<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: David Barton claims Obama soft on porn	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/</link>
	<description>A [retired] college psychology professor&#039;s observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jayhuck		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-87120</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jayhuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-87120</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m sure Barton is just preparing us all for the Rapture (an idea that didn&#039;t surface until almost 2,000 years after Jesus)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure Barton is just preparing us all for the Rapture (an idea that didn&#8217;t surface until almost 2,000 years after Jesus)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ken		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-87121</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-87121</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What you are missing Warren is the fact that child pornography is a &lt;em&gt;distinct&lt;/em&gt; charge from obscenity (which is not simply &quot;pornography&quot; and I&#039;m pretty sure is a misdemeanor).  so it can be true that the Justice Dept. hasn&#039;t prosecuted a single obscenity case, while still increasing the number of child pornography convictions.
Further, despite what Barton would have you think, adult pornography is not illegal.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you are missing Warren is the fact that child pornography is a <em>distinct</em> charge from obscenity (which is not simply &#8220;pornography&#8221; and I&#8217;m pretty sure is a misdemeanor).  so it can be true that the Justice Dept. hasn&#8217;t prosecuted a single obscenity case, while still increasing the number of child pornography convictions.<br />
Further, despite what Barton would have you think, adult pornography is not illegal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-87128</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-87128</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ken - Oh, that makes it all better :)
Obviously Obama should prosecute the minor cases and let the more serious ones go. Doh!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken &#8211; Oh, that makes it all better 🙂<br />
Obviously Obama should prosecute the minor cases and let the more serious ones go. Doh!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Throbert McGee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-87129</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Throbert McGee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-87129</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;Barton: Man, we can push the limits, we can get over the top, we can use underage kids on these movies, we can do &lt;strong&gt;snuff movies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Oh, brother. &lt;strong&gt;Snopes.com &lt;/strong&gt;has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an entire page&lt;/a&gt; explaining why the very existence of &quot;snuff&quot; movies is regarded by law enforcement officials as little more than an Urban Legend.
Next Barton will be telling us about the growing epidemic of microwaved poodles...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Barton: Man, we can push the limits, we can get over the top, we can use underage kids on these movies, we can do <strong>snuff movies</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, brother. <strong>Snopes.com </strong>has <a href="http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp" rel="nofollow">an entire page</a> explaining why the very existence of &#8220;snuff&#8221; movies is regarded by law enforcement officials as little more than an Urban Legend.<br />
Next Barton will be telling us about the growing epidemic of microwaved poodles&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Throbert McGee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-87132</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Throbert McGee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-87132</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I personally know a guy (well, we&#039;re &quot;Web friends&quot;, anyway, though I&#039;ve never met him IRL and don&#039;t even know his last name) who co-owns and operates a small &lt;strike&gt;Mom-and-Pop&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;em&gt;Pop-and-Pop&lt;/em&gt; &quot;gay amateur exhibitionists&quot; site. Registered adult users can post naked self-photos and X-rated home movies, and the site also includes a BBS forum where people can post and discuss written sexual fantasies. (Probably 95+% of the visual-pr0n content on the site is men masturbating by themselves, since any photos or videos found to be lifted from copyrighted &quot;commercial porn&quot; are removed by moderators in short order.)
Anyway, from what he&#039;s told me, he and the other owners/moderators have to be aggressively diligent about removing BBS posts that even sorta/kinda appear to hint at  suggesting the vaguest coded references to pedophilia, and banning users who make such posts.
And the reason they have to be so &quot;censorious&quot; is that although &lt;strong&gt;textual&lt;/strong&gt; descriptions of pedophilic fantasies are protected by the First Amendment even if they&#039;re disgustingly detailed and &quot;prurient,&quot; the presence of such written material on a site may raise the suspicions of law enforcement that the site is facilitating the online distribution of &lt;strong&gt;visual&lt;/strong&gt; kiddie pr0n, which of course has no Constitutional protection.
In the worst case scenario, the site could be shut down and the owners might even be legally liable for creating a &quot;safe harbor&quot; for the online distribution of child pornography; but what more often happens is the owners have to deal with lots of phone calls and/or visits from FBI investigators. Which, obviously, tends to be ulcer-inducing although the FBI agents are generally polite and professional about the whole thing, and even apologetic when it turns out they were following a false lead.
