Comments about ‘Morality in Media stays vigilant about illegal pornography’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 19 2012 11:27 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
AmPatriot
Taylorsville, UT

The people of the United States are about to lose their country, their Constitution and Bill of Rights and go to war with another Civil War against each other and the news media is being vigilant about sex, lies, and videotapes as their lead stories? The degradation of ones morality is not limited to pornography and the pictures they look at and its very narrow minded for the news media to be concerned of this one subject when our very country is now at risk, and its not because of pornography.

Why don't they, the news, instead be vigilant about preserving free speech and free press and accountable and meaningful noteworthy information to unite this country and liberate us and themselves from the socialism and oppression we are forced to live with the help of the news media supporting our downfall? Set some new priorities to help this country out of this catastrophic implosion we are about to have blow up in our face. Time for the news to become about Americans again.

Vernal Mom
Vernal, UT

Thank you Dawn Hawkins for being so diligent! NO thanks to Mr.Obama for doing absolutely nothing.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

"I can't even think about that right now — it makes me cry."

I think that sentence really does sum it up nicely. Thinking makes her want to cry. I think this is indicative of the emotional maturity of anti-porn advocates: becuase they can't handle adult situations they assume nobody can.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Evidently AmPat thinks we don't have enough freedom, and it's somehow the news media's job to make sure we're "unified". V. Mom must feel that there's too MUCH freedom, and that if any pornography (legal, too?) shows up anywhere, it's President Obama's fault. I can't agree with either of them.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Mark B,

Obama is the leader, and as he said, will lead by example.

Neither Obama or Clinton set an example for morality, and our country is rotting from within.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Mukkake,

So a crying mother who's husband took illegal pictures of their children, abused them, and so on- would be just as immature and unable to 'handle it'. The possibility of a simple expression of sorrow for children being harmed negates your argument completely.

Also, in your comment you implied that no anti-porn argument can be valid. This is prejudicial logic and self-serving.

I may not convince you, but I will stand up for what I believe in. Many liberals argue that they have to express their free speech everywhere, including in my home or in an airplane owned by someone else. This suggests it isn't free unless you can invade other people's rights too. Maybe if I'm extended the same courtesy and can read the Book of Mormon aloud in schools, other's homes, and where I please- then those shouting 'abuse of free speech' would see the problem with their own logic.

Also, a friendly question- have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

AmPatriot,

Technically 'forced socialism' is still pending judicial review. Although it is true that people are willingly accepting such anti-democratic government.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

I just don't know what worf means by Obama not setting an example in "morality", nor do I know what he means by the phrase "rotting from within". Perhaps DN should consider prohibiting vague accusations in these posts.

BTW, did Bush banish pornography when he had all three branches of government on his side, or was he just too busy looking for wmd's in Iraq?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Mark B 9:58 a.m. March 20, 2012
"Mom must feel that there's too MUCH freedom"

Decent society puts limits on our "freedoms" in many areas. You aren't allow to yell "bomb" in an airport, "fire" in a movie theater, have intimate relations with little girls, or possess associated types of porn. You are free to possess all the legal porn you want, but possession of porn involving little girls earn you a prison cell and a place on our registered sex offender's registry when you get out.

George
Bronx, NY

While I oppose pornography in all its forms due to its degradation of women I do have to note that the article tries to blur the line between illegal pornography (i.e. childhood pornography) and those types that the courts over the years have found to be legal (not all forms of pornography are illegal. distasteful, disgusting yes illegal no). I also notice that while they accuse Obama of doing nothing they provide no examples of cases that should be being prosecuted and are not being pursued by this administration.

christoph
Brigham City, UT

Mr. Santorum would like to ban bad movies and bad internet; his rivals are silent on the issue, probably because one of his rivals was on the Board of Directors at Marriott Inc. and is no authority on the issue. Mr. Santorum is right: religion and morality and faith are more important than politics and popularity. And I must add that I am confident Mr. Obama wants the best for his daughters and for all daughters. Much of Hollywood dislikes Mr. Obama's support for traditional marriage----so he must be doing some things right.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Mark B,

"Perhaps DN should consider prohibiting vague accusations in these posts."

Such a policy would be highly impractical. Also, I personally think most 'misunderstandings' come from refusing to listen far more than a lack of well presented information.

Also, an argument being vague may not be inappropriate either. It is one thing to say "Porn is wrong" to an LDS audience that already knows many of my premises. It is another to say it to an atheist audience whom I'd have to provide more information to. "Knowing your audience" is important with logical arguments. Where this paper enjoys a large conservative reader-base, I don't think Worf's comment will be read as having "empty accusations" by many.

Lastly-

"porn is wrong" and "Porn is okay" are equally vague/clarifying statements. Saying "Hitler was evil" is also vague. But vagueness doesn't invalidate a claim. Providing reasons often doesn't convince people anyway. I'd rather suggest "read the Book of Mormon and decide for yourself" instead of trying to convince anyone to agree with my own experiences. That doesn't invalidate my claim but strengthens it.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

VOR's suggestions are all level-headed. My suggestion about DR's policy on vague accusations was not entirely serious, though I have found, in general, that the MORE vague the accusation, the fuzzier or less factal it may be.

And no, I still don't what worf was referring to in his 10:08 post.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Mark B,

"I still don't what worf was referring to"

I'm assuming "I still don't know". Either way, you got a laugh out of that one. It's a valid point, more than I realized at first.

In hindsight, I would argue that accusing would require explaining or showing your rational, evidence, etc- in order to be credible. The analogies I provided are valid, but possibly only in situations where disputing is not involved. One can't dispute my beliefs or experiences, etc- they are subjective. But where credibility is in dispute (an objective argument)- such as someone standing on trial, a president, etc. then clearly one must 'back up' their claims.

-------

christoph,

1- I disagree with Hollywood often, but claiming that 'conflicting intentions with Hollywood must be partially/completely justified' either relies on a false dichotomy (no 3rd opinion existing) or circular reasoning (that one is right BECAUSE they disagree), both fallacious arguments.

2- I rarely agree with standing presidents decisions (Obama included), but his real stance regarding marriage is unknown. He has supported of both 'sides' on different occasions (search youtube). This would suggest avoidance rather than revealing his true opinion/support.

George
Bronx, NY

@VOR
While I understand your point I would also remind you that President Obama has admitted on more then one occasion that his views on marriage are not settled in his own mind and something he still wrestles with. I know that not taking absolute unbendable stands has become a political liability in todays political climate regardless of party affiliation but I am not sure that is a good thing.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The President of the United States will go to the aid of the college student that Rush defamed but not for Dawn Hawkins when the man on the airplane was definitely offensive as were some other passengers. People have their conscience to guide them with their lives. Courts are not necessarily guided by their conscience but by what they feel, know or are persuaded to know about their interpretation of that law. Justices aren’t necessarily appointed for their Constitutional and liberty causes and have a lifetime appointment to inflict bias opinions on the public in the United States. Social activities are important and this type of MIM is a God send with moral people. Liberty is important but not at the expense of what other people suffer when forced with someone else’s blatant disregard for personal beliefs and moral values.

George
Bronx, NY

@JWB
"The President of the United States will go to the aid of the college student that Rush defamed but not for Dawn Hawkins when the man on the airplane was definitely offensive as were some other passengers." that was a bit of s stretch by any measure. One was a concerted and ongoing direct and very derogatory attack against a person, the other was a thoughtless self centered act by a granted not very smart passenger.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments