The Editors

Banning Internet porn is essential, but how?

The Editors
The Editors
Image

The recent proposal in the UK by David Cameron’s Government to filter pornography on the Internet sparked an interesting discussion among LifeSiteNews writers and editors.  We all have seen the terrible damage porn has caused to individuals and society and we all realize this social cancer has to be eliminated. But how to do so presents considerable challenges.

First off, the production and distribution of pornography should be made illegal and prosecuted actively as part of an international cooperative effort. It’s hard to take any proposal to restrict porn seriously if there is no effort to curb it on the production end.

But, of course, even if countries worked intensively (as they should) to shut down the porn producers and distributors working within their own borders, it would be almost impossible to stop the flow of X-rated material originating elsewhere via the Internet.

And thus Internet filtering becomes a necessity, and a challenge.

Of course, we can, and must, use freely available porn filters to protect ourselves and our children from this gravely harmful material. But the state also has a legitimate interest in eradicating pornography so that it never even has the chance to reach our computers or our children, in much the same way as it has a legitimate interest in banning dangerous drugs.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern about granting even more power to invasive and corrupt governments to deny even more of our legitimate freedoms. 

The case is well illustrated by David Cameron.

Some experts on both sides of the political spectrum are concerned that Cameron’s proposal to impose porn filters at the ISP level – while unquestionably laudable at face value – may simply be a ruse to get conservatives to agree to a precedent that would grant him a far too great future control over the Internet.

There are good reasons for these concerns.

In the first place, there is precedent for such an abuse of power. We have already seen the alleged authority to “control porn” given to libraries in North America, with the result that porn is still widely available while pro-life, pro-family and faith-based websites have been added to library blacklists.

Secondly, there is David Cameron’s political history. Remember, Cameron campaigned on a platform decrying the liberal attack on the family, and then when he got into office as a ‘conservative,’ immediately pulled out all the stops to push for and pass same-sex ‘marriage,’ despite virulent opposition from within his own party.

In fact, since his election, Cameron has taken no concrete action whatsoever to prove that he legitimately cares about conservative social values or the welfare of the family. On the contrary, he has done everything possible to undermine those values and the traditional family.

Under Cameron’s watch, religious and conscience freedoms have dramatically declined, particularly in relation to anything related to homosexuality. Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down simply for refusing to adopt children to gay couples; Christians have lost their jobs and street preachers have been arrested simply for saying homosexuality is a sin; and gay activists have been given unprecedented say in the policies of the government. It is well known that pornography is a major component of gay culture, with much pornography not only used by active homosexuals, but also produced and promoted by them.

That Cameron should suddenly have rediscovered his passion for social conservatism, particularly that he should have developed so intense a dislike for pornography, while having taken no action whatsoever against pornographers operating within the UK, seems not only inconsistent, but much too convenient.

Cameron’s legislation, which calls for a “blacklist” of banned search terms, is suspicious because the list will not be open to public scrutiny. It will be created by a government-approved “watchdog” group and be kept secret. That is almost a guarantee that legitimate rights will be endangered and that the Cameron agenda is about more than porn control.

The Internet has been a Godsend for many life, family and faith activists precisely because it is not controlled by the usual power elites.  Information, true information that was once restricted from public access by the agendas of those who owned or had great influence over the mainstream media and other means of communication, is now available to everyone. And thanks to this freedom, lives have been saved, many dangers to life and liberty have been more effectively fought, conversions and other positive life changes have taken place, and truth has been made more available than ever before in recent history.

At the same time, the Internet has also opened the door to a tidal wave of pornography, which has swept through our culture, wreaking untold social, psychological and spiritual damage.

While the goal of stemming this tidal wave is admirable and of the highest priority, there is every reason to fear that Cameron’s plan is not everything that it seems. If we are wrong, we would be most happy to be wrong on such an important issue, but there is nothing in Cameron’s sorry record to indicate that he can be trusted not to abuse such a great power.

