Media Matters’ on Rick Santorum? UPDATE: Romney and Gingrich Both Made January Pledge to Fight Porn

Posted on | March 15, 2012 | 77 Comments

Today I noticed a thread at Memeorandum aggregating commentary on an article by Daily Caller associate editor Steven Nelson:

‘Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch
Internet porn viewers with pants down

I sort of shrugged that off, and then I saw this Tweet by Jedediah Bila:

Didn’t tweet about this today, but if it’s accurate, I find it absolutely insane.”Santorum Promises Broad War on Porn”: http://onforb.es/zjmZvb

That link is to an article at Forbes. Again, I shrugged this off. But then I was checking my e-mail and saw an item from Judson Phillips at Tea Party Nation:

Ritual Santorum suicide
As Rick Santorum tries to coalesce his position as the Anti-Romney candidate, he manages to attempt political suicide. … Gingrich has his faults, but none this dumb. Romney, for all of his faults such as being a liberal, is not that dumb. Does Santorum really want to simply lose?

Phillips’s item linked an article in The Hill on the same subject, and now I was suspicious, so I checked: Yup.

Nelson’s article was headlined at the Drudge Report. And that’s when I decided to read the Daily Caller article:

Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “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.” . . .

Yes, this is what Santorum says in a statement, one of about two dozen issue-oriented statements on the “Where I Stand” page of his campaign’s Web site. The statement is clear: Santorum wants to enforce laws that the Obama Administration has refused to enforce.

Would you like me to be more specific — because I could, y’know — about some of the clearly illegal obscenity now available online? Perhaps Jedediah Bila or Judson Phillips should contact former Attorney General Ed Meese or former Justice Department official Mark Levin and ask them about this subject. Because I’m reasonably sure that a whole lot of things now available online are, in fact, illegal.

Suffice it to say (I’m trying to be circumspect here) that there are some acts in which “consenting adults” may legally engage, but which are not legally protected as “free speech.”

But maybe the circumspect approach is part of the problem.

How can I put this politely? Ah! Let’s try this: What you want to do with that baseball bat in the privacy of your own home is strictly up to you, but the video is illegal obscenity.

Did that help clarify the issue somewhat?

Remember that Rick Santorum has a law degree and spent 16 years in Congress drafting legislation. He knows the law, and he knows the Constitution, and he knows doggone well that the First Amendment wasn’t intended to protect the kind of filth that’s on the Web nowadays.

So, yes, Santorum promised “vigorous” enforcement to shut down operators who are profiting from commerce in illegal obscenity, and you may agree or disagree with that. But this isn’t an issue that Santorum raised during a stump speech yesterday or that is the subject of his newest campaign ad.

THAT STATEMENT HAS BEEN ON SANTORUM’S WEB SITE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, PERHAPS FOR MONTHS.

If you didn’t realize that when you read the Daily Caller article — if you mistakenly believed that Santorum had suddenly decided to raise this subject during his campaign — ask yourself why you didn’t realize it.

Do you feel you have been misled?

Exactly why the Daily Caller saw fit to assign its associate editor to write a 700-word “news” article, soliciting opinions from Eugene Volokh and Jonathan Turley, I don’t know. Why this cheap political “gotcha” hit-job deserved headline treatment at the Drudge Report, I don’t know.

But for intelligent people who call themselves “conservative” to fall for such a dishonest media stunt as this is ridiculous.

As James Carville likes to say, “If you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you know it didn’t crawl up there by itself,” and this particular turtle seems mighty damned suspicious to me.

UPDATE: Thanks to a sharp-eyed commenter who found this Jan. 9 news release from Morality in Media:

Three of the leading GOP 2012 Presidential candidates have made statements committing to enforce existing federal obscenity laws if they are elected, while the current administration still refuses to enforce federal obscenity laws prohibiting distribution of hardcore pornography, according to Morality in Media.
Morality In Media launched efforts in October 2011 to contact the 2012 presidential candidates, including President Obama, to obtain their respective views on the enforcement of obscenity laws. Thousands of individuals sent emails, made calls and even spoke to the candidates in person urging them to respond to the survey. As a result of these efforts, the following candidates responded:

Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement:
“Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

Former Governor Mitt Romney in a 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.”

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting:
When MIM’s Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”

OK, good: That was on JANUARY 9th, which means that the Daily Caller has had more than two months to write the story about how Mitt Romney wants “strict enforcement” of federal obscenity laws.

But they didn’t write that story and send it to Drudge, did they?

You wanna hear some obscenity, Tucker Carlson? Because I’m just about in a mood to cuss a blue streak at your blatant deception.

