Reader comments
Plaintiffs' arguments against Utah's anti-pornography law
2 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Afternoon edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Crews searching recycling center in...
- West Valley City leaders to join call...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- Missing plane found in Morgan County,...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
76 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







What this means, overall, is that there could literally be hundreds upon thousands of safe sites marked as unsafe incorrectly. Disrupting legit buisness practices, and causing ISPs to more complaints than they can afford to handle.
And "harmful" is rather vague. Harmful, by whose perception? Apparently, only nude images tend to be considered harmful, voilent images are allowed as culturally accepted. Makes me wonder how this affects our children. Sex/Reproduction=Bad, Voilence/Death=Good?
But hey, harmful is different depending who you ask. Isn't that important to consider?