Published: Tuesday, Oct. 2 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments