Previously, I wrote an article describing the prohibitive attitude of soon to be ex-presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. Sen. Santorum has formerly made comments during his bid for the Republican nomination for president, concerning his views against hardcore pornography. He believes in eliminating the commercial sale of hardcore pornography by mainstream vendors. Regardless of the specific definition of hardcore pornography being absent from the political conversation, the impulse of a nationally recognized politician encouraging, not the use of pornography, but the elimination of it, should be a frightening concept to those who believe in the First Amendment.
The issue at hand is not the banning of hardcore pornography. I am not advocating for the porn industry. But, I am advocating for the preservation of every individual’s own right of decision. What most concerned me about Sen. Santorum’s commentary pertaining to the issue of abolishing something protected by the First Amendment and regulated by various levels of government, was the notion that something offensive can be banned. Put simply, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Self-preservation in our society, and on our campus, is apathetic at best. Banning something that is unpopular is popular for the majority of students and population that advocate it. The issue of concealed carry on campus, by students, has always been an issue of contention, where most of those who advocate against do so for personal feelings of insecurity. Although the issue of legal conceal carry is one not prohibited by state law, many students feel that misguided feelings against the issue supersedes state laws. We won’t even let licensed veterans and/or faculty carry on campus.
Self-preservation is universal. It can be applied to many legal and constitutional questions, while the issue of not caring, apathy, not being aware of the danger of personal interests trumping federal and state law, is what is at issue. Since when did the personal interests of the few trump the universal interests of the many? Since when did personal feelings equate to overriding federal law?
Whether the issue is hardcore pornography, abortion, gay rights, gun prohibition, race, or a whole host of hotly debated issues, the line is still there. Where do a person’s own interests cross the line of the constitution? If we relied on people’s personal interests regarding race or gay rights, how far would this country have progressed?
Back to Rick Santorum. His comments, however benevolent or humanely focused, crossed a political line that no politician should cross in order to appeal to the party base in the primaries. This pandering has not worked out well for Rick Santorum and the controversy surrounding Sen. Santorum’s comments has probably boosted the sales of marketable hardcore pornography in the process.
Source
If Michael Weinstein wishes to put the rights of adult performers and producers up to a plebiscite, he’d better stand ready to see gay rights and HIV/AIDS funding also put up to a plebiscite.
Fanatics like Weinstein do more to damage the view of gay culture, and hurt the rights of the LBGT community, than a hundred Jesse Helmses.