Britain's bold step

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    July 26, 2013 12:44 a.m.

    Make porn illegal, enforce adultery and fornication laws, let some men have more than one wife, then because of the lack of available women and lack of any kind of substitutes some men just have to go without sexual gratification their entire life.

    This is not the kind of society I want, thankfully those who push for each of these things at different times in history have failed.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 24, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    @joe5 --

    "Contrarius doesn't grasp the objective of the first amendment. "

    And what makes you think that you understand that objective better than all the SCOTUS justices who have ruled on it over the past 200 or so years?

    Your attitude reflects back on that recent DN article which stated that roughly 1/3 of Americans now believe that the First Amendment goes too far.

    Folks, wake up.

    If we stop protecting free speech just because we don't like some of it, sooner or later your own rights to speak will be gone as well.

    If we stop protecting privacy just because we think some people do icky things in private, sooner or later your own right to privacy will be gone as well.

    In order to protect your own civil liberties, you must protect the civil liberties for all those guys you DON'T like as well.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    July 24, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    There are certainly places where this move would be courageous. I suspect, however, that Mr Cameron is actually trying to appease opponents within his own party by doing something moral, after having incurred the wrath of much of his own party by promoting legal acceptance of same sex "marriages".

    In Britain homosexuality is much more excoriated than in the USA and forums I have perused on popular, "middle of the road" UK sites, reflect that substantially. This feeling comes from ordinary people; statements in publications with more intellectual pretensions are more guarded and "diverse". There was a groundswell of opposition to Cameron's stance on same gender unions, much of it from his own party, that threatens to drown him politically.

    Having said that I would support, and even commend, him for what sadly, in today's world, passes for courage and might actually take some real pluck.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    Outlawing is wrong. Give government authority to take down sites that host, but don't outlaw.

    Outlawing gives authority to punish nearly everyone who has ever viewed it (aka: most of America). Law enforcement isn't the right avenue to help a person struggling with a simple porn addiction, a bishop is. Furthermore, we should focus less on punishing wrongdoing and more on encouraging rightdoing.

    Overcoming addiction takes time. A person may struggle and stumble along the way. I'm fine with that. Why? Because I'm fine with people making mistakes and learning from them. I don't like the mistake, but that doesn't justify outlawing it. We shouldn't police other people's struggles unless infringing other's rights.

    I accept outlawing porn made by infringing another person's rights. But if we are policing those simply struggling on their own instead of letting them work through it with their bishop, then we aren't letting them be free to make mistakes and learn.

    Neal A Maxwell once gave a great parenting analogy: Rashly grabbing a sharp knife out of a kids hands doesn't end well. A wise parent offers the kid something else instead.

  • Still a Mormon Greenfield, IN
    July 23, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    I Further Contrarius's Point on the Right of Center arguement.

    Whether we agree on access to porn or not it is the fact that the government is getting more power. People are turning to the Government to fix a problem. That is why I would not vote for a candidate like David Cameron. Almost everybody in society today has seen images like that and there are many of us that turned out just fine, it is because we chose to. If you keep telling us what to do then people begin to think and act out of obstinance and not out of a genuine search for fulfillment. That means more emotions and less logic.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    July 23, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    Contrarius doesn't grasp the objective of the first amendment. The writings of those involved with the Bill of Rights show that their intent was to protect political speech, not social garbage. Granted, the current liberties taken under the guise of the First Amendment were granted by subsequent SCOTUS rulings but they drifted far from what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

    So many today want filthiness in all its forms to be protected but they are outraged when someone makes a comment that is politically unpopular. Ironic, isn't it?

    Lightbearer has a similar misunderstand of agency. Agency never meant you can do whatever you want. For example, a single man can date any woman he choose. A married man has exercised his agency; to date another woman violates his agency. Members of a society have also exercised their agency to be helpful participants in the society. When they do things that are detrimental, they are violating their agency. In many cases, society takes punitive action because of their crimes. But when the people lose their will to be and do good, well ... you get today's version of America.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    "Are they still victims in female-produced porn?" Of course, the gender of the capitalist makes no difference. Sexploitation goes beyond ordinary surplus value, to the soul of the victim. All exploitation has a spiritual dimension as it strips the victim (or employee) of his/her dignity, but sexploitation it is particularly acute.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 23, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    @merich39 - dont' we have to start somewhere? Or are we just to throw our hands up and just say it is far to hard... its not worth while.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    In my opinion, our priorities are misplaced. Yesterday, I saw a sexualized commercial on TV for Liquid Drano... drain cleaner! Imagine advertising agencies creating a sexualized commercial for something like drain cleaner. That's on top of all the commercials for things that are easy to sexualize like clothing and food and drink and cars and entertainment and...

    So here we are putting all of this effort into stopping access to porn, which may or may not be accessed by children while ignoring that they are exposed every single day to sexualized TV.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    [the activation of girls is especially important, because right now they are willing and silent victims]

    Are they still victims in female-produced porn? If so, than is female sexuality always victimization?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    Of course this raises the question - how can girls "control" porn? By not allowing themselves to appear in media nude or semi-nude. If they understand they are being exploited they will be more motivated to so act.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    I'm sympathetic to your view, but you are barking up the wrong tree, to use an old cliche. I ran a high school computer science lab. Any access control we would attempt would be circumvented by the little brats - 1 week tops. No, the way to proceed would have us teaching in the schools how to evaluate media content, including the identification of exploitation, especially sexploitation. The constant portrayal of women nude is an exploitation and our kids need to understand this. If they do they will be less likely to use porn, and girls will demand its control - the activation of girls is especially important, because right now they are willing and silent victims. Are you with me?

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    July 23, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    From "Moral Free Agency" by Daniel H. Ludlow:

    "[Lucifer] can also do it by destroying our freedom of choice, and he does this by enticing us to give up our right of free agency to other persons or to other institutions and allow them to make our choices for us, resulting in the evil that presidents of the Church have repeatedly warned against in communism and socialism and other orders of this type."

    "... Lucifer can and does work through many means: business combines, governments on all levels ... Wherever and whenever you find a person or an institution that seeks to destroy the free agency of man, there you will find the influence of Lucifer."

    [President Henry D. Moyle:] "'All we have to do is ... examine any movement that may be brought into our midst ... and if it ... attempt[s] to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious.'"

    [President Marion G. Romney:] "'God endowed men with free agency ... The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of life itself.'"

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 23, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Yikes, people. It's hard for me to believe that some of the same people who rail against NSA surveillance turn around and applaud anti-porn surveillance. Make up your minds, folks -- does this country believe in the rights to privacy and free expression, or not? You can't have it both ways.

    Yes, absolutely I agree that exposure to porn is bad for kids. That isn't really in question. But forced Big Brother governmental intervention isn't the way to go.

    These very same strong filters that Cameron is talking about could just as easily be made voluntary as mandatory. That would protect children just as well as his mandatory program would. There's no need for government force here.

    And notice this telling sentence: "similar to how people under regimes in Iran and China circumvent government Internet controls. "

    Do we really want to start supporting internet censorship that is in any way similar to countries like Iran or China? Is THAT what has become of our vaunted ethic of liberty for all??

    "Critics may howl about rights of expression"

    Yeah. It's this funny little thing called the First Amendment. Look it up.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 23, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    He's making good politics out of something over which he and his government have little control.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 23, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    Good for England! Once again they have led the fight against an enemy. At the very least, the filters will make it much harder to "stumble upon" pornography.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 23, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    A DN editorial I actually find very little to argue with. I completely agree that any attempt to keep this material out of the hands of young children, or even teens is a worth while quest. There are those who say it will not work everywhere, with everyone, just like the gun debate, but even if you keep a small portion away from this material, and the addiction it creates, is better than no action at all.

    And I do like the comparison with smoking. While at one time, it was the symbol of maturity and adulthood, it it now just viewed as people who lack good judgement by society. We surely can work to recreating the social taboo around pornography that has been created around smoking.... and reduce the damage that is being done to minds that like has been done to lungs. If you still want either, it will be available, but lets stop glamorizing it like we did smoking in the 60s.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    July 23, 2013 6:15 a.m.

    How much rape is there is an orgy? When you have rampant pornography in the US telling people and showing people of both genders that promiscuity is not only okay but preferable over morality, then the need for rape diminishes. Instead of looking at rape statistics, perhaps we should be looking at broken homes, unwed mothers, abortion rates, unhappy marriages, confusion about sexuality among our children, and other indicators that show the real toll of pornography on our society.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 12:50 a.m.

    Once again the DesNews Editorial Board proves that they don't understand how internet filter technology works. They seem to think that it has the magical ability to unarbitrarily judge "good" content from "bad" content.

    I currently work for a technology company where the majority and management are Mormon. They use one of the strictest internet filters I have even encountered. The filter even restricts Budweiser's site for alcohol-related content. However, I still have to be extremely careful while browsing the internet because I have accidentally had NSFW images appear on my computer screen (luckily no one saw). Common websites like Wikipedia, Google Images, Reddit, and Tumblr are all able to get through my company's internet filter, but often include "pornographic" material.

    Conversely, legitimate websites are often filtered out for a variety of reasons. Educational sites, even anti-pornography sites, may trigger an internet filter just because of the terminology used. Malicious users can even get a religious website restricted by reporting the website as "hate speech", with the website usually being banned first and asking questions later. Websites are quickly banned, but slowly unbanned.

    Sometimes the filter just filters without explanation.