Rep. Jim Matheson aims to protect kids from pornography

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    Feb. 18, 2011 12:27 a.m.

    "Thirty-one percent of seventh- to 12th-graders pretend to be older so they can access a pornographic website..."

    Okay and how many 7th to 12 graders from my day ever saw a pornographic magazine or movie? I'm betting the numbers are pretty even, and we didn't even have the internet to help us out back then.

  • RagnarL4 Tupelo, MS
    Feb. 17, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    If the congressman's motive is to stick it to the evil industry of porn with regulation and taxation... what does that say of how the good congressman and his party regard every other entity they regulate and tax?

    What would that say of how they feel about oil, tobacco, alcohol, weapons, wheat, Big Macs, money lenders, Ford, Chevy, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, dog groomers, teachers,... and of course, you and me and our property.

    It occurs to me that perhaps what gets taxed and regulated the most is a measure of a politician's contempt for the violated entity.

    I pay nearly 40% in taxes and I don't know how to measure the multitude of ways I'm regulated.

    Does the good politician hate me too? He's only going to tax porn at 25%? Does he hate me more than porn?

  • pikap1868 Layton, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 6:28 p.m.

    Ah yes, the evils of porn... WHAT OUT!?!? That porn is going to eat that baby!!

    I didn't know it was election season already.

  • teachermom6 Davis County, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 1:26 p.m.

    Reading the comments on this board, it is so refreshing to know that there are so many responsible parents out there who filter the web for their families. Unfortunately, there are parents out there who either do not filter the web, or are incapable or uneducated enough to do so. We need to protect ALL children, not just children with responsible and/ or educated parents. (Not all homes have ideal role models.)
    I believe that Matheson is on the right track here. He has taken the statesman approach allowing folks to have their rights, but also remembering that we need to protect our most vulnerable citizens from those who like to get young people "hooked".

    To many who question the wisdom in getting the government involved, I would ask do we get rid of government protection altogether? Should we allow minors to purchase tobacco and alcohol? How about purchasing a firearm? Of course not! That line of thinking is insane. However is allowing our children to view pornography at the touch of a mouse, with no protection any different? Any parent who believes they have this under control enough in their own home are kidding themselves.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 1:15 p.m.

    Tom Smith | 5:36 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011

    I don't believe that child pornography is the subject at hand. Child pornography is almost universally illegal.

  • unaffiliated_person Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 1:11 p.m.

    Why do they waste our time? I've said this several can't regulate the internet. It is a global entity. Making a law mandating age verification will only take effect on US sites. You can get to any .ru .ch .uk, etc site just as easily. While I am no fan of porn operators, you are just making the US ones want to offshore meaning loss of tax revenues anyway. Same for an internet tax. It is unenforceable and would only apply to US porn companies....making them want to go offshore as well. Having them go offshore will not remove porn, it just removes tax dollars.

  • RagnarL4 Tupelo, MS
    Feb. 17, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    @Goet: Amen on both comments.

    @Captain Kirk: A toast to you too.

    Dear Congressman,

    I appreciate your concern, but you've chosen a job where your only means of accomplishing your objective is to tax me and my neighbors to do it. No thanks!!! Come and give a talk at my club or something.

    I find the tax on porn to be highly suspicious too. That will effectively put me, as a somewhat-beneficiary of tax revenues, a porn profiteer. I don't like that at all. Of course I oppose taxes all together, but this one seems exceptionally dubious.

    Congressman, are you in this for your "morality" or for the revenues?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 17, 2011 11:53 a.m.

    Re: Goet

    As a good parent my children aren't given the choice to view pornography in my home. I do look to the government to put controls on commercial web sites.

    Probably why we don't see adds for smoking on TV.

  • Goet Ogden, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    No, I'm a good parent and I teach my children right and wrong and allow them to make choices based on principles of freedom and morality.

    I don't look to the government for my morality and for my parenting skillset.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 17, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    Re: Goet | 9:33 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011

    We aren't worried about saving you Goet. The vast majority of decent citizens protecting our children from pornography.

    Obviously you are the exception to the rule and follow your children around every second of every day.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    Thanks Jim. Good luck!

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    Feb. 17, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    I find some of these comments ignorant. Shall we remove restrictions on driving, tobacco, and alcohol as well, since Big Government put restrictions on those? These are ridiculous arguments. Some industries should not be allowed to run free reign - they do significant damage that we all pay a price for. Sensible regulation is a positive move. And taxing them heavily is a wonderful idea.

    Also, I had thought at one time there was a movement to have all adult industry websites have addresses at .xxx so they couldn't be accessed accidentally from .com or .org addresses? Anyone know about that?

  • Goet Ogden, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    Thank you Mr. Big Government for saving me!!!

    I was unable to be a parent until you, YES YOU, Mr. savior of my life, came into the picture.

  • Captain Kirk Lehi, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    I have an idea. Instead of implementing some huge federal system ... Maybe parents should actually do some parenting.

    I filter my whole house from porn for FREE using OpenDNS.

    There are many inexpensive and easy to use products available for parents.

    I don't need the government to do my job.

  • beetdiggingcougar Provo, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 8:15 a.m.

    Matheson is trying to look conservative any way he can to prepare for 2012.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    Unfortunately, the really obscene danger to our children is the huge debt being piled on them by Matheson's fellow Democrats.

    How about protecting them from that?

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 7:02 a.m.

    I believe that the liberals in his own party will block his efforts.

    Certainly, if they don't, civil libertarians will.

    This is an issue that can likely only be resolved in the family.

    And while this is under discussion - I wonder how the statistics look for children being exposed to drug use? Could we say that 90 percent of kids ages 8 through 18 have been exposed to illegal drug use? (Especially if you add "spice" to the list of exposure agents?)

    These are home and family problems. The government is notoriously unable to make a big difference. That doesn't mean that righteous men and women shouldn't try, just that they should be honest and realistic in their expectations for success.

  • Paul H West Valley, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 5:44 a.m.

    It's worth a try.
    Thanks Rep. Matheson. This is a sensible approach that can *help* protect children while not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights.

  • Tom Smith Sandy, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 5:36 a.m.

    The Office of the U.S. Attorney General has refused to address any issue related to child pornography over the last 28 years. Is Matheson ready to take on the Porn Industry? Big Player, lots of money-- Money buys political power. Any Idol of this world can be purchased if you have enough money. How long will it before Matheson gets an offer, or runs against a well financed opponent. My guess is that Matheson won't last long in this arena.

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 3:38 a.m.

    I support Matheson 100%. Let's hope those working with him will see the wisdom of this. It is long overdue.