Category: Crime, Media Bias, Rick Santorum, Sex

Comments

77 Responses to “Pornographic Politics: Did the Daily Caller ‘Pull a Media Matters’ on Rick Santorum? UPDATE: Romney and Gingrich Both Made January Pledge to Fight Porn”

Blackiswhite1
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

Tucker thought that Bill Maher was a little down in the dumps after his militant athiest madrassas were blown to Hell with Santorum’s wins the other night, so he did him a solid.
Adjoran
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Okay, it’s a statement in the “where I stand” section. So what?

Has he repudiated it? Is it unfair to question his policy statements?

Phillips does seem to leave the impression it was something recent – but even he doesn’t say that directly. And you seem concerned not so much with correcting the timeline as with defending the policy itself.

The key word being “defending” – just what the guy playing catch-up in a timed race does NOT have time to do.

Sure, there is lots of stuff on the internet that is technically against existing laws. The facts are that if they came to trial, most of them are going to be found to be legally protected (if they are legal acts between consenting adults). When only “political speech” is protected speech and the government gets to define what speech is “political,” all they have to do to shut you up is define your speech as “non-political” – or “porn,” if you like.

Tell me the feminists wouldn’t climb all over Eric Holder in a second Obama term just to have your site declared “porn.”

With the kind of deficits we are running, promising to waste scarce resources mounting a quixotic decency campaign isn’t going to win many votes – except among the sort of voters Santorum already has.
notsantorumplease
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

so you are saying we shouldn’t believe it because it is true or because it could have been there for a while. You mean like RomneyCare. LMAO
CCR
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

I’m getting the feeling I missed the memo declaring today Conservatives Talking Past Each Other Day.

We’re talking about a very minor part of Santorum’s platform that has been there since day one and should be less than zero surprise to anyone. Yet people are freaking as though stating he’ll enforce EXISTING laws is the kiss of death to his campaign.

Good grief.
jeannebodine
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

Three Top GOP 2012 Candidates Commit to Enforce Nation’s Pornography Laws
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6425818602.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2012 /Christian Newswire/
— Three of the leading GOP 2012 Presidential candidates have made
statements committing to enforce existing federal obscenity laws if they
are elected, while the current administration still refuses to enforce
federal obscenity laws prohibiting distribution of hardcore pornography,
according to Morality in Media.
smitty
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

It wasn’t so much the turtle on the fence post, but the baseball bat, the dwarf, the roller skates, and the photo of Rosie O’Donnell that pushed matters beyond the pale.
Such a shocking tableau.
CCR
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

Excellent job digging that up!
richard mcenroe
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

Yeah, Stacy there’s lot of patently illegal porn on the internet. And the people who put it there get prosecuted all the time, or at least as often as they can be tracked down (I’m thinking pedo, “snuff”, animal cruelty, YMMV). And there’s lots of stuff reasonable people can agree to find just plain disgusting.

But you know, I was researching my contributions to the wholesome and entirely family-friendly Offend a Feminist Week coming up, and I came across a story about a man who got raided by the FBI for taking pictures of Bettie Page in a bikini (both parts). This is an area where the creeps on the mission vigorously redefine mission creep.

The point being, there is stuff I would rather see our overstretched tax dollars being spent to track down: like thieving DC politicians and their associated leeches.

This is like being upset that Sasha Grey read to kids instead of outraged the kids are being graduated unable to read at all.
Ford Prefect
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:41 pm

Oh dear, a candidate who wants to enforce laws passed by Congress. Yes, let’s get our panties all in a wad about this while the country is being blown up through a combination of Marxism in the White House and craven establishment RINOS and libertarians undermining the institutions that made this country great.

Santorum is a Social Conservative and social conservatives also tend to be law and order types. So this position now surprises people?

Sheesh.

True, I suppose there are GOP libertarian/libertines who love their child porn but they won’t be able to stay away from handling their “baseball bats” long enough to vote anyway.

Meanwhile, not only is Santorum making his positions on a wide variety of issues known on his website, he is also reinforcing that he believes the Executive branch is responsible for upholding the law. People like Jedediah Bila and Adjoran may think this old fashioned but many of us find it refreshing.

By the way, the LDS church tells its members to “oppose [porn] production, distribution, and use.” I’m sure if Romney is a man of character, he will do his utmost to not only oppose production and distribution but use the full power of his office to fight the “use” of porn.

Hope that works out for you baseball bat lovers.
alwaysfiredup
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

It’s not on anyone else’s campaign website. They merely responded to a question. Shows how much of a priority he’s placing on it.
Steve in TN
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

What does Santorum have on his website about Fast&Furious/Gunwalker?
Sirkowski
March 15th, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

Nothing surprising from an agent of the Vatican.
Ford Prefect
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

http://www.ricksantorum.com/oped/proudly-clinging-second-amendment

Pull quote:

Lastly, I would pursue sensible, responsible approaches to enforcing our nation’s gun laws, and oppose any “gun walking” operations such as Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious has most certainly brought disgrace to Attorney General Eric Holder and the administration – but more importantly and tragically cost the life of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was murdered by one of these very guns.

