Controlling pornography

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 2:17 a.m.

    @Miss Piggie:
    "I think you'll find that it's women who get in front of cameras and doff their clothes. That doesn't make them 'innocent.' It makes them the problem."

    The problem is the viewers, which are mostly males. Women have the right to take their clothes off when/if they want to. It's their prerogative to appeal sexually to others. If they get too bare the viewer is supposed to avert their eyes. If the don't, they are the problem, not the ladies. Mother Nature's god said so.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal:
    "I think the Government CAN restrict your access to weapons."

    The government cannot restrict ownership or possession of arms... it says so in the 2nd Amendment. And arms includes ammo... because, without ammo, arms is simply a chunk of metal and piece of wood.

    "I think the Government CAN tax us to provide Healthcare."

    The government can tax for any reason... what it can't do is force people to buy things they don't want to buy.

    And, by the way, the government (apparently) can levy penalties without having to call it a tax as in the case of Obambcare. The government can levy a monetary 'penalty' if you don't file your income tax return with IRS by the due date. I say 'apparently' because the IRS 'penalty' has not been challenged in a court of law.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2013 10:35 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:
    "There are so many who justify their 'right' to view porn that they have no concern about the innocent women..."

    Too funny...

    I think you'll find that it's women who get in front of cameras and doff their clothes. That doesn't make them 'innocent.' It makes them the problem.

    Aug. 6, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    I would love to see all the porn sites have a suffix attached to the URL such as .xxx. Problem solved. Use the net Nanny to block all URLs with those addresses.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:02 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah


    I'm not the one touting unbridled "Constitutional" rights like you do.
    I think the Government CAN restrict your access to weapons.
    I think the Government CAN tax us to provide Healthcare.

    My beliefs show integrity.
    Yours do not.

    I lean to the left - like much of the rest of the civilized world does.
    I have no problem with Government restricting and regulating greedy Capitalists.
    You do not.

    I'm just trying to figure out what you really truly believe in?

    Restricting for the good of Society
    Your puritan Constitutional interpretation of each and every law?

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    You confuse me with your muddled arguments.

    On this article, you claim that we should abridge free speech in cases of pornography or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for the good of others. The government, therefore can abridge my freedom of speech because you say it's okay, even when the Constitution does not explicitly say it?

    Yet in the comments on other articles, such as about the ACA, you claim that the government cannot institute things that are not explicitly stated in the Constituition.

    It's either explicitly stated in the Constitutuion or not, according to you. Which is it Mike? You can't have it both ways.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    Shimlau, thanks for being aware of what my nom de plume means. However, my antipathy to religion should not at all be a surprise; a thoughtful and rational person raised in a strictly religious community can't help but notice absurdity, lies and hypocrisy. Often the only way forward is to abandon it entirely. Many colonies experience this today among young and old, as well as rampant poaching activities from other churches. Some are re evaluating their draconian lifestyle restrictions to prevent population hemorrhage. So for those of us that are moving forward taking the world on it's own terms without having to claim knowledge of that which cannot be known, the weggelaufen of the world, we are at peace and living moral, busy and successful lives as it is. But don't ask us to buy in again.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    @L Liberal,

    Do you believe that a person shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has that right or do you abridge his right to shout fire?

    Are you for or agains the abuse of women and children by claiming "free speech" gives you or anyone else the right to use and abuse them? Is that what "free speech" means to you? Do you promote pornography with your "free speech"? Do you think that pornography should be "protected speech"? Do you think that the right to speak out against the government (free speech) includes the right to use and abuse women and children (pornography)? Where do you draw the line?

    I assume that you accept other laws protecting the innocence of women and children, why then do you demand that society has to accept the abuse and use of women and children for sexual purposes to preserve "free speech"?

    Either you honor women and protect children, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 5, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Perhaps people in England are more progressive with regards to women than the US? Perhaps they have more of a tradition of reining in the excesses of capitalism? Percent of people who attend church may lead to a positive correlation with controlling pornography, but there are other factors.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    hutterite; considering your screen name, your antipathy to religion is surprising.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    Mike Richards --

    Are you FOR the Constitution [including free speech, free press, free expression] and Capitalism in America?
    Are you suggesting that Socialists in Great Britain and Russia or Theocratic Muslim countries have the better way?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Who decides which laws are "best" for society? Do we let those who prey on women and children define those laws? Do we let those who cannot and will not control their appetites and passions decide that women and children are "fair game"; or, do we go to the source of all righteousness and ask the "Creator" what is best for society?

    Those who justify the satisfaction of their personal appetites and passions often tell us that God does not exist or that "their" god allows them to do whatever they want without calling their personal conduct "sinful". That's garbage. It has always been garbage and it will always be garbage. "Sin" is the willful rebellion against eternal truth. Those who tell us that porn is justified because they have a 1st Amendment right to "speak" are in open rebellion against eternal truth and the Truthgiver. They claim that their right to "sin" supercedes the right of our women and children to not be abused.

    No human being has the right to abuse a woman or a child. No "Constitutional" right allows for that abuse. Society demands that we protect women and children irrespective of personal appetite.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    Nobody realizes that you can't fix this buy just censoring it. You need to get people to totally change who they are. If they don't have that change within themselves no amount of censorship will work.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Virtue is by no means exclusive to religion. Indeed, it stands a better chance without it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 5, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    There are so many who justify their "right" to view porn that they have no concern about the innocent women and children who are destroyed by that industry. They would think that we were a nation of heathens if they were told to drive at any speed in any neighborhood because the lives of the children were not important. They would think that we have regressed five-hundred years if they were told that anyone could buy and sell drugs to anyone, including children because "free-enterprize" was more valuable than the lives of children. They rise up if someone tells them that parents should decide where and when the children attend school, or even if the children attend school; but, take away their porn, and the sky is falling.

    A society measures itself about how it feels about families, about children, and about the women. Many think that the only purpose for women and children is to satisfy the sexual desires of other members of society.

    Go ahead promote your "right" to use and abuse women and children. Tell us how your "rights" are more important that speed limits, drug regulation, and porn.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Aug. 5, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    This tells me that morals are not coming from religion, much to the misconception of the American Public.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 5, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    How about this Sterling...

    In a free market society, how about if Internet Service providers (ISP) offer that service on their own without being mandated by regulations.

    Or, one can choose to install or configure internet software to accomplish the same thing.