Pornography is a very real addiction and an evil cancer for all societies and must be stopped. Getting there will require honest and courageous discussion and actions.  However, we are justified in being wary before signing over more of our freedoms, even in the name of a greater good, to those who have not proven they are worthy custodians of the gift.

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Advertisement
Featured Image
'Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible,' said Robertson.
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

Phil Robertson: Never vote for politicians who support ‘ripping human fetuses’ from mom’s womb

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Phil Robertson is known for not pulling any punches when it comes to expressing his opinions on controversial issues, and he certainly didn’t disappoint at the Outdoor Extravaganza in Louisiana earlier this month.

Speaking to a massive crowd of some 8,000 outdoors enthusiasts at the CenturyLink Center, Robertson blasted Christians for not getting active in the political sphere.

“There are about 90 to 100 million of us who claim Jesus. The problem is only half of you register to vote and out of the half of you that registers to vote, only half of that group actually goes and votes,” Robertson said, according to the ShrevePort Times.

“Therefore, when you’re looking up there and griping and complaining about what you see in Washington D.C., you might as well shut up,” he added. “The reason they’re there is we’re putting them there. If you don’t get anything else out of this, remember this — register to vote for crying out loud.”

But Robertson reserved his strongest remarks for politicians who support abortion.

“If the dude or woman is for ripping human fetuses out of their mother’s womb, don’t ever vote for that,” Robertson said bluntly. “Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Robertson also lamented the increasing secularization of the United States.  

“We’ve lost it folks,” he told the crowd. “We ran God out of our schools. We ran him out of the entertainment business. We ran him out of the news media. We’ve run him out of the judiciary, and we’ve run him out of Washington D.C.

“Well, what you get is what is left up there. They’re ungodly. You agree?”

Ever since A&E’s Duck Dynasty became the most popular reality show in TV history, members of the Robertson family have earned a name as unapologetic defenders of traditional Christian values.

At the Outdoor Extravaganza, Phil was accompanied by his wife, Miss Kay, and eldest son Alan, who also addressed the crowds. 

Phil’s blunt deliveries have occasionally landed him in hot water – most memorably when he addressed the topic of homosexuality in an interview with GQ magazine, earning him a short-lived suspension from his TV show by A&E.

But Robertson refused to apologize for the remarks despite intense pressure from homosexual activists and leftist groups.

“They railed against me for giving them the truth about their sins,” Robertson later said about the response to his GQ interview, pointing out that in the interview he had simply quoted Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality and a variety of other sins.

"The news media didn't even know it was a verse," Robertson said. "They thought I was just mouthing off."

Share this article

Advertisement
Ulrich Klopfer wide
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Four Indiana abortionists could lose their licenses over reporting violations

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The attorney general of Indiana, Greg Zoeller, has asked a state board to review the medical licenses of four abortionists, including an out-of-state abortionist who failed to report two cases of statutory rape.

The Indiana Medical Licensing Board will review the cases of Dr. Ulrich “George” Klopfer, Dr. Resad Pasic, Dr. Kathleen Glover, and Dr. Raymond Robinson.

A press release from the attorney general's office called Klopfer's “the most egregious complaint.” Klopfer, who lives in Crete, Illinois, failed to report abortions of two 13-year-olds – one at his Women’s Pavilion abortion facility in South Bend and another in his office in Gary.

All abortions must be reported to the Indiana State Department of Health, and abortions performed on minors younger than 14 must also be reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services within three days. Under state law, children under the age of 14 are incapable of consenting to sex, so any sexual relationship with them is considered likely statutory rape.

Klopfer reported the two abortions 116 days and 206 days afterwards, something he described as “an honest mistake.” Klopfer faces a misdemeanor criminal charge in both Lake and St. Joseph county in connection with those allegations.