But of course, this is just more of that silly “enforcing the law” stuff that everybody hates so much in their presidents…
Ford Prefect
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

The Vatican is against porn?
John Scotus
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

Thanks for posting this. Some people will do anything to sabotage another candidate. Anything.
BradleyBuck
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:17 pm

Good. I hope he does prosecute hardcore porn. We allow too much in the name of “free speech” that our founders never intended. Free speech is about the freedom to express your ideas, not the freedom to satisfy whatever gross fetish you may have.
Paula Bolyard
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

Here’s where the DC reveals that they have an agenda: ““What Santorum would consider obscene is obviously far greater than many Americans,” he said. “Sexual films of consenting adults that are watched by consenting adults are generally presumed to be pornographic but not obscene.”
Santorum’s statement makes it clear he wants to crack down on OBSCENITY, not your run-of-the mill porn that Grandpa Bill is looking at in the bathroom. He’s not proposing any new laws based upon his view of morality, but merely saying he will enforce existing laws. Apparently this is a new concept for some on the left and in the libertine camp. If they don’t like the existing laws, there is a process in place for changing them.
richard mcenroe
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

For the record we do insist the Borgia Popes were outliers…
Victor Morton
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

All right … that description pushed your site into unrelieved obscenity, McCain … “picture of [kids, look away] R-s– O’D-nn-ll”???!?!! … [you can look now, kids] … and from The Official Blog Sidekick.

First, McCain, I’m calling up PayPal and demanding refunds for all my donations to this obscenity-filled site.

Second … under a Santorum Administration, you can forget that Vanuatu post. In fact, as his Crusade Blueprint / platform proves … you can expect some time in the Greybar Hotel.
Eric Marcoullier
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:38 pm

Actually, Google Reno vs ACLU. In a *unaminous* decision, the Supreme Court struck down the obscenity laws in regards to the internet.

This took about two minutes to track down, starting with the question “Wow, is Internet porn really illegal?” and moving through “Federal Obscenity Laws” to specific issues related to the internet.

So either:

1) You and Santorum are both really clueless about federal laws and how to use the internet.

2) You and Santorum are both disingenuous and really do want to ban legal pornography from the Internet.

Let me know which one you think it is.
Ford Prefect
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

Nice false dichotomy there.

How about this.

3.) Santorum said he would enforce existing obscenity laws.

Me thinks you forgot that particular option

:rollseyes:
Brian Garst
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

Obscenity laws are vague and unconstitutional. If you don’t think the big government social con Rick Santorum would abuse those laws to enforce his morality, I got some land to sell you. Just further proof that Santorum does not respect freedom.
robertstacymccain
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:51 pm

My point, of course, is that stories like this don’t “just happen” — as you well know.
Adjoran
March 15th, 2012 @ 11:56 pm

They struck down the Internet Decency Act or whatever it was called; they did not rule the federal laws besides that are unconstitutional – yet. But we are only one justice away from that, probably.
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:05 am

The political problem isn’t that Santorum and the others pledge to “enforce the law.” That’s part of the oath of office.

It’s a problem for Santorum and not for the others because he has said other things about the use of federal power and a significant portion of both the Republican and the general electorates believe he would make it a priority.

He will be on defense on this from both the left and the libertarians (who he’s already done his best to alienate). Look, it isn’t that Republicans can’t win on social issues, it’s that the country is still fairly evenly divided on many such things, and we have a built-in issue the country is united upon: Obama’s mismanagement of the economy. We don’t want to have the country’s attention on more contentious issues any more than we must.

It just reinforces the left’s plan of attack on Santorum: “He wants to be in your bedroom.” Unfair? Sure! Say, maybe mention that to the left, I’m sure they’ll drop the matter right away.
ThePaganTemple
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:17 am

Hey, here’s a thought, why do we have any fucking gun laws to begin with? Answer-Big Government pricks from both parties.
ThePaganTemple
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:20 am

I’m sensing a trend here. If anybody loves liberty and resents big government statism cloaked under the guise of religion, they must be “libertines”.
ThePaganTemple
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:24 am

Its not that he doesn’t respect freedom, he just has the mindset that it absolutely must be protected albeit limited by religious indoctrination. You could actually make somewhat of a case for that in some regards, but like the vast majority of religious folks, he takes it way too far.
ThePaganTemple
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:26 am

He will be on defense on this from both the left and the libertarians (who he’s already done his best to alienate).