Just offering this as a concrete &quot;data point&quot; that even in &lt;strong&gt;our godless ObamaNation&lt;/strong&gt; where homosexual pre-verts are free to wave their dingdongs around on Webcams, law enforcement remains quite vigilant about investigating child pornography.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally know a guy (well, we&#8217;re &#8220;Web friends&#8221;, anyway, though I&#8217;ve never met him IRL and don&#8217;t even know his last name) who co-owns and operates a small <strike>Mom-and-Pop</strike> <em>Pop-and-Pop</em> &#8220;gay amateur exhibitionists&#8221; site. Registered adult users can post naked self-photos and X-rated home movies, and the site also includes a BBS forum where people can post and discuss written sexual fantasies. (Probably 95+% of the visual-pr0n content on the site is men masturbating by themselves, since any photos or videos found to be lifted from copyrighted &#8220;commercial porn&#8221; are removed by moderators in short order.)<br />
Anyway, from what he&#8217;s told me, he and the other owners/moderators have to be aggressively diligent about removing BBS posts that even sorta/kinda appear to hint at  suggesting the vaguest coded references to pedophilia, and banning users who make such posts.<br />
And the reason they have to be so &#8220;censorious&#8221; is that although <strong>textual</strong> descriptions of pedophilic fantasies are protected by the First Amendment even if they&#8217;re disgustingly detailed and &#8220;prurient,&#8221; the presence of such written material on a site may raise the suspicions of law enforcement that the site is facilitating the online distribution of <strong>visual</strong> kiddie pr0n, which of course has no Constitutional protection.<br />
In the worst case scenario, the site could be shut down and the owners might even be legally liable for creating a &#8220;safe harbor&#8221; for the online distribution of child pornography; but what more often happens is the owners have to deal with lots of phone calls and/or visits from FBI investigators. Which, obviously, tends to be ulcer-inducing although the FBI agents are generally polite and professional about the whole thing, and even apologetic when it turns out they were following a false lead.<br />
Just offering this as a concrete &#8220;data point&#8221; that even in <strong>our godless ObamaNation</strong> where homosexual pre-verts are free to wave their dingdongs around on Webcams, law enforcement remains quite vigilant about investigating child pornography.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lynn David		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-85702</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lynn David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 18:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-85702</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warren.... &lt;/strong&gt;What is Barton talking about? Regular readers of this blog know how Mr. Barton handles history, so perhaps this is not a big surprise.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Well, given that we are talking about David Barton on this blog, I would say he&#039;s talking about the highly satisfying gay sexual videography.  Because it is surely pornography to Barton, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/right-wing-radio-host-david-barton-government-should-regulate-homosexuality/comments/page/2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;who has asked why the government does not regulate homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;.
BTW.... type in his name and pornography and your David Baron tag page comes up first in Google, followed by this page, and then then the front page of your blog.  You must be doing something right.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><strong>Warren&#8230;. </strong>What is Barton talking about? Regular readers of this blog know how Mr. Barton handles history, so perhaps this is not a big surprise.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, given that we are talking about David Barton on this blog, I would say he&#8217;s talking about the highly satisfying gay sexual videography.  Because it is surely pornography to Barton, <a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/right-wing-radio-host-david-barton-government-should-regulate-homosexuality/comments/page/2/" rel="nofollow">who has asked why the government does not regulate homosexuality</a>.<br />
BTW&#8230;. type in his name and pornography and your David Baron tag page comes up first in Google, followed by this page, and then then the front page of your blog.  You must be doing something right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jayhuck		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-50901</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jayhuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-50901</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m sure Barton is just preparing us all for the Rapture (an idea that didn&#039;t surface until almost 2,000 years after Jesus)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure Barton is just preparing us all for the Rapture (an idea that didn&#8217;t surface until almost 2,000 years after Jesus)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Throbert McGee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-50900</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Throbert McGee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-50900</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I personally know a guy (well, we&#039;re &quot;Web friends&quot;, anyway, though I&#039;ve never met him IRL and don&#039;t even know his last name) who co-owns and operates a small &lt;strike&gt;Mom-and-Pop&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;em&gt;Pop-and-Pop&lt;/em&gt; &quot;gay amateur exhibitionists&quot; site. Registered adult users can post naked self-photos and X-rated home movies, and the site also includes a BBS forum where people can post and discuss written sexual fantasies. (Probably 95+% of the visual-pr0n content on the site is men masturbating by themselves, since any photos or videos found to be lifted from copyrighted &quot;commercial porn&quot; are removed by moderators in short order.)
Anyway, from what he&#039;s told me, he and the other owners/moderators have to be aggressively diligent about removing BBS posts that even sorta/kinda appear to hint at  suggesting the vaguest coded references to pedophilia, and banning users who make such posts.
And the reason they have to be so &quot;censorious&quot; is that although &lt;strong&gt;textual&lt;/strong&gt; descriptions of pedophilic fantasies are protected by the First Amendment even if they&#039;re disgustingly detailed and &quot;prurient,&quot; the presence of such written material on a site may raise the suspicions of law enforcement that the site is facilitating the online distribution of &lt;strong&gt;visual&lt;/strong&gt; kiddie pr0n, which of course has no Constitutional protection.
In the worst case scenario, the site could be shut down and the owners might even be legally liable for creating a &quot;safe harbor&quot; for the online distribution of child pornography; but what more often happens is the owners have to deal with lots of phone calls and/or visits from FBI investigators. Which, obviously, tends to be ulcer-inducing although the FBI agents are generally polite and professional about the whole thing, and even apologetic when it turns out they were following a false lead.
Just offering this as a concrete &quot;data point&quot; that even in &lt;strong&gt;our godless ObamaNation&lt;/strong&gt; where homosexual pre-verts are free to wave their dingdongs around on Webcams, law enforcement remains quite vigilant about investigating child pornography.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally know a guy (well, we&#8217;re &#8220;Web friends&#8221;, anyway, though I&#8217;ve never met him IRL and don&#8217;t even know his last name) who co-owns and operates a small <strike>Mom-and-Pop</strike> <em>Pop-and-Pop</em> &#8220;gay amateur exhibitionists&#8221; site. Registered adult users can post naked self-photos and X-rated home movies, and the site also includes a BBS forum where people can post and discuss written sexual fantasies. (Probably 95+% of the visual-pr0n content on the site is men masturbating by themselves, since any photos or videos found to be lifted from copyrighted &#8220;commercial porn&#8221; are removed by moderators in short order.)<br />
Anyway, from what he&#8217;s told me, he and the other owners/moderators have to be aggressively diligent about removing BBS posts that even sorta/kinda appear to hint at  suggesting the vaguest coded references to pedophilia, and banning users who make such posts.<br />
And the reason they have to be so &#8220;censorious&#8221; is that although <strong>textual</strong> descriptions of pedophilic fantasies are protected by the First Amendment even if they&#8217;re disgustingly detailed and &#8220;prurient,&#8221; the presence of such written material on a site may raise the suspicions of law enforcement that the site is facilitating the online distribution of <strong>visual</strong> kiddie pr0n, which of course has no Constitutional protection.<br />
In the worst case scenario, the site could be shut down and the owners might even be legally liable for creating a &#8220;safe harbor&#8221; for the online distribution of child pornography; but what more often happens is the owners have to deal with lots of phone calls and/or visits from FBI investigators. Which, obviously, tends to be ulcer-inducing although the FBI agents are generally polite and professional about the whole thing, and even apologetic when it turns out they were following a false lead.<br />
Just offering this as a concrete &#8220;data point&#8221; that even in <strong>our godless ObamaNation</strong> where homosexual pre-verts are free to wave their dingdongs around on Webcams, law enforcement remains quite vigilant about investigating child pornography.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Throbert McGee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-50899</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Throbert McGee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-50899</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;Barton: Man, we can push the limits, we can get over the top, we can use underage kids on these movies, we can do &lt;strong&gt;snuff movies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Oh, brother. &lt;strong&gt;Snopes.com &lt;/strong&gt;has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an entire page&lt;/a&gt; explaining why the very existence of &quot;snuff&quot; movies is regarded by law enforcement officials as little more than an Urban Legend.
Next Barton will be telling us about the growing epidemic of microwaved poodles...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Barton: Man, we can push the limits, we can get over the top, we can use underage kids on these movies, we can do <strong>snuff movies</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, brother. <strong>Snopes.com </strong>has <a href="http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp" rel="nofollow">an entire page</a> explaining why the very existence of &#8220;snuff&#8221; movies is regarded by law enforcement officials as little more than an Urban Legend.<br />
Next Barton will be telling us about the growing epidemic of microwaved poodles&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lynn David		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/06/20/david-barton-claims-obama-soft-on-porn/#comment-50898</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lynn David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9522#comment-50898</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warren.... &lt;/strong&gt;What is Barton talking about? Regular readers of this blog know how Mr. Barton handles history, so perhaps this is not a big surprise.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Well, given that we are talking about David Barton on this blog, I would say he&#039;s talking about the highly satisfying gay sexual videography.  Because it is surely pornography to Barton, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/right-wing-radio-host-david-barton-government-should-regulate-homosexuality/comments/page/2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;who has asked why the government does not regulate homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;.
BTW.... type in his name and pornography and your David Baron tag page comes up first in Google, followed by this page, and then then the front page of your blog.  You must be doing something right.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><strong>Warren&#8230;. </strong>What is Barton talking about? Regular readers of this blog know how Mr. Barton handles history, so perhaps this is not a big surprise.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, given that we are talking about David Barton on this blog, I would say he&#8217;s talking about the highly satisfying gay sexual videography.  Because it is surely pornography to Barton, <a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/right-wing-radio-host-david-barton-government-should-regulate-homosexuality/comments/page/2/" rel="nofollow">who has asked why the government does not regulate homosexuality</a>.<br />
BTW&#8230;. type in his name and pornography and your David Baron tag page comes up first in Google, followed by this page, and then then the front page of your blog.  You must be doing something right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
