Reader comments
Child pornography sting — Task force raids homes in Salt Lake Valley

For crying out loud. Are they writing a novel or reporting the news. "The sounds of little children playing nearby carried in the breeze"? Might as well start with "It was a dark and stormy night".

Why doesn't the ACLU step in to allow these guys to look at whatever they want. If pornography doesn't affect behavior, why don't they stand up for sex offenders and their rights to look at porn. WE KNOW WHY. Every sex offender, regardless of what their M.O. may be has one thing in common, they are all addicted to pornography and using it puts them into a lustful stupor where reality has no hold. The research is there to back it up. Pornography needs to be quarantined where only those who actively seek it out will find it. It needs to be hosted on dedicated servers so that people who want to root it out of their homes CAN!! Everyone who cares about families should make this their number one priority for the future of this country. No excuses. This secrecy and lack of accountability is crushing families and ruining individuals in the millions.

I'm with you on that one. I love the bit where missionaries and children were watching. What? Are they the most sterotypical innocents the author could conjure?

Step up ACLU That's quite a statistic. Do you have a reference for it? I know a lot have said that porn did in fact affect them but I have never read where every sex offender is addicted to porn. In fact, I read no mention that any of the men arrested were registered sex offenders. That would invalidate your broad statement that all sex offenders are addicted to porn.

Also, the ACLU only picks fights they think they can win. Child porn is the most reviled anyway.

I do agree that there are many families that have bee destroyed because of this addiction. When it comes to child porn there should never be a way to get it. Many get started with 'acceptable' porn before turning to children.

Do not misinterpret my post to think I condone what these men have done. I don't. I just am very wary of statements that appear all inclusive.

Pornography precedes some of the most vile crimes imaginable. One study found 95% of child predators began their perfidy with pornography.

Why don't we just outlaw all pornography? It has no socially redemming value.

Just a terrible, terrible story and such a shame that people will prey on innocent children.

Exact same thought crossed my mind - why on earth even mention who was standing nearby? And then the thought occured that, only in Utah, would they use such stereotypical "innocents" for contrast. Where was the nun or the 40-year-old virgin? I'm surprised the author didn't say that the missionaries were playing jump rope with the children as well. There's most certainly an actual news story here (and, don't get me wrong, child porn IS vile), but come on, this is not literature, complete with its innocent protagonists and the evil lurking just across the street...

You folks apparently have no sense of irony (or of poetics). The point (which you obtuse people obviously missed) is that this problem exists within range of YOUR innocents as well. And what if the writer didn't "conjure" anything. What if the writer simply reported what he saw? Isn't that journalism?

To suggest that journalism isn't literature ignores the fact that numerous groups give writing prizes (like the Pulitzer, hello) to journalists.

BTW, the "only in Utah" argument is old, tattered, and unimaginative. Let it go already.

I agree that pornography has no socially redeeming value and that the purveyors of this should be investigated and prosecuted.
I do however, have a problem with how it is decided what is pornography. I had a conversation with an educator who told me that she could not teach about the artist Rubens, because some of his paintings were nude(such as �Venus at the Mirror�). Does this attitude apply to the �Statue of David� by Michelangelo, etc? Or how about the pictures taken by proud parents in the past of their babies.
Who is deciding what pornography is, and what is artistic? I would hate for someone to lose the joy of art because of someone�s inability to be reasonable.

The problem with saying that "all predators starting their crimes with porn" is a big one. That's like saying 100% of all abusers drink alcohol. It most states apart from Utah, that would be true, and some would even be intoxicated WHILE abusing. However, correlation does NOT prove causality. It's like saying that 90% of all traffic deaths are DUIs, but that doesn't mean that 90% of all drinkers drive while drunk.

The ALCU has never, and will never defend those who abuse and perpetuate the abuse of children. It's that simple. While porn is growing more vile every year it is not tantamount to child abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor to watch porn.

Please, think before you post and remember - correlation, does not prove a causal link, ever, you need more, which you do not have.

Most wars are fought over religion. I guess we should quarantine religion and put it where only those who actively seek it out will find it.

If your statistic is correct, that all sex offenders are addicted to porn, that does not mean all porn users are sex offenders.

Just like not all religions start wars.

I agree that on the softer side of things, it becomes a difficult issue to say what is porn and what is art, politics, education, etc.

But, if we just outlawed the hardcore and extreme stuff, that would be a great starting place.

Re: ACLU:
The ACLU DOES defend and admire those
who abuse, debase and advocate child abuse.
The ACLU will NOT condemn NAMBLA (north america man boy love association), who has a stated goal/policy of the right for members to have sexual relationships with young males as early as 8 to 9 years of age.
NAMBLA has an active role in Gay Pride events, which ACLU REALLY likes.
ACLU defends the rights of NAMBLA to advocate these rights and press for more liberalization of child age-of-consent laws.
In this case, an absence of condemnation is a HUGE endorsement!

Actually, ACLU is correct about his quoted statistic. When recently living in Kentucky, the local Indiana news stations reported often of studies that showed a 100% correlation of child sex offenders that had admitted to having been heavily involved in pornography before becoming a pedophile.

It is also correct that mental health professionals classify pornograhpy as an addiction.

"Time is wastin'!" Farnsworth shouted to her team. "Perpetrators are out there!"
Sounds like we are living in a police state where you are guilty before proven innocent.
"ICAC agents noted in charging documents, however, that no child pornography images were ever recovered from the computer." "Some suspects commit suicide rather than be faced with the prospect of prison time, agents said."
"It is disturbing. I'd be lying to say it didn't bug me," .

What about the millions of people (men and women) who enjoy porn who are not pedophiles or sex offenders?

Just because even if 100% of pedophiles use porn, that doesn't mean porn is the *cause*. Since millions who are not pedophiles also view porn, but are not criminals that would invalidate that argument.

Correlation does not equal causation.

I hope that everyone found guilty of possessing child pornography be placed in a dark dark cell with a cellmate named Bubba and never see the light of day ever again.
If you've ever been exposed to this garbage you'd agree.

Police State!!! The best way to avoid being classified as a perp is to stay totally away from this crap in the first place. If you don't go near it via responding to unknown emailers and chat rooms you will not be guilty! These creeps are all around us!

The internet is an addiction, computer games are an addiction, alcohol is an addiction, porn is an addiction. Does that mean that all addicts do harmful things to anyone but themselves? No it doesn't, in fact I'm sure most porn addicts never even DREAM of touching or looking at child porn.

Bilbo: The ACLU has also defended Nazi hate groups before, while I'm not happy that they'd support NAMBLA I believe it's on a free speech standpoint, not on a child abuse front. Sadly, perverted groups like NAMBLA do have the right to talk amongst themselves about illegal acts, just anything beyond that means prison time. If the ACLU has done anything beyond defend their disgusting talk I think they'd be short lived as an institution. If they admire child abusers so much, where are they in this case? Not here, because they don't defend abuse, only free speech.

To Conejo, etc.:

They were just setting the scene. Give 'em a break. We couldn't be there to see it, so they were just trying to tell us how it felt. I think it was well done.