Quantcast
Utah

Utah mom takes stand against pornography before Legislature

Comments

Return To Article
  • AkMama ANCHORAGE, AK
    March 6, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    There is a reason why I don't take my children to the store very often, why I position myself between them and the magazine aisle, why we do little to no shopping in the mall, why we're careful about the internet, the movies we watch and why we almost never turn on the TV. Anyone who doesn't understand the harmful effects this article is talking about is likely either highly desensitized themselves or addicted to porn. Most modern magazine covers of women's magazines, SI swimsuit issue, and the various other magazines on the checkout aisle have some type of inappropriately dressed female (and sometimes male) on the cover, aka softporn, which is a gateway drug. So Two For Flinching, yes, modest clothing on the streets would be very nice. You sarcastically refer to covering all skin and wearing a wetsuit, but keeping breasts, bottoms and the landscape inbetween covered by clothing that is neither sheer nor skintight is not extreme in any way. Teaching women to respect themselves and men to respect women is also not extreme. Pornography? That's extreme.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    March 6, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    I think we should point out that we have come a long long ways since the 60's and 70's. Or perhaps we have forgotten.

    When my mom took me to the genealogy library in downtown Salt Lake by bus we passed live street walkers, X-rated theatres, big lighted signs on State promoting topless bars, and scandilly clothed people on billboards pushing cigarettes and hard liquor. It left an impression on my mind, but I am glad to report things are much better today.

  • minininjatriforceman American Fork , UT
    March 5, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    I think it is very ignorant to think that making it illegal will completely ban it. I believe that if they want to get to it they will. It is another prohabition to me it does not really work.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    My 3 kids are all now in their early 20's. Like any parents, my wife and I were concerned about their exposure to pornography. So instead of petitioning the legislature to protect our children for us, we purchased NetNanny for our home computer. We monitored the programs they watched on T.V. We made sure we didn't subscribe to any cable channels we felt were inappropriate. And we monitored their cell phone use. We communicated to them the dangers of pornography, made clear our expectations of them in this regard, and meted out appropriate discipline if our rules were violated. In other words, we acted as parents, instead of expecting the government to do our jobs for us.

    I feel that the task of protecting ones children from pornography is very doable with a small amount of monetary expense and a normal, healthy amount of parental involvement.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    March 4, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    A chess game can be lost by moving a seemingly unimportant pawn without realizing that it had a critical defensive role on the square it previously occupied. Looking at the images of the kind discussed in the article is like moving that pawn. When we do we lose individually, we lose in families, we lose as a community, and we lose as a nation. Do not be fooled by those who say a little bit of nudity is no big deal.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    merich39: "If we outlaw freedom of speech, only outlaws will have freedom of speech."

    Let's stretch the 1st/2nd Amendment metaphor a little further. The 1st Amendment can be restated in 2nd Amendment terms as "A well exercised intellect being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear ideas shall not be infringed." Ideas here encompasses religious beliefs, information, images, and all words spoken or in print.

    Ideas and weapons can be used for both good and ill and a certain amount of infringement on the right to keep and bear either is accepted by most (shouting "fire" in a theater, sawed-off shotguns), but we recognize the necessity to keep both largely unfettered. What Dr. Brown is proposing is the 2nd Amendment equivalent of restricting magazine capacity to a single round-- an extremely stringent restriction on rights to solve a problem. Interpreted that way, I suspect many who have commented in favor of her efforts might reconsider their support. She is seeking a legislative solution to a problem whose solution rightfully belongs in another sphere. Fight bad ideas with good ideas, not idea control laws.

    BTW, Harley Rider is a Poe, right?

  • NiCiSu Herriman, UT
    March 4, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    I am grateful that a concerned parent went to the trouble to research physiological effects and present them! I fully understand the 1st amendment concerns, and think that we must use a balance of reason here. The line must be drawn when it begins to be harmful to unsuspecting public--especially the youth. Those who embrace pornography will not see the value of placing guidelines on object-oriented photos of the human body, but those who see it for what it is can see the obvious correlation between this type of propaganda and how our children grow up to see others and themselves as only good enough if their body is perfect. It isn't just a sexual issue. Self confidence, self worth and human compassion are on the line. We see an increase in depression, anxiety, and harsh judgement of others when we allow the human body to be seen as an object, and sensual perfection as the ultimate goal.

