# GOP Platform Officially Endorses Banning All Porn **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313 "2013-09-08T05:26:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/61 "2013-09-09T13:37:16Z")
I wonder what Mr. Trueman’s definition of “hardcore” pornography is. “Too kinky for me”, I expect. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/62 "2013-09-09T13:48:17Z")
It’s perfectly acceptable for a married couple to use photos or videos for their own enjoyment. So hopefully, vanilla sex will at least still be legal in pornographic form. Oral stimulation of the male is also acceptable, but only if he ejaculates into a vagina and not on someone’s face or breasts. So, who gets to be on the Porn Review Committee? It’s a dirty job- how do I get chosen to do it? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/63 "2013-09-09T13:51:31Z")
This is a debate that’s always going to be asymmetrical. There’s never going to be a pro porn lobby. More people will support broader principles of free speech and freedom to make choices as an adult that may include viewing/reading content that others might find offensive. No politician is going to say “I love me some porn.” So, it comes down more to how strident and consistent people are in vocalizing anti-porn attitudes. Both parties have elements of this. However, there is one party for which the “family values/decency” schtick is much more their thing. I don’t really think that is disputable. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/64 "2013-09-09T13:51:38Z")
Joint the Parents’ Television Council and lead a coup against Brent Bozell? I’m still waiting to see exactly where the GOP platform now includes banning porn as a plank. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/65 "2013-09-09T13:55:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Joint the Parents’ Television Council and lead a coup against Brent Bozell? > > I’m still waiting to see exactly where the GOP platform now includes banning porn as a plank. I’m not currently in a position to search for “pornography” on Google. Did the word “pornography” appear in the official Democratic Party platform of the same time period? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/66 "2013-09-09T14:13:26Z")
It [doesn’t mention](http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform) pornography (child or otherwise) or obscenity, and only mentions “family values” in a dismissive sense. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/67 "2013-09-09T14:22:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It [doesn’t mention](http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform) pornography (child or otherwise) or obscenity, and only mentions “family values” in a dismissive sense. Therefore, if you accept the standards of the OP, it is definitive proof that the Democratic Party endorses child pornography. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/68 "2013-09-09T14:25:13Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Based on the quotes [in this article](http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/27/gop-platform-calls-for-crackdown-on-all-forms-of-pornography/), it seems the OP may not be that far off. > > Notice the quotes separate pornography from obscenity yet the desire to eliminate both is stated. > Or equate pornography with obscenity. Yes, I have no doubt that an advocacy group would benefit from sowing that kind of confusion. Perhaps a new thread excoriating Morality in Media’s inability to correctly parse the wording of the plain language in the GOP platform might be in order. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/69 "2013-09-09T14:26:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Censorship is not unique to conservatives. Does anyone remember the PMRC, and Tipper Gore? Of course not UNIQUE. More to the point, I am sure you will find many gender feminists supporting censorship of pornography on grounds that it harms women, although the scientific evidence indicates that it does not. That said, the left in general is less prone to censor than the right, which has that whole big wad of cultural conservatives who feel that censorship of sexual materials is the right thing to do. > [@](#): > > And don’t forget - this was around the time that the Clinton Administration pushed hard for the ‘Clipper Chip’ - an intentional backdoor into the internet that would allow the NSA to spy on everyone. The Clipper Chip idea was pushed heavily by Al Gore, who saw encryption as a ‘law and order issue’. There is also evidence that when the Clipper chip was shot down by 1996, the NSA started its program of subverting other encryption standards and creating back doors into various parts of the internet - under the Clinton Administration. My personal feeling is that the present Democratic leadership has little or no personal interest in defending freedom of speech, unless it’s speech by large corporations and it’s the kind of speech that comes in the form of money. THAT kind of free speech, they love. The Republicans, EVEN MORE SO. I don’t think a censorship drive against sexual materials will ORIGINATE from the Democrats, but the Democrats’s only real interest in fighting a Republican censorship initiative is to drum up support from their base. > [@](#): > > There was a recent letter signed by 42 Senators, urging Eric Holder to crack down on hardcore porn. That letter was signed by 6 Democrats, including Diane Feinstein. There are blue-bloods in every party. There are bluenoses in every party. And note the numbers: 36 Republicans, six Democrats. The vast majority of bluenoses are Republicans. > [@](#): > > The Republican Party is in the middle of a great Schism right now between social conservatives and Libertarians. It looks to me like the Libertarians are winning. Rand Paul is probably the most popular Washington Republican in the country right now. In the meantime, the Democrats have their own potential schism, as the growing importance of the Hispanic and Black communities in the Democratic Caucus is pushing them to the right socially. So this isn’t just a partisan issue - it’s a break between civil libertarians and social conservatives, and that break exists in both parties. I haven’t seen any indicators that the Democrats are moving to the right socially because of pressure from their base. It’s the usual attempt to grab the center by following the Republicans to the right. Unfortunately, the Tea Party has pushed the Republicans to the Batshit Crazy end of the spectrum. All the Democrats have been doing is going as far right as they can get away with, without being accused of being batshit crazy themselves. They’ve done so so enthusiastically that they are in danger of losing their progressive core, if they have not already lost it. Certainly, they have lost my vote. > [@](#): > > As for banning online gambling… If you look up the politicians in favor of a ban, you might notice that many of them come from states with traditional gambling interests that are threatened by online gambling. In other words, this isn’t a morals issue - it’s crony capitalism and protectionism for powerful political interests. And both side engage in it. Agreed. It’s a damn shame Harry Reid is from Nevada. > [@](#): > > You would think that the revelations of what’s going on in the Obama administration with respect to the NSA, Syria, secrecy, the expansion of executive power, Wall Street insiders, and all the rest would put to bed the notion that Republicans are ‘bad’ and Democrats are ‘good’. Both sides suck from the corporate teat and both sides like having power and control. Both sides will be secretive when it suits them and overstep the bounds of the Constitution when it suits them - and both sides will try to convince their partisans that such behavior is only a problem when the opposition engages in it. Agreed, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats here is a matter of degree, not kind, and the sort of rationalizations they use. Still, the Republicans have a history of favoring censorship that accounts for that 36 to 6 numbers gap. > [@](#): > > This is the essence of the libertarian argument: power corrupts. The more powerful you make Washington, the more corrupt it will become. You can’t control the beast by electing the ‘right kind’ of politician. You can’t get rid of corruption no matter how many ‘good government’ policies your guy promises. The root of the corruption lies in the incentives baked into the political system and by the amount of power that can be wielded by politicians. The only way to get rid of it is to limit the power itself. The only way to make government ‘transparent’ is to make it smaller so that oversight is feasible. The only way to stop government from encroaching on civil liberties is to make the Constitution actually matter, even if you don’t like the outcome some times. > > Turning all these issues into attacks on Republicans from the left or on Democrats from the right plays right into the hands of those in power. THEY aren’t partisans - at least not once they’re in power. They’ll take money from anyone who wants to give to them, and trample any principle they once held so long as it helps them achieve their own goals. > > To the powerful in Washington, partisanship is just a useful tool to keep their base in line and to keep them from looking too closely at what their ‘own side’ is doing while they wield the levers of power. Stop playing that game. Here is where we part ways. Both the Democrats and Republicans are owned by Wall Street. When government power decreases, corporate power increases, you know how power hates a vacuum. And corporations are no more interested in the welfare of the ordinary American than are our elected leaders. So your prescription is just a call for increased corporate power, it’s not only not a productive idea, it’s deeply counterproductive. What we need is to pry our government out of the hands of the corporations. We need more and better regulation of the financial sector, preferably by reinstating Glass-Steagall and putting some reins on CDO gambling. Right now, the government is utterly unresponsive to the electorate on economic issues. Things like censorship are just dog and pony shows to keep the electorate roused so that the looting by the One Percent may continue ad infinitum. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/70 "2013-09-09T14:34:26Z")
> [@dzylon](#): > > I recently overcame a porn addiction that began when I was twelve. I don’t believe porn should be banned, but I fervently believe that it shouldn’t be available to children _at all_. Any kid with a computer access can pull up some pretty extreme stuff in seconds, sometimes even accidentally (bravo to Google for taking some rather conservative steps to prevent that kind of thing). The laws in place to “protect children” from porn are utter bullshit. > > Don’t tell me that porn isn’t dangerous. It releases some very powerful and very addictive reward-related hormones that are nigh impossible to ignore. Porn and masturbation also affect people’s personalities in negative ways, in my experience. > > By the way, expecting parents to monitor everything a child does with technology in such a technological age is kind of ridiculous. My parents both worked. It’s not their fault I became addicted to porn, but my own… with some extensive help from the internet. Porn addiction is not dangerous. And porn addiction is probably right on par with Pez dispenser addiction or rubber chicken addiction as a real social problem. I’m sure some people can be described as porn addicts in a realistic sort of way, but they’re very rare. Most “porn addicts” are just men with wives who disapprove of porn. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/71 "2013-09-09T14:39:06Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > How about admitting the title of this thread is blatantly misleading, and utterly wrong? Because whether or not vigorously enforcing existing laws amounts to the same thing as a ban is a minor side issue that has little to do with the content of the thread. A sort of hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/72 "2013-09-09T14:46:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Because whether or not vigorously enforcing existing laws amounts to the same thing as a ban is a minor side issue that has little to do with the content of the thread. A sort of hijack. I hate to give any appearance of acting in response to Bricker’s need for knuckling under, but there is a difference. The explicit ban suggested in your thread title would be eye catching. It is meaningful that the platform does not call for one, and it isn’t fair to characterize it as a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/73 "2013-09-09T14:48:31Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I hate to give any appearance of acting in response to Bricker’s need for knuckling under, but there is a difference. The explicit ban suggested in your thread title would be eye catching. It is meaningful that the platform does not call for one, and it isn’t fair to characterize it as a hijack. Well if the thread title were changed to “GOP Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn” you’d be happy? Because that title works perfect well for me. It really is a minor thing. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/74 "2013-09-09T14:52:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > More to the point, I am sure you will find many gender feminists supporting censorship of pornography on grounds that it harms women, although the scientific evidence indicates that it does not. Not to take a stand here one way or the other, but what scientific evidence is that? There are many ways the popular consumption of pornography might harm women — e.g. there seems to be some correlation between adolescent porn use and harmful attitudes towards sex ( [quoted here] ([Do we know whether pornography harms people? - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22987051))): > [@](#): > > Pornography has been linked to unrealistic attitudes about sex, beliefs that women are sex objects, more frequent thoughts about sex, and children and young people who view pornography tend to hold less progressive gender role attitudes. Can’t really infer a causal link, but it may be suggestive. If you have scientific evidence that pornography is harmless to women (for some suitable definition of “harm”) I’d like to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/75 "2013-09-09T15:17:21Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Not to take a stand here one way or the other, but what scientific evidence is that? There are many ways the popular consumption of pornography might harm women — e.g. there seems to be some correlation between adolescent porn use and harmful attitudes towards sex ( > [quoted here] > ([Do we know whether pornography harms people? - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22987051))): There has been [a convincing study](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html) that where pornography is readily accessible via the Internet, rape decreases. I’d say that’s an enormous real world benefit to women, that far outstrips any nebulous studies of kids imitating adults who beat up blow up dolls. Gender feminists are actually a sort of pro-rape constituency, because they are willing to ignore the evidence that porn decreases rape, in favor of their prejudices. So I’m saying that porn is not just harmless to women, it’s BENEFICIAL. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/76 "2013-09-09T15:21:11Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well if the thread title were changed to “GOP Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn” you’d be happy? Because that title works perfect well for me. It really is a minor thing. How about “Buzzfeed Spreads Lies about the Republicans”? That would be accurate. Or, as I said, we could adopt the same standards as Buzzfeed and use “Democrats Endorse Kiddie Porn”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/77 "2013-09-09T15:29:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How about “Buzzfeed Spreads Lies about the Republicans”? That would be accurate. Or, as I said, we could adopt the same standards as Buzzfeed and use “Democrats Endorse Kiddie Porn”. > > Regards, > Shodan Feel free to start a thread by either name and make your case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/78 "2013-09-09T15:33:41Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I hate to give any appearance of acting in response to Bricker’s need for knuckling under, but there is a difference. The explicit ban suggested in your thread title would be eye catching. It is meaningful that the platform does not call for one, and it isn’t fair to characterize it as a hijack. First – exactly correct, and thank you for pointing it out. Second, why _not_ react to what I’m saying, if it’s valid? The very suggestion that it would be somehow wrong to act in response to critiques simply because they come from me _is precisely the example of differing treatment I highlight._ ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/79 "2013-09-09T15:44:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > First – exactly correct, and thank you for pointing it out. > > Second, why _not_ react to what I’m saying, if it’s valid? The very suggestion that it would be somehow wrong to act in response to critiques simply because they come from me _is precisely the example of differing treatment I highlight._ It is wrong because you will take my post as some kind of confirmation about the unfairness of the larger board culture, which is a nonsensical debate that has more to do with your fixation with accounting, affirming, point scoring and coup counting. ETA: I anticipated that you would react like a climate change denier to snow in winter by saying “See? This proves I’m right! Acknowledge!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313/80 "2013-09-09T15:48:37Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well if the thread title were changed to “GOP Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn” you’d be happy? Because that title works perfect well for me. It really is a minor thing. Because that, too, would be wrong. “Morality in Media Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn,” would at least put you into a position of arguable merit. In fact, carefully parsing MiM’s press statements shows they seek to confuse (or at least fail to illuminate) the legal differences between obscenity and “hard-core” pornography. Since “hard-core” doesn’t really have a solid, legal definition anyway, MiM is able to blur the line between that which is legal and that which is not. Any pornography, “hard-core,” or not, can be illegal if it is obscene. (Not every state criminalizes obscene material, and federal involvement is typically limited to interstate movement of the material.) And [material is obscene if](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/413/15.html): [ul] [li]An “average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest[/li][li]The material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically mentioned by law, and[/li][li]The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[/li][/ul] That’s the legal standard, and therefore that’s what’s meant when the GOP party platform says that the existing law must be enforced. You are welcome to begin arguing that this is an unwise standard; you cannot credibly continue arguing that the GOP platform says something different than this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-platform-officially-endorses-banning-all-porn/668313.md?page=5)