Quantcast

Comments about ‘Why Iceland is seriously considering a ban on Internet porn’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 15 2013 12:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Pornography is the real war against women.

Honest Abe
Salt Lake City, UT

Way to be Iceland!

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

@ John Charity Spring

I agree with 99% of what you said except for thepart about devients watching porn. It's not just devients. It's kids who get exposed to it early in life and become addicted. It's men young and old and women, too who are our neighbors and friends who carry this secret addiction and suffer in silence.

@ Aggielove...you really need to do some research on this. I personally know of some very good people who have been addicted to porn. It has very little to do with their goodness or badness. It has to do with being exposed to it, curiosity, hormones,lack of discipline to avoid it. etc. Is your self discipline infallible? Kids who are addicted to it aren't always bad kids. They've been victimized by selfish adults who make porn for money or for their own personal gain. The ones who make the porn are truly bad. The ones addicted to it aren't always. Just visit with any psychologist in your Cache county and you'll hear stories of the most unlikely folks who come in to get help with overcoming the addiction. You'd be very surprised.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Maybe it's time for us to consider the same sort of thing. Along with sensible limits on guns.

Freedom depends upon everyone being responsible for acting wisely.

There's not much wisdom in unlimited guns or porn.

GQ Monkee
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As I mentioned above, free speech precedence is the only real concern here. Banning internet porn may or may not be the next step toward tyranny, but let's not stand around arguing that pornography benefits our society in meaningful ways. Nor should we throw our hands in the air and say we're powerless against its encroachment. The fact is this: when it comes to things like pornography, people who want it should have to go out and find it. I should not be required to defend my home and limit my use of electronic tools in order to avoid it. When kids at school can find it using Google image searches, when it floods into peoples Facebook feeds and email in-boxes, when you have to use special tricks to avoid it rather than to access it--when this is the world we live in, something needs to change.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Iceland is a backward country where the government wont even allow people to name their children names that aren't on the approved list.

That is the kind of country that is trying to pass this law.

Gracie
Boise, ID

To Tators: "Pornography essentially didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was created."

Oh no, it's been around about as long as people have inhabited the planet. By internet access? Of course not, but humankind has been inventive both for positive and negative purposes forever. Civilizations have gone down in flames over combinations of evil designs. Pornography has essentially been one of them. There's plenty of evidence about this, even celebrated on televised historical shows lately, often supported by our tax dollars.

Gracie
Boise, ID

To Sjense90: "Government could theoretically take the porn away from people but it fails to tackle the lusty roots of the real issue."

Civil government can't do the job you imply it should. Moral and/or faith-based organizations are the avenues to help us help each other to develop the character needed to restrain ourselves from believing every issue is a "me" thing, and then act on it whether it's a lastingly good idea or not. Government, in such arenas, is only a coercive mechanism when our own character is deficient.

UteRB77
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Chris B. and Mukkake, just have the courage to say it; you guys "want your porn? Nothing archaic about the addictions and damages from pornography, right boys? As to the arguement regarding the existence of pornography when the Bill of Rights was written, it is completely irrelevant and misplaced. I assure you, our founding fathers gave no consideration to the concept of "freedom of expression" as defined by today's standards. Their singular focus and intent was to protect political and civic speech and publications. They wanted to protect the freedom of individuals to "express" their discontent with government and provide for redress without reprisal or censure. It had nothing to do with pornography or art for that matter. Freedom of speech does not protect someone from yelling "fire" in a theater full of people, when there is no fire. The potential for serious harm and injury from such an act would find the vocalist facing criminal and civil liability. There is plenty of evidence in study after study as to the harmful and debilitating effects of pornography to warrant similar prohibition. We need to return this hideous vice back to the darkest alleys and gutters where it previously resided.

CabezaMan
Cottonwood Heights, UT

For those that doubt the dangerous and damaging effects of pornography you need to read the book, "Internet Pornography, The Drug of the New Millennium" by Mark B. Kastleman. This is an excellent and detailed expose on the harmful effects of pornography. It can take only seconds for an innocent young boy to be exposed and become addicted to this filthy and manipulative vice. Mr. Kastleman does an excellent job in explaining how pornography produces the same chemical responses in the brain as any other addiction such as alcohol or drugs, and his citations are flawless. He also provides solutions for such addiction recovery. The best protection is to render this Wall Street billion dollar industry impotent, and throw it back to the darkest pits and squaler from whence it emerged. I think we can accept the temporary economic hiccup that would result from the displaced programmers and executives that profit from their divisivley hostile and invasive tactics. Do not be diluded, these sludge tycoons have drawn the battle lines and consider this a war for the hearts and minds of our men and boys, and yes, the girls too.

HotGlobe
SAN RAFAEL, CA

Imagine a website for terrorists that solicited suggestions of vulnerable places in America to attack and get away with it. Would shutting that down be a mistake? Would that be going part way down a slippery slope of restricting our freedom? Maybe, but sometimes you have to stop bad stuff. Go Iceland!

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

Despite all the enthusiasm for government censorship the letters here have displayed, they fail to address an essential question: which government department will be deciding what is or isn't porn, and who will set those standards? What parts of the body can be shown in a photo, and how much of them must be covered? How will they find exceptions for art and medical/health web sites? And what about writing? Will they simply disallow certain words, or will they have a board of censorship to review each and every book and story in the world to determine what we will be allowed to read? It's a bit ironic that the same people who are ready to start an armed revolution at the suggestion that the government institute any laws regulating firearms and their sale are here rejoicing at the idea of the same government setting up a department to decide what we can see and read.

UteRB77
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Eliyahu, and that's the manipulation! It's not difficult and your attempt at justification for a lack of a definition is the same as defining the word "if." It's really quite simple if you look it up. A Google search produces the following:

"Pornography /pôrˈnägrəfē/ Noun: Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity."

The fact is that the Supreme Court has had to wrestle with this issue for decades due to creative and divisive legal spin. Pornography or obscenity was defined by the Court as "anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value." But I like best what Justice Potter Stewart said - "I know it when I see it." It's not rocket science folks. We just need to not be so simple minded and allow ourselves to get caught up in such inane and sophisticated arguments. As to your weak attemp regarding "Art," or medical/health sites, and even writing? We're talking about explicit "images." See definition above. It's really quite simple. It's about the images.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Iceland is an island nation that doesn't have a huge influx of people from many nations going to their small country that was isolated from many European countries in its lifetime. They have the Lutheran religion and have a somewhat protected society. Utah used to be more isolated during the civil war time and still is in many ways. However, Utah maybe needs to be like this island state and think of the freedoms we have in a little different way. We all honor our mothers and their instinct to want to keep children and the youth free from harms way. That used to be easier until the railroad came through Utah linking our east and west together. That made our island state a little or a lot more travelled with people that didn't have the same values and many were good people.

However, with our need to be like the children of Israel, wanting to be like our neighbor states or other countries, we want to have the "best" access to the potential invasion into our home. We all know it breaks up families and marriages sooner or later. Children are exposed one way or another.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

UteRB77
Cottonwood Heights, UT
"We're talking about explicit "images." See definition above. It's really quite simple. It's about the images."
If only it were so simple. Take a look at Internet filtering software on your computer and see if you can just filter "explicit images". That's been one of the problems with censorship. First, no one can agree on what images should be banned and what should be allowed. People with software such as "net nanny" and other filters discover that they've also blocked sites dealing with breast cancer, sex education, as well as many other innocuous sites. Software that blocks images based on skin tones displayed can easily block your shots of a pool party or trip to the beach. And censorship rarely stops with "explicit images". It grows and grows.

When it comes to trusting the government to do the job, look at the current status of gun laws as well as the number of children suspended from school for pointing a finger and saying "bang bang". These are the folks you want censoring the Internet for you, so you don't have to supervise your kids when they're online?

joeyslaptop
VANCOUVER, WA

This article says, "This argument — that porn violates the rights of both women who appear in it and children who are exposed to it — is the cornerstone of the new proposals under discussion."

Was it the rights of the dancers or the rights of the other women who worked there that were being violated. I'm interested in learning more about how restricting their freedom to earn money how they choose is a violation of their rights.

I'm completely against porn and would love to see it banned in the US. I'd just like to learn more about how that's possible without forcing people to give up their agency.

aceroinox
Farmington, UT

Some of you are acting as though porn viewers are the only victims. The porn industry has another set of victims: the porn workers who appear in the films. Many are lured gradually into this business by money and/or drugs, ending up in increasingly hard-core films. ABC News has documented the tragic human cost in a news segment entitled "Love on a Porn Set: A Mormon Girl Gets Her Start in the Adult Movie Business". These industry victims are indirectly employed by porn purchasers, since without consumer dollars in this market, many of them would be without work. Hard to understand how someone can justify their habit after viewing this episode. It's truly tragic. If you're still not convinced, imagine that your mother, sister or daughter were the porn worker being exploited and whom you were viewing/paying to entertain you--still OK?

Another ABC report, "American Porn: Corporate America Is Profiting from Porn--Quietly", documents the companies who profit from porn, some of which would surprise you.

kclady53
Baton Rouge, LA

Finally someone is thinking of the rights of the real victims. Hope it passes. Wish the US would follow those lines.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

Such a lively discussion on banning porn in Iceland! Its seems like classic displacement. A term that one would pick up in a psych class at BYU. Why is it that Utah has one of the highest on-line porn subscription rates in this country? Why is it the Utah women have the highest per-capita use of prescription anti-depressants in this country? I wonder if there is a corelation between these two events. Now, that would make a fasinating research paper.

to comment

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