  • Spectre23 West Valley City, UT
    March 4, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    Reading these comments makes me think people didn't even read the article first.

  • GD Syracuse, UT
    March 3, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    I was shopping in Smith's. My 4 year old grandson was just the right height to be looking at a magazine of a very immodest woman. I asked the manager to cover those up. They did and I've seen several stores who place a piece of cardboard over the part that is offensive. I see nothing wrong with this. Ask parents to teach? Many do but many don't care. I don't know the answer but I think we can do better w/o infringing on anyone's rights.
    Gary

  • Iolanthe Providence, UT
    March 3, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    There is so much of pornography around us that many have been desensitized to it.

    There was a time when the prevailing climate was to give the best advantages to our children and to protect them from predators and salaciousness. This gave more time for children's real tasks English, Math, Language and Arts work skills. Not destroying our children with images that they are not capable of sorting. This is not about what you respond to as prudery but common sense and a protection for our finest product . . ..Our future..

    Our High Schools' were not then learning below the level of 8th graders in China. Scotland's High Schools being ahead of our college levels. We were not a nation of consumers. . . but producers. We had Edison and The Wright Brothers.

    What are we now? Professional T.V watchers. Filled with useless dark images,degrading images that destroy a desire to accomplish more. We are a nation giving little of use back to the world? Who is really lacking . . . those that protect this stupidity or those who try to get us out of it?

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    March 3, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    My point is that lawmakers are not the ones we should be talking to about pornography, anything they try and do will likely get slapped down in court anyway, just like in the past. Remember when we had a porn tzar? How did that turn out? We should be talking to parents and schools, and lets start early rather than later. Education, not (more) repression is the key to success here. Lets start by teaching our children that men and women are both of equal worth, and neither should be objectified, and that there should be mutual respect. I think that is our real problem, there are too many young boys out there who think it's ok to treat girls and Women poorly, and I think it starts in the home! And to be honest, I don't think this state has a very good track record in that regard, just look at our per-capita porn usage in Utah if you don't believe me.

  • zabivka Orem, UT
    March 3, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but would like to point out that the effects of pornography on a group of people are far from conclusive. Even a cursory study of the topic reveals that while some studies have shown correlations between an increase in certain negative behaviors and the use of pornography, other studies have shown just the opposite!

    Because of this lack of consensus in pornography studies, as well as the ambiguous, non-standard definition that this woman is using for "pornography" that should be banned, I would oppose this bill.

    I would, however, love to get rid of all those check stand magazines, simply because they are ridiculous. :)

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    If we outlaw freedom of speech, only outlaws will have freedom of speech.

  • kclady53 Baton Rouge, LA
    March 2, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    Gee, I wonder if the people opposed Dr. Brown relating the FACTS to us and the legislature feel the same way about sitting in a closed room with a dozen cigarette smokers. Actually, porn is far more dangerous because it not only effects the people viewing it, sexual crimes against innocents increase. Whole industries and empires are built up by its devastating effects – slavery, child kidnapping and abuse, etc. Young people are especially prone to addiction. You keep fighting Dr Brown. You’re right. Porn is no victimless crime. Maybe we could start working on "R" rated movies. That would be nice.

  • Harley Rider Small Town, CT
    March 2, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    She should focus attention on a real cause : Like end the Fluoridation of our drinking water * Stopping the conversion of all Farm Lands to Produce POISON ie - GMO Foods * And does she have the X's in her Skies? Those ain't jet trails up in that sky - ChemTrails . Most people have no idea of what I'm posting about , but if they have kids , grandkids they'd better start finding out

  • Most Truthful and Patriotic Layton, UT
    March 2, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    I also do not see pornography in the mall, grocery stores or magazines delivered to our home.

    What I do often see, are little girls "performing" in scanty outfits or cheering over the latest Britney Spears clone.

    What our society DOES need is a healthy dose of sex education for our children, that takes away the "naughty" so that porn doesn't become something they look for.

    The more you make it "naughty", the more "naughty" they want.

    Sign me:
    65 year old Mom

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 2, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    Re: Aggielove

    Your attempt at being more clear was only matched by its being more offensive and inaccurate. I'm sorry you think mental illnesses such as OCD and PTSD are merely petty excuses for people who want to be weak. How insulting to the thousands of military personnel who suffer with PTSD, many of whom have committed suicide.

