Many of you have been wondering what to expect from a Trump presidency if The Donald wins and this week you’re getting at least one peek under the covers. (That will become a pun in a moment which I’ll apologize for in advance.) Activist group Enough is Enough has gotten Mr. Trump to sign a pledge to work to enforce largely dormant anti-pornography laws and crack down on the menace of online adult entertainment. (Washington Examiner)

Donald Trump has signed the first-ever internet anti-porn presidential pledge, promising to enforce long-ignored obscenity laws to stop the explosion of hard core sex videos that studies show are rewiring teen brains and feeding violence against children.

The Republican presidential candidate signed the pledge from the internet safety group Enough is Enough with no questions asked, but Democrat Hillary Clinton didn’t.

Enough is Enough President Donna Rice Hughes told Secrets that the Clinton campaign cited a policy of not signing pledges. But, she added, “Clinton agrees with the goals of the pledge. It’s a good step.”

I was already aware that the GOP somehow installed a plank in the platform this year about pornography being a public health crisis, but didn’t know that anyone was circulating pledges on the subject until now. Frankly, I’m rather surprised to see Trump signing that one. Without passing any qualitative judgement on the subject, I’ll just note that the guy has appeared in Playboy Magazine at least a couple of times and used to be a regular guest on the Howard Stern show. If he’s really opposed to pornography of any sort, this may be a rather recent Come To Jesus moment for him.

As far as the claims about it being a public health crisis, I’ll confess that some of the research I’ve run across on the subject is compelling. If nothing else, there’s something to the theory of saturating the human psyche with any subject material and having it lead to desensitizing effects. But that’s strictly an observation from the layman’s perspective and I don’t know how fully the subject has been researched in the medical community.

Even assuming that the afflictions are as advertised, is this the sort of problem we want the government solving or is it better left to families and the faith community? The Supreme Court weighed in on the subject of pornography as early as Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964 and it seemed to take the teeth out of a lot of blue laws not involving children or those lacking the ability to grant consent. And even if it passed muster in court, fighting pornography has, over the history of civilization, been about as successful as trying to eliminate prostitution. That is to say… not at all. Color me skeptical that either the will or the resources exist today to launch a new massive crackdown on naughty materials online.

Still, I suppose it gives the candidates one more thing to chatter about during the debates if nothing else. Who would have thought we might be treated to questions about Porn Hub on the national stage in 2016?