Quantcast
Utah

ACLU seeks to permanently block '05 Utah anti-porn law

Comments

Return To Article
  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 9, 2011 3:57 p.m.

    Actually, if you read the law very carefully, it does nothing to prevent porn unless that porn involves minors.

    It is a ridiculous law that does absolutely nothing and is not worth even worrying about - the only people who could possibly violate it would be violating other laws with stricter penalties anyway.

  • WhatsInItForMe Orem, Utah
    June 9, 2011 3:04 p.m.

    Porn only affects the youth who are not educated enough to see it for what it is.

    Onus is on parents to arm their kids in a way that will allow them to not be adversely affected. It's not up to the government to run the moral aspects of our lives.

    Good parenting has no equal.

  • Lowonoil Clearfield, UT
    June 9, 2011 8:50 a.m.

    I agree that minors should be sheltered from porn, but trying to do it by complying with this law is an unworkable technical and legal nightmare. I believe we should enforce segregation of all pornographic content into it's new .xxx domain. It is a much simpler technical problem to exclude content from an entire domain than to try to determine by filter algorithms what is or isn't pornographic content (vs for instance reproductive health content).
    Now that the pornographers have a domain it would be much easier legally to restrict them to it.

  • Jeffrey Wilbur Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 9, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    I'm amazed that people here seem to either be in complete ignorance of the facts, or interested in rewriting history and reality to fit their own world view.

    1) The Founding Fathers absolutely did not intend the 1st Amendment to cover only political speech, but ALL speech. Anyone even remotely familiar with history would know this. You do not have the right not to be offended by the speech of others.

    2) The Constitution absolutely does protect pornography under the 1st Amendment. ALL forms of speech, with rare exception of speech which physically threatens others, are protected by it. This was intentionally done so that it could not be used to silence or censor those with whom those in power disagree.

    3) This law is not just about pornography. It's about censoring "information about sexual health and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth;" intended only to suppress information on an entire group of people.

    You do not have the right not to be offended; you do have the right to walk away. Or would you also support a law banning the preaching of religion because it offends some atheists?

  • Jeffrey Wilbur Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 9, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    Wow, some people here are either in complete ignorance of the facts, or just interested in rewriting history and reality to fit their world view.

    1) The Founding Fathers did not intend the First Amendment to cover only "political" speech, but ALL speech. That anyone could claim otherwise is incredible to me, as we have nearly 250 years of history which support this.

    2) The US Constitution absolutely does protect pornography as a protected form of speech. Why? Because ALL forms of speech, with rare exception (the old "Fire in a theater" example), are protected by it. It neither lists what is allowed, nor what is allowed, and this explicitly is for the purpose of it not being used to silence those with whom those in power disagree.

    3) This law is not just about pornography. It's about censoring "information about sexual health and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth."

    You do not have the right not to be offended. You do have the right to walk way from forms of speech with which you disagree, but you do not have the right to silence others because they make you uncomfortable.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    June 9, 2011 7:11 a.m.

    The US Constitution does not include porn as protected freedom of speech.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2011 7:10 a.m.

    'The law seeks to regulate all Internet speech that some might consider "harmful to minors, including works of visual art, photography, graphic novels, and information about sexual health and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, according to the ACLU of Utah.' - Article

    Isn't this like the school that bans any mention of LGBT?

    Because, if you don't talk about it, it dosen't exist.

    Bristol Palin is an example that abstinence does not work. As such, sexual health information should be given to child to navigate their own lives.

    Unfortunately, many parents fail their children in this regard, and teach them nothing. Leaving the child to get this information from the internet, or worse, other children.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    June 9, 2011 5:49 a.m.

    ACLU seeks to block...... Well surprise, surprise. Who would ever believe that. NT 10:39 you hit the proverbial nail on the head!

  • WhatsInItForMe Orem, Utah
    June 9, 2011 3:04 a.m.

    Someone needs to start an AFVU (American Family Values Union) to counter much of what the ACLU does that's bad.

    The ACLU's original purpose was good, and the organization still sometimes does good. But it got hijacked long ago by the far left, so their liberal agendas get a big helping hand from the ACLU.

    I'm all for getting the Constitution back to what it was originally intended for.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 9, 2011 12:43 a.m.

    Why are porn, filth, and other various bad behaviors defended by the ACLU and the ability to be free from such things isn't considered a right?

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 8, 2011 11:11 p.m.

    "Rule of thumb: if the ACLU opposes it, it is probably good law/policy."

    Does that include the dozens of times that the ACLU has gone to bat to fight for the rights of LDS citizens, students, and missionaries against unjust policies?

  • NT Springville, UT
    June 8, 2011 10:39 p.m.

    Rule of thumb: if the ACLU opposes it, it is probably good law/policy.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    June 8, 2011 10:38 p.m.

    I believe that the founding fathers, when they put in the clause about freedom of speech, were talking about political speech. They wanted people to feel free to speak their minds without fear of politicians sending the KGB after them.

    I don't believe for a second that they thought "freedom of speech, or of the press" would apply to art. OK, maybe to political cartoons and such, but not to pornography and smut.

    For us to be talking about smut being protected by the Constitution means that someone has twisted the original intent beyond recognition.

  • freedomfighter American Fork, UT
    June 8, 2011 10:37 p.m.

    Too bad the youth have to resort to the internet when seeking out sex health info, risking themselves to accidental porn exposure, when they could've learned it in a safe environment in a classroom.

    Make sex health an approachable topic in school-- take away the ACLU's excuse for fighting to let porn stay accesible.

  • arsphd Provo, UT
    June 8, 2011 8:40 p.m.

    Ah sweet. So it's ok to tax us to death, but try to make porn less accessible to minors and then the ACLU is interested.

  • George Bronx, NY
    June 8, 2011 7:51 p.m.

    I agree with "Stalwart" off topic but funny "TRUTH."

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 8, 2011 6:27 p.m.

    I recognize Utah's intent behind this law but Utah is arguably the most-frequent violator of the dormant commerce clause. Having good intentions does not exempt Utah from adhering to the COTUS.

    To TRUTH - I have to admit, that was pretty funny.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2011 6:01 p.m.

    Call it the ACLU/Weiner Protection Act~