    No wonder some conservatives want to focus the gun debate on mental illness. If they share Aggielove's view on mental illness, it's nothing more than someone making up an excuse for poor behavior.

  • bolshaya_kartina Boise, ID
    March 2, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    It's proper to worry about the effect of seductive images in our public places on children--I grew up with it (we all likely did) and it had a powerful effect on me, no doubt. Some can say that only the hard core porn is addicting to the brain--but that's definitely hogwash, I know firsthand. And science is definitive on this point. And it is not just harmful to children.

    Nonetheless, there will be evil lurking in the world, whether law can control where we encounter it 100% or not. But improvements in public places of morality and decency should be welcome, especially in arenas frequented by children. I'd hope that even without laws more retailers and web sites and even television stations would recognize and respect the silent majority that would rather not to be titillated in their domains (and for good reason), instead of allowing the crass to seek to profit off of people's weaknesses.

  • Sandy Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    Three hundred cheers for Dr. Jennifer Brown. She is a busy professional and a busy mother, and she's putting herself on the line to fight this disease in our social psyche.

    I mistrust anyone who says porn is okay, including the soft porn that comes in the mail, on magazine covers, and in the lingerie ads in this very newspaper (which has been the beginning of a porn involvement for more than one paper boy). Such a view belies a porn attachment, in my view. By contrast, those who have a healthy respect for women and children and self could never defend the scourge.

    Tell me where I send my check to support Dr. Brown's efforts.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    March 2, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    In no way would I ever say that pornography not a problem, but problems such as these cannot be taken care of through legislation. That has been the problem, trying to take care of the problem from the top down. "It is not needful that we be commanded in all things." The fact is that parents would rather shelter their kids or have the government take care of it for them than have an "awkward" (meaningful) conversation with their children.

    How many parents in Utah brought their children to watch the movie "Twilight"? I think it is hypocritical for so many people to attack "pornography" and say it is all of these things, but then to go and support an industry that is to blame for the very things you are attacking. Take a stand and stick to it. Don't flip-flop. If you are going to flip-flop, don't take a stand or you are just a hypocrite.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 2, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @Two For Flinching:
    "Why don't we just make it illegal to show any skin at all when out in public?"

    I think you mean like a certain religion... who require their women folk to cover in burkas from head to toe except for the eyes. If they don't, they get beaten by the morality police.

    Any attempt to ban porn will eventually end up like them. I think that's how they got there in the first place. Let's try to be wise about this issue.

    @panamadesnews:
    "That can be turned around to mean where does it (the pornography) end."

    I ends when women (who take their clothes off and show their bodies) acquire some morals.

    "If Iceland can prohibit porn, the great U S of A can prohibit it also."

    Didn't Hitler prohibit porn back in the day?

    @cjf:
    "I never gained progress in overcoming it until I recognized my addiction and got professional help."

    It's not addition. It's a normal inquisitiveness about things that are generally concealed from view.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    March 2, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    Here's a thought: Teach your children not to become sexual deviants. In societies where Women are required to cover up their entire body, and where the image of a Woman's skin is forbidden, there are higher instances of rape and violence against Women, and such behavior is tolerated and even encouraged as a means to subdue Women (who are treated like personal property). We shouldn't be relying on the government to be our moral compass nor our moral enforcement. If you don't like the images you see on tv, turn the channel! If you don't want your children exposed to pornographic images on the computer/tv/magazines, etc., pay closer attention to them! Government is not your child's baby sitter. If the Victoria Secrets display in the window is offense to you, don't go to the mall with the Victoria secrete. If you don't like the image on the billboard, look away. Take responsibility for your own actions and teach your children likewise! Quit trying to get the government to be our minders, if I wanted to live in Saudi Arabia I'd move there.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    March 2, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    Exposing children to images when they are so impressionable is not teaching them to abhor the human body - it is teaching that the body is to be respected. The billboards I have seen along freeways in Utah are not what I see in Idaho - sad to say. And it IS an issue - a moral issue is every bit as important as an economic or political issue. These moral issues strike at the core of the family. Let's bring back what's right!