Every single one of the 1,818 abortion reports Klopfer turned in to state authorities between July 2012 and November 2013 was false or incomplete, Zoeller says. The doctor often omitted the father's name and had a habit of listing the date of every abortion at 88 weeks gestation.

The abortionist is also charged with 13 violations of the state's informed consent law.

“The pending criminal charges brought by county prosecutors along with the sheer volume of unexplained violations...merits review by the Medical Licensing Board to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted,” Zoeller said.

The other three abortionists work at the Clinic for Women in the Indianapolis area. According to a press release from the state attorney general's office, they “are in alleged violation of similar record-keeping and advice and consent laws regarding abortion procedures,” but they face no criminal charges.

The allegations were collected and submitted by Indiana Right to Life, which combed through Klopfer's records. “Our legislators passed laws regarding consent and record keeping to ensure high standards of quality and care for Hoosier women,” Indiana Right to Life President and CEO, Mike Fichter, said. “We're disappointed that these abortion doctors apparently did not willingly comply with Indiana law. We hope the Medical Licensing Board immediately schedules hearings.”

“If found guilty, we believe the abortion doctors should be fined and their licenses to practice in Indiana should be revoked," he added.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

His views were shared by national pro-life leaders. “We are encouraged by the filing of these Administrative Complaints today and urge the Board to revoke Ulrich Klopfer’s medical license due to the fact that he placed young girls in serious risk of continued rape and other abuse by neglecting to report,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Each of these abortionist require stiff discipline in order to impress it upon others that laws are meant to be followed and that they are not above it.”

Zoeller's complaint did not mention a third abortion of a 13-year-old that Klopfer reported after the legal date. The abortion took place in Fort Wayne in February 2012, but he did not report the procedure until July. Police subsequently filed two charges of child molestation against Ronte Lequan Latham, who was then 19-year-old.

Tensions this produced with another physician in his Fort Wayne office led to the first abortion facility closure of 2014.

The epidemic of underreporting presumed statutory rape is not limited to Klopfer. Between 58 and 75 percent of abortions performed on Indiana girls under the age of 14 were not reported in accordance with the law, according to an investigation by Amanda Gray of the South Bend Tribune.

Klopfer had a history of run-ins with authorities. In 2010 and 2012, state inspectors found that he allowed the bodies of aborted babies to be stored in a refrigerator alongside medicine the office gave to women who came in for the procedure.

The board has not yet set a date to hear evidence and make a judgment about their fitness to practice. If the board objects, it could respond by issuing a reprimand, suspending a license, or revoking the abortionists' medical license and imposing fines.

The accused may continue performing abortions until the board makes a final decision. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
President Obama speaks at Planned Parenthood's national conference in 2013.
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Obama remakes the nation’s courts in his image

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins
Image

It has often been said that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is President Obama's greatest achievement as president. However, that claim may soon take second place to his judicial nominees, and especially their effect on marriage in the United States.

In a new graphic, The Daily Signal notes that while President George W. Bush was able to get 50 nominees approved by this time in his second term, Obama has gotten more than 100 approved. According to The Houston Chronicle, "Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. When Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat."

Three of the five judges who struck down state marriage laws between February 2014 and the Supreme Court's Windsor decision in 2013 were Obama appointees, according to a CBS affiliate in the Washington, D.C. area. Likewise, the Windsor majority that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act included two Obama appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Obama has nominated 11 homosexual judges, the most of any president by far, says the National Law Journal.

Only one federal judge has opposed same-sex "marriage" since the Supreme Court's Windsor decision. He was appointed under the Reagan administration.

This accomplishment, aided by the elimination of Senate filibusters on judicial nominees, could affect how laws and regulations are interpreted by various courts, especially as marriage heads to a probable Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of state laws.

Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial nominees except for Supreme Court candidates last year, saying Republicans were blocking qualified candidates for the bench. However, the filibuster was part of the reason Democrats were able to keep the number of approved Bush appointees so low.

The Supreme Court may hear multiple marriage questions in its 2015 cycle. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook