Get real! With all the problems confronting people today, you want to commit a
significant amount of resource (i.e. money) to wage a battle against
pornography? When people need jobs and the country needs to repair its aging
infrastructure, you can only come up with "pornography" as a major issue
requiring priority status?Is it true that per captia consumption of
pornographic material, Utah ranks in the top 10? Do we assume that fighting
pornography should be a major focus of law enforcement rather than dealing with
violent crime?We can come up with measures to deal with this issue,
but it is not a priority of highest importance.
While I agree pornography has very little, if any, socially redeemable value, my
problem is who decides what is obscene, and what is art? The article itself
admits this is vague. Is Michelangelo's "David" to be
censored? What of the art on the Cistine Chapel? What if someone is offended
during a movie? If it is consenting adults being depicted, I feel
the government should have no authority in the matter. If you want
to stop pornography, stop the viewing of it. If the money disappears, it will
too. Attack the demand, not the supply.
Really? With all the real problems we have right now, we're supposed to
focus on legal materials that consenting adults choose to manufacture and
consume in private?So much for keeping the government out of
people's personal lives...
Receipts show that Utah is a big fan of Adult Entertainment online.Why are
you against the Free Market?But I have to agree with Darrel as I
remember when Rodan at BYU was being called Pornography?Once again the
party who SAYS they want less government in their lives, wants to make decisions
about the most intimate parts of peoples lives.
"...it has provided a sound basis for putting pornographers in jail. "
You espouse imprisoning people because in your opinion something is offensive.
This opens a slippery slope to oppression. Imagine that I am not
fond of your religion. I decide that your religion offends me and that it should
not be classified as a religion. You lose your status as a religion and all of
the protections it affords. There is no difference in the religion
scenario versus the pornography scenario. Who defines offensive pornography?
who decides that your religion is valid?
America is flooding the world with Pornography. It seems like most of the
serious criminals have said that it all started with porn.That is
the root of the problem and we should rip it out.It is time to draw
a line in the sand and fight.
Love that you have to try to make Obama look bad in every aspect. By "some
critics" you mean Rick Santorum. Sorry, not going to buy it just because
Santorum said it. Also, I find pornography generally offensive. I
also find people trying to dictate public policy according to their religious
convictions offensive. I also find Thomas Kincaid being called an artist
offensive. Offensive does not, and should not, equal illegal.I'd be much more interested in devoting resources to programs aimed at
helping our youth have a healthy body-image--programs that aim to show both boys
and girls that they are more than merely sexual objects. I'm not in favor
of imprisoning anyone to achieve that aim.
Pornography and Freedom go hand in hand.Pornography is legal in
countries like the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Italy, etc.Pornography is illegal in countries like Saudi Arabia, North Korea,
Iran, Pakistan, etc.When you start outlawing "obscenity"
what's next? Blasphemy?Sex and violence are part of the 1st
Amendment, even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices recognized that
when they struck down California's video game law.Yes, America
and other free-market democracies do flood the world with porn, thankfully.
Nothing says freedom and capitalism like the ability to buy porn.
"Adult pornography, unfortunately, has over the last two decades gained
increased social acceptance. It is available in many hotel rooms and ubiquitous
on the Internet."It was acceptable under the Marriot empire for
how many decades?
Marketers and ministers have done a great job of telling people to be horrified
by the human body. The end result is a societal fascination with
other people's bodies.
Really? Nothing else important on the go right now, so another dose of porn
paranoia is in order. Honestly, if it wasn't for the DesNews, I'd
never think of porn.
Pornography is a lethal cancer that is eating away at the moral fiber and ideals
of America and other nations. It has become a disease that has adversely
affected, if not destroyed, individuals and families. So what to do - be as
bumps on a log or an ostrich with its head in the sand - as this man made
poison continues its deadly distructive course?
The Deseret News should know that 1st Amendment rights extend to more than just
freedom of the press. The DN should also know that 1st Amendment rights are
inviolable as protected speech, which the Supreme Court has ruled covers
sexually explicit materials as well as journalism.The essence of
protected speech is not that it is legally obligated to reflect a particular set
of values, which defeats the purpose of freedom of speech. It's not even
that it has an obligation to not offend any segment of society, which is an
impossible standard to apply across the board. The essence of protected speech
is that it free of attempts by government to coerce or police it.Shame on the Deseret News. Any news venue in America should know better.
Joan would you be comfortable living in places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea,
Iran, Pakistan. "So what to do - be as bumps on a log or an ostrich
with its head in the sand"How about you live and let live, and
pray for the sinner, not legislate laws against adults who believe differently
than yourself.Who decides what is pornography, religious leaders,
Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID"Pornography is a lethal cancer that
is eating away at the moral fiber and ideals of America . . . "I
thought that was "socialism"!It's only a problem if you
make it a problem. In the religious Muslim world, a man talking with a woman
who is not related to him is a serious offense. And a woman in certain parts of
the Muslim world exposing her body (for example, her hair, her face, or her
wrist) can result in stoning and death. For some, dancing is sinful. It's
the Old Testament, a thousand years of men writing stories and dealing morality,
dragging us back to a time best remebered so not to repeat it.Teach
children about pornography so they can deal with it on their own in a mature
fashion. It will never go away. Perhaps it's the world's second
oldest profession, but then sex has always been a central part of any culture.