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    March 2, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    I am surprised that in UT there would be such resistance, indicated by the comments, to the idea of limiting exposure of children to pornographic material. The question should be, who is harmed by limiting public displays of nudity that is clearly intended to do nothing but titillate the observer? In many/most cases the displayed nudity has no other purpose that to shock by pushing the envelope beyond what has previously been acceptable.

    Being a current resident of CA I see how, many times, such public displays are intended to prematurely implant ideas of sexuality in children. Thus leading to easier exploitation,by pedophiles and other disturbed people, of pre, and early, pubescent children. The extreme youth of so many girls giving birth these days is clear testimony that such aggressive "exposure" campaigns has worked as intended.

    Even if the child makes it to adulthood without succumbing, the ideas implanted by years of exposure leads to distorted attitudes towards sex outside of marriage. There is no downside to stepping back from so much overt sexuality, intentionally skirting the edge of pornography, being displayed on billboards, news stand magazine covers and the like, unless the intention is recruitment.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    Does anyone remember Attorney General David Wilkinson's ill-fated and expensive campaign against R-rated movies on cable TV? At least SJR15 doesn't require the state to sue anyone. It's just a consciousness raising feelgood statement.

    Not to defend pornography, but I worry about a debasement of language that conflates a bikini ad with "Hustler." Words have meaning and dilution of meaning does not help one advance a cause. The issue needs a better vocabulary. Does Dr. Brown seriously think that there is moral, legal, physiological, or definitional equivalence between explicit sexual imagery and the woefully undefined imagery she calls "softcore gateway" porn? Does she object to Jamaican tourism ads that show people cavorting in the surf?

    Concepts of decency vary from culture to culture and societies have different social mechanisms to regulate behavior. Nudity or toplessness are common in some cultures that do not seem to be plagued with rampant unrestraint or moral depravity. Conversely, Dr. Brown appears in the photos accompanying the article without head covering and sleeveless, offenses against female presentation that some other cultures would find scandalously lurid. Must we cater to the lowest common denominator of sensitivity and all embrace the chador?

  • Kendalyn Bountiful, UT
    March 2, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    I applaud Dr. Brown and Senator Weiler for their efforts to protect children. If we look at the last 20 years and what was considered appropriate signage and ads, we can all admit there has been a serious decline. Lets take the high road. We can't control everything but let's take steps where we can to protect children from sexual images.

  • bullet56 Olympia, WA
    March 2, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    It is good to see that Utah has so few problems bigger than this that the Legislature can take time to bat the ball around for a while. What is Porn? How much of what body or bodies can we show. Is a naked baby on a carpet too naked? Is a mother breast feeding porn? Are the USA diving teams too exposed? Is the statue of Lady Justice porn? It all may be for some folks and not to others. Are we ready to make women wear Burka's? That may be the answer.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    March 2, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    We, the People, can do much to bring about change in this world, but I am afraid that we are too loyal to our party to, stop fighting and hating, long enough, to come together and do something. The remedy for doing this is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the scriptures:

    "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinion of mankind requires that they should declare the caauses which impel them to the separation."

    Complaining is not the same as declaring. Man cannot be beaten for what he doesn't know. We assume that the people sitting in our seats of government really know what a republic form of government is, they don't. So, it is incumbent upon us, the Latter Day Saints, who ought to know, to tell them, just as David told the Phillistines, just before he slew their giant. (Continued)

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 2, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    I'm trying to figure how what could count as seeing "porn" while out and about in the community and all I can think of that could conceivably come close are the covers of GQ and Cosmo at the supermarket and walking past Victoria's Secret at the mall. Is that really worth legislating? From the looks of this article, the mother seems to want to raise her children to be paranoid adults who go around looking for reasons to be "offended."

    Looks like the party of "personal responsibility" is at it again...

  • Carol P. Warnick Ephraim, Utah
    March 2, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    I agree with Pamela Atkinson. We need to take a stand against pornography and the affects it has not only on children but on everyone. The First Amendment was written for our protection and shouldn't be used as a shield for harm otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to make laws such as stopping at a stop sign or train crossing.

  • 2nd lantern Payson, UT
    March 2, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    Children learning to read are drawn to sounding out words or using their new skills while standing in line at a supermarket. Words on many covers are inappropriate, suggestive or clearly offensive...it is chilling to hear five, six, and seven year olds phonetically reading them while we are preoccupied with shopping details. I have turned many magazines around and spoken with store managers but the problem is huge and community vigilance is needed.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    March 2, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Obscenity is illegal, pornography is not. Being offended here is silly - but if you are start wtih the ads for the new mall in downtown Salt Lake City. This issue shows a problem with the parents, not the publications.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 2, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Wives who are cold and withhold themselves from
    their husbands, shouldn't be surprised when their
    husbands find other outlets.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    March 2, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    When will people learn that you can't legislate hearts? It's the parents job to protect their children, not the government. Yes, pornography is evil, but when you pass social laws like this, you give your power as a parent over to the government and hand them a little bit more of your 1st amendment rights and your parental rights eery time you ask the government to fix your problems. We already have porn laws, enforce the laws already on the books. Take personal responsibility This is basically the same reasoning that the gun grabbers are using to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Guns aren't responsible for, so called, "gun violence". Evil people are, and you can pass laws form now to doomsday, and you won't stop evil people. Same with pron.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 2, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Folks as you all get wraped up about this, remember what this women is campaigning for. "And she's not talking about the plentiful and easily accessed videos, images and other material available through various electronic mediums." This lady is taking about magazine covers of Heidi Klum, Runners world, and photos of actors running on the beach in bathing suits.

    The portrayal of sexual acts through any medium is easy to define as pornography and restrict..but is a photo of Cameron Diaz on the red carpet in a low cut dress pornography? Of course Sharia law would answer this and fix it definitively.

  • David B. Cedar City, UT
    March 2, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    I have to agree with this mom. This kind of thing has no practical use in society.It's a terrible thing to expose children whether it be through advertising or other. Now stopping it is another thing when it has been deemed a method of free speech(You know freedom of expression) when it is that lewd and disgusting.You all have seen the turn towards stripping and You've heard some of the reasons why they do it and it's all about the money. These teens that are turning towards this have real bad role models like Kardashians,Lohan and others. Education in schools have gone by way of the doh-doh and it's not getting any better.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    March 2, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    Let me be more clear. I realize porn is very tempting for some folks out there.
    But I also know that times have changed, a lot. There are lots of sorry excuses for men out there, because they use all these excuses in today's world. OCD this, and PTSD that. Always an excuse for why they are whimps.
    I've always been shocked at all the men out there undressing women with there eyes.
    Start looking at women like heavenly fathers children, and not a piece of meat.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    Do yourself a favor and do the right thing.

    We all know what we should be doing. Just do it.

  • DebAdams Safford, AZ
    March 2, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Thank you, Dr. Brown! I am totally agreement. Being a Mom to five daughters ages 13 to 31, and a Grandmother to three precious grandchildren ages 10 mths to 6 years old, I totally agree. I am currently student teaching to finish my Elementary Education degree, and I totally agree with you. Taking past Social problems and Women cross culture classes... I totally agree with you. Please share your state's findings with us across the border to Arizona.... and to our great nation! Sincerely, Debbie Adams

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    March 2, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    I believe that we must be careful here not to rally behind this well intentioned woman while forgetting that we have a responsibility to be the example and not just talk or legislate about it (which we as a society seem to have a certain proclivity to do).

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 2, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    Let me see if I understand this correctly... The Second Amendment is a God-given absolute right that cannot be infringed upon in any way, shape or form, while the First Amendment needs to be carefully regulated by government censors who will decide what we can see and read? Apparently it's okay to be ready to blow holes in the human body, but not okay to see one uncovered? Can we be a bit more consistent in how we view the Constitution please?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2013 12:56 a.m.

    @ panamadesnews

    Iceland? That country has a population 6 times smaller than Utah. They have no standing military. Only licensed people can own guns, and they must register their weapons with the government and it usually has less than 5 guns deaths (including suicide) per year. The USA and Iceland are not comparable. This whole story is nothing more than a mom being hypersensitive. We don't need freedoms limited. We need parents to do their job and teach their kids values and standards.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    March 2, 2013 12:25 a.m.

    Perhaps the kinds of compliments we give sons and daughters--daughters, especially--and other young people, would go a long way in helping them value the right kinds of things in themselves and each other. If they feel their looks, weight, figures, and appearance are valuable to us, they will feel that way, too. If we value those things in ourselves, they will also learn to value those things as well. They will be less inclined to be interested in a magazine cover, and if they are, it's a conversation starter--by the adult. She/he who starts the conversation gets the opportunity to choose its direction.

