United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday a new measure meant to protect British families from the “corroding” influence of pornography, mandating that every household declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography. After facing harsh criticisms, Cameron altered the measure to allow “soft porn” to bypass the filters.

Cameron and his Conservative Party have been criticized in the past by American conservatives for being too socially liberal, with many pointing to gay marriage as a major example.

However, when it comes to his recent porn restrictions, the usually vocal socially conservative politicians in the United States are absolutely silent.

So far, no representatives as well as no major social conservative figures have publicly supported Cameron’s measures.

None of The Daily Caller’s various requests for comment received an answer.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, wondered aloud on Twitter, “why Great Britain’s crack-down on porn hasn’t gotten much attention in US.”

In Canada, a Conservative Member of Parliament, Joy Smith, has already endorsed the implementation of the porn restrictions in her country.

Even Morality in Media, which, in response to Cameron’s announcement, released a statement expressing their support for private internet filters, failed to address whether they would support federal intervention on the matter.

In Cameron’s proposal, internet users would have to actively turn off filters blocking pornography and “opt-in” to access to pornography.

The silence on the part of conservatives could possibly be attributed to a common belief that Republicans suffered in last November’s election because of a focus and harsh rhetoric on social issues.

Additionally, unsuccessful primary candidates received criticism from the media for their support of pornography legislation that would likely be even harsher than Cameron’s.

In 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann signed a pledge calling for, among other things, the “Humane protection of women and…children from…all forms of pornography,” which presumably would require an outright ban on pornography to fulfill.

Further, Former Senator Rick Santorum stated outright that if elected President he would, “vigorously…prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.” An idea which UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller was entirely possible, saying, “If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so.”

Neither Bachmann nor Santorum responded to TheDC’s request for comment.

However, Dr. Patrick F. Fagan, Senior Fellow and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a part of the Family Research Council, as well as Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis at the American Faimly Association were very open to The Daily Caller about their support for Cameron’s measures.

Fagan of the Family Research Council told TheDC that Britain’s porn restrictions are a “common sense, good alternative” and that he “believes that U.S. Congress should adopt similar legislation.”

Similarly, Fischer of the America Family Association said, “We enthusiastically support this move on the part of the Prime Minister.” Additionally, he expressed that he “absolutely” believes that Cameron’s proposal should come to the U.S.

“We need political leaders to step up and follow David Cameron’s lead here,” he added.

Although he stayed away from directly criticizing the inaction of congressmen, Fagan told TheDC that, “The British Prime Minister is putting the good of children first,” likely implying that, in his opinion, American politicians are failing to do so.

Fischer, however, was far more blunt: “Well, the longer our political leaders remain silent, the longer this problem goes unaddressed.”

Follow Gabe on Twitter