You just need to understand the simplistic, unrealistic, and basically
ridiculous nature of it.
Is that more obscene than 23 million without jobs or our sovereign debt?
What federal budget money are we going to use to do this? Are we going to raise
taxes in order to fund additional prosecutions of adult pornography? We are in
a bit of a budget crisis right now.
Conservative ideology is at cross purposes with itself when it demands spending
reductions but wants to stick us with the tab for increased obscenity
prosecution. It rails at excessive government as the root of our problems but
what do they call this? It opposes Federal Government meddling in state and
local matters and calls for stepped up Federal involvement in vice enforcement
which is traditionally a state and local matter. It decries the erosion of
freedoms while wanting to crack down on commerce rights of choice. The Deseret News should consider how the press are the only business
enterprises that enjoy special protection under the Constitution. They of all
entities should be slow to call for restrictions on others under the 1st
Amendment. No one should have to tell them that a smut peddler’s right to
peddle smut is a new outlet’s right to do its job as it sees fit. In a
free society, the rights of all are diminished when the rights of even one are
I am curious Desnews. Under your proposal and in your opinion what would be
banned in a community such as Utah? Playboy for instance? Would mere nudity
that has purient interest without scientific or artistic reason for having it
qualify for being banned? Can anyone else also answer this question?
Here's my opinion: Practice professional unbiased journalism and stop
having an opinion. You're a newspaper ... act like it.
Hey Deseret News Bashing guys - what newspaper does not have an opinion page?
One can access many newspapers on line - Deseret News being just one of them
that has an opinion page. You have stated your opinion - so why have you
called shame on Deseret News for publishing an opinion? As for the hits I
took on my opinion concerng pornography - I firmly believe that if the framers
of the constitution could have read or seen today's in your face
pornography and smut they would have been horrified and dismayed at the
Thanks to the many commenters against this "obscene" attack upon
liberty, specifically free speech and commerce.The pornography
industry is pathetic. They take one the greatest subjects of art, the human
body, and tag it like punk vandals. Their defamation is reprehensible and I
wish them utter failure.However, pornographers must be allowed their
freedom to do their commerce. Only to the degree that children (who are not of
sufficient age to choose this industry) are exploited, to the degree that adults
are forced or coerced into the industry, or to the degree that someone is forced
to consume this product, should pornographers be prosecuted. This same standard
applies to any industry.Free speech protects everyone. I am free to
disparage an industry, as I have done here. But I should have no power to force
them out of business, not even in majority-combination with my neighbors.Free speech is what allows us to effect change without force of arms.
This article uses that freedom to call for force of arms against pornographers.
The contradiction is alarming. This article should not have been published by
the DN let alone authored by it.
Isn't there some way the names and addresses of people who are involved in
this sordid business could be released to the public? Convictions could be hard
to come by and expensive, but is it against the law to say that the person who
produced the material is "So-and-so who lives in Blank City." Same with
the photographer and those that posed, etc. They might be less inclined to be
involved if they were socially stigmatized for their profession. Just a thought.
Yes, prosecuting obscenity as the Des news suggests is a way to make Utah truly
a Zion place. With a current Utah population of about 2.8 Million. Lets suppose
100,000 Utah males regularly view obscene material. Now if the possssion,
viewing or discussion of obscene material is a criminal offense. These 100,000
Males should be in prison. Utah would have to build prisons to hold these
100,000 criminals. I've seen numbers suggesting it costs $50,000 per year
to incarcerate inmates. The Tax Tab for locking up these fans of Playboy, Cosmo,
etal would be about $5 BILLION per year. or about $6,000 per year for a Family
of 3 in Utah. But I'm sure there is an upside to this proposed public
policy. Think of all the prison guard jobs it will create and the construction
jobs to build prisons in Utah. We may also get prisoners from the Bible-Belt
States If this legal principal spreads. Thanks Des-News for the idea . It sounds
like a Win-win idea to me !!!
If you argue that pornography is okay, then participation in the industry is as
well, true? And, you would find your family member's participation in the
industry to be acceptable, right? And, if your family member got a leading role
in such a movie or a significant set of pictures in a leading magazine, then you
would be justifiably proud and encourage all of your friends to see the movie or
buy the magazine, correct? Finally, if a young family member came to you for
advice and revealed their desire to be in that industry you would encourage them
to do so because you believe that industry that is good for its participants,
right?If you answer no to ANY of these questions, please explain
why.Because if you believe pornography is okay, then the above
should describe your actions. If you would act otherwise, then perhaps you do
not really think it is okay. At least not for the people you love.There is a difference between what we want and what we know to be good for us.
Using our family as proxies helps to illustrate this. Treat pornography
Twin Lights,".....There is a difference between what we want and
what we know to be good for us....."==========....just as there is a huge difference between my disapproving of something
and my trying to get it suppressed. Your right to freely express yourself is my
right to do likewise so if I can't defend your right to free speech, I
can't in good conscience or full confidence defend my own.
Craig Clark,Understood.If the issue is speech, then I
have NO problem with anyone advocating for or against something - that is to
make their case in the public sphere. But that is not the same as allowing its
production and distribution.The govt. may well allow for someone to
advocate for the possession of high explosives. But should it allow them to
take the next step and produce and distribute the explosives?Of
course the question is then whether the medium itself is a form of speech. I
think it goes well beyond simply being speech. Perhaps if it were advocating a
political view or cause it might muddy the waters, but suffice to say that I do
not really believe that all media are at all times and in all places - speech.
At least not the kind we must protect.If I make a pamphlet or video
showing how to kill tens of thousands with very simple mechanisms I would likely
not be able to publish it. Why? Because it goes beyond normal speech into a
realm where the foreseeable consequences are objectionable. I believe
pornography is the same.
Twin lights, there are many things that I would not want family members to be a
part of, but also don't think should be illegal. For instance, I would not
want any member of my family to be a conservative or part of the Republican
Party or part of any religious groups, and I would be embarrassed to admit it if
they were. But I would still love them and support them no matter how flawed I
thought their decision to became, for instance, a conservative, was. Same thing with pornography. No, just like if my children were thinking of
becoming a Republican, I would try to convince them not to make such a mistake.
Twin Lights,"....If the issue is speech, then I have NO problem
with anyone advocating for or against something - that is to make their case in
the public sphere. But that is not the same as allowing its production and
distribution...."==========Court rulings on 1st
Amendment cases apply freedom of speech to inlude the printed word and film as
well as public speaking. My view is that the only way we can guarantee freedom
of speech for anybody is to resolutely enforce the right for everybody. That of
course is going to include people who exercise that right in ways that I never
Am I understanding you, Twin Lights? Are you saying that the only form of speech
you feel is protected is literally someone talking? That once we are talking
media, then the government has a legitimate right to censor if it feels the
material is harmful? Also, would you care to define for us
"pornography"? And, please, not a vague definition using words like
puriant and offensive, but a concrete definition of what exactly you see as
porn, and even more to the point, what the government should recognize as
pornography to be banned and prosecuted. The D-News has never done this in their
many pieces on porn. Can you?
Mark,No. Not just someone talking. But position advocacy.Hasn't the govt. always had some power of censorship if the information
is too dangerous? Do you feel the govt. can NEVER censor any information under
any circumstances?Were we not a free people just a few decades ago
when pornography was not considered protected speech (at least not as it is
now)?Also, if it is truly just speech like any other, then I should
be able to put it on full display in the public square at any time I choose,
right?Can I define pornography? Sure. If you have children or
siblings you love and adore, it's the stuff you would never want to see
them in. Yeah, I know, that's messy. But you get my drift. Just as I may
not be able to provide a succinct definition for you, surely you can see that
there is stuff that has only a prurient interest (and is not speech as the
founders would have defined it). I understand this is a thorny
issue. But we must recognize that simply stating it is speech is an inadequate
analysis of the issue.
Twin lights, I don't know if you have used your four comments yet. But you
didn't even come close to defining in any concrete way what pornography is.
Do you really believe that you can ban things based on the fact that you do not
want to see a family member in it? Do you really think that the government will
be able to, or should be able to, ban anything based on that? Would
you like to try again to provide a definition that the government could actually
work with? I'm not sure what you mean about putting stuff on
display in the public square. But there is media that is not appropriate for all
audiences. I enjoy horror movies. I would never show certain horror movies to
kids. I also don't want to be limited to only material that is appropriate
for children. But let me ask, you think that the only speech that is
protected is "position advocacy?" I think the government
should be very careful in censoring material. For instance things dealing with
legitimate state secrets. Sure. But government censoring things like movies or
Mark,I use the family member scenario to drive home the point that
there is a problem with pornography - one we can more easily miss as long as the
folks on the screen or in the magazine are strangers.I am no
attorney and I do not suppose that I can do better than Justice Potter
Stewart’s famous line of “I know it when I see it”. I will
have to leave to others to draft an acceptable standard.We agree
that all media is not for all audiences. We used to censor media much more just
a few decades ago. America was still America and we at least thought we had
free speech. So what I am advocating is not something from the dark ages of
time.I agree that govt. should be careful about what it censors.
But my point is that pornography does have dangers and should be therefore
subject to controls.My point about "position advocacy" is
that there are grades of speech and govt. needs to/can treat them differently.
That a movie put forth purely for entertainment can be restricted more than
speech advocating a position.
If Mitt gets elected the control mentality will reign supreme.