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 11:43 p.m.

    @Aggielove

    Pornography is flat out evil.
    And any man that says he's addicted, I will say that's a lazy excuse.
    ----------

    Not sure I understand your comment. Pornography IS addicting. It has been proven to be the case. And, it is horribly difficult to overcome. Even President Hinckley stated that it can be as addicting as some of the most hard drugs.

    When one has an addiction to it, not admitting the addiction exists is dangerous, as the individual has the illusion that he can just stop it at anytime without help. If a man (or woman) is addicted to porn, not having help in overcoming the addiction leads to 100% failure and more prolonged addiction.

    A person/spouse/parent should recognize addiction for a loved one and seek help. Just avoiding seeking help in the name of "no excuses" is an unhealthy approach. Sure, it would be better to have never become addicted, but for those who are addicted, it is too late for that thinking.

    I know. I was addicted for 20 years to it. I never gained progress in overcoming it until I recognized my addiction and got professional help.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 1, 2013 11:14 p.m.

    Some people must be getting stuff in the mail that I'm not. Either that, or they've got a paranoid, unhealthy view of who and what we are as humans. Yes, there is a lot of bad stuff out there. But, it's not in the JC Penny flier.

  • Equality For All Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    Seriously... out of all the problems our society faces today, this lady is concerned because advertisements are too "pornographic" for children? Really? No matter how much you try and "protect" people from this so called "evil porn" (which really isn't porn at all) things are still going to happen. Why not focus on the real issue. Proper parenting and teaching your kids your values. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    March 1, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    Laws in this nation do not protect obscenity. Unfortunately, well planned efforts by the porn industry has manged to help make lawmakers gutless in defining "obscenity".

    It takes courageous individuals working together to help defeat the growing tide of this heinous evil that has more destructive additive power than drugs, tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 1, 2013 9:57 p.m.

    Thanks goodness someone has finally taken a stand!

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    March 1, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    To the comment, "where does it end?" That can be turned around to mean where does it (the pornography) end.

    If Iceland can prohibit porn, the great U S of A can prohibit it also.

    We must do something, or we are just going to have more violence, sexual crimes against women, young boys and girls. If the was a disease that was permeating our society, we would fight it. Well, this is a disease. Let's fight it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 1, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    Where do you all shop?

    I haven't noticed porn at a mall or in stores where i shop.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 8:56 p.m.

    Why don't we just make it illegal to show any skin at all when out in public? We could ban all magazines, make swimming illegal (unless you own a wet suit), and control what tv shows we can watch. Seriously, where does it end?

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    March 1, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    Pornography is flat out evil.
    And any man that says he's addicted, I will say that's a lazy excuse.
    Man up, and be father, and husband.
    Own up to your value as a human.

  • CP Tooele, UT
    March 1, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    I am in total agreement. It's hard to even go and pay for your groceries anymore and see the trash right where you have to stand in line with your children or grandchildren. It's awful for children but I don't like being subject to having to look at it either. The images one sees is very hard to get rid of.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    Bravo! to one intelligent and courageous woman and loving mom.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:43 p.m.

    Hurrah for this mother and others like her.

    True, the First Amendment grants us rights. But perhaps when rights are abused -- and porn is certainly an abuse -- limits are needed. It's a shame that our legislators, both state and Federal, lack the guts to tackle a very serious problem. It CAN be solved and addressed with some common sense. Unfortunately, guts and common sense seem to be woefully lacking.

    The same holds true of the Second Amendment.

  • kevo Saratoga Springs, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    I agree 100%. We need to take a stand against pornography being so easily accessible to our children. I wish we could get rid of the filth altogether, but people (adults) have a right to look at it and become under the delusion that it doesn't have a negative effect on society as a whole. In my opinion, pornography is the root of a lot of the sexual abuse and crimes in our country. The industry wants little boys to see it at an early age so they become addicted (anyone under the delusion that it isn't addictive needs professional help).

    Take a stand!

  • byufootballrocks Herndon, VA
    March 1, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    I am grateful for articles such as this which reveal the truth.

    Our children are needlessly growing up in a society whose images reveal that they are not valued as people and children of God, but as objects.

    We can change this by a commitment to wholesomeness and goodness, and insisting that this be reflected in the advertising and media communications we encounter.