His defenders here, of course, will deny that he has tried to alienate libertarians. And then they’ll call them libertines.
Asian_chic
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:34 am

Did you see the picture they have posted on DC? They used a photo that makes him look evil. I’m so angry it ain’t funny! And thank you for posting Stacy. I saw the article this morning and it made me sick to my stomach. Here’s another great read on the subject matter.

http://radioviceonline.com/let-me-point-out-santorum-has-suggested-no-new-laws-concerning-pornography/
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:40 am

Bilderbergers, I presume?
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:51 am

Another interesting feature is the attitude that using Romney statements from 18 years ago is perfectly legit, using Gingrich quotes from three years ago is perfectly legit, but using a Santorum quote published for THIS primary campaign that is – gasp! – a whole seven months old is an outrage and MUST be a dirty trick.

The same people who insist that Santorum’s strong stances on social issues are an advantage seem to get all aflutter when any of them gets questioned. But the closer you get to the nomination, the more you have to expect to be questioned – on everything.

Did we ever find out how he bought and financed his house?
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 12:56 am

Call me a libertine, a tangerine, or a saltine, but when someone tries to hand me a rattlesnake, I ain’t taking it.
Six Meat Buffet » Blog Archive » Santorum Finally Drops Trou And Waves His Raging Social Conservatism In Our Faces
March 16th, 2012 @ 1:13 am

[…] is the only kind of McCain I like but this excited defense of Santorum’s snooping streak doesn’t help anyone: Yes, this is what Santorum says in a statement, one of about two dozen issue-oriented statements on […]
Anamika
March 16th, 2012 @ 1:18 am

This is not just a simple case of “enforcing laws.”

Stacy, you need to understand the basics of the topic before you get all excited and defend your sweetheart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 1:39 am

Exactly – and they were egged on by the agencies of law enforcement which routinely carry firearms, in extra contradiction to the evidence of the effects of “gun control” on crime and on the use of firearms against law enforcement personnel.

It’s a shocking revelation to those who make their living fighting crime that criminals don’t always obey the law. Go figure.
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 1:41 am

Yes, it’s disgusting. Imagine using his own words from his own website! Have they no sense of decency? No honor?
Garym
March 16th, 2012 @ 2:13 am

Whats that smell??
BradleyBuck
March 16th, 2012 @ 2:18 am

What’s disgusting isn’t that they stated his position. He put it on his website so he’s obviously not ashamed of it. The problem is that it doesn’t mention that Mitt Romney, who this is undoubtedly an effort to help, takes the same position, as does Gingrich. In the current Republican field Santorum is in the majority, yet they make him out to be an extremist. Had there been any attempt to be balanced, they would have mentioned that.
Anamika
March 16th, 2012 @ 3:06 am

Dear Gary,

We seem to vomit in the same bowl.
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 4:11 am

Maybe it’s because Romney and Gingrich don’t make people worry about fanatically self-righteous moralists measuring hemlines and setting rules for private behavior?

It’s not like Santorum’s own remarks in the campaign and just prior to it have done anything to assuage those people’s fears, is it?
Adjoran
March 16th, 2012 @ 4:14 am

Get a room!

(I promise not to tell Santorum).
Anamika
March 16th, 2012 @ 4:48 am

Can’t tell you “you too get a room” because Santorum has probably been granted a restraining order that places you at least at dick’s length distance (but your chest hair can still touch his knees).
Thane_Eichenauer
March 16th, 2012 @ 5:22 am

My take on your article is that it isn’t clear if the point of the article is objecting to an alleged conspiracy or objecting to obscenity (or is that illegal obscenity. Your update adds information but further muddies your point with what seems like personal anger at Carlson for writing an article that you think shouldn’t have been written or would have been OK to write if it had been written several months ago.

Expecting other news and blog sites to not comment or reference another news post seems like you are expecting too much.
smbren
March 16th, 2012 @ 6:36 am

Pornographic statements from everyone aside, I have found that the Daily Caller has some real issues in objective and honest journalism. I stopped linking to them months ago. Just an honest observation is all.
SDN
March 16th, 2012 @ 8:19 am

But of course when your candidate says it, it’s OK.

Romney 2012: because blatant hypocrisy shouldn’t be a Democrat monopoly.
Bob Belvedere
March 16th, 2012 @ 8:50 am

Well put.
Bob Belvedere
March 16th, 2012 @ 8:55 am

Guess the Time Machine is working again!

How are things in 1850?
Bob Belvedere
March 16th, 2012 @ 8:56 am

The problem with the article is the emphasis on just Mr. Santorum.
Bob Belvedere
March 16th, 2012 @ 9:04 am

I won’t deny it. In fact, I’ll probably agree with him when it comes to those Libertarians who are ideologues.