Utah declares porn a public health hazard


#1

The US state of Utah has become the first to declare pornography a public health risk in a move its governor says is to “protect our families and our young people”.
The bill does not ban pornography in the mainly Mormon state.

However, it calls for greater “efforts to prevent pornography exposure and addiction”.
One group representing the adult entertainment industry attacked what it called “an old-fashioned morals bill”.

Pornography, the bill says, “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment” and “is contributing to the hypersexualisation of teens, and even prepubescent children, in our society”.

Further steps must be taken to change “education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level” against what it calls an epidemic, but it does not suggest how changes should be implemented.

The bill was signed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert, who said the volume of pornography in society was “staggering”.

One 2009 study by Harvard Business School said that Utah was the state with the highest percentage of online porn subscribers in the US.

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36088194


#2

There should be a law making porn web sites to have .xxx as their extension in their URL, so that only those who choose to allow .xxx sites, will be able to view them.

Porn site managers who do not have their domains registered with .xxx, would be fined heavily.

Why we allow kids to have access to porn is mind boggling.

Jim


#3

Similar to why St Thomas Aquinas believed that prostitution was needed during the societal period in which he lived, I believe that anybody suffering an unconscious or conscious desire for porn should be allowed to view it. It’s a perversion, pigs’ food, but there are bad consequences for those who are forced to repress their desires. Similar to an alcohol’s need to acknowledge the addiction before he or she can be helped, acknowledgement of being addicted to porn must come before the person can work through it.


#4

Aquinas believed that prostitution could not be dismissed entirely even though Fornication itself was sinful. Aquinas compared prostitution with a sewer in a palace: without the sewer. the palace would he filled with pollution; similarly, if the prostitute was eradicated, the world would be filled with “sodomy.” In addition, Aquinas believed that prostitution should exist to save the chastity of other women; just as the use of Food is For the preservation of life; so are venereal acts for the welfare of the human race [ST 2-2.153. 2]. Thus, this rationalization of prostitution as a necessary evil encouraged the toleration of prostitution in medieval communities and the Church. Bishops ran and owned brothels in London and Westminster during the 15th and 16th centuries, and they were not only owners but many were also clients as well. However, although Prostitution via Aquinas’s beliefs was tolerated for the benefit of the community, prostitutes were excluded From the Church if they continued their work. but there was always hope of their conversion.
–I’m not sure of the source, but there are a few sources cited


#5

Exactly. :thumbsup:


#6

Please cite those sources.


#7

I’m expecting to hear someone say “How would we like it if Utah declared the Catholic religion a public health hazard”.


#8

that would be one improvement! that would be a start, but it doesn’t go far enough. I applaud Utah for at least attempting to curb pornography.


#9

A question I have is how would we deal with sites that are user content driven. While I don’t use it, I know for a fact Tumblr has a ton of porn on it, as well as many other feeds that are non-pornographic. It has porn, but it isn’t classified as a porn site. How would we deal with cases like this?

Anyways though, good for Utah. :slight_smile: It’s start in the right direction.


#10

Good for Utah. Maybe they can ban it without violating the First Amendment.


#11

Id say, you would probably have to do something similar like here in Australia when it comes to inappropriate material on Free TV, where if someone sees something that they think breaches the code of conduct, they can report it.

I agree.


#12

They can’t.


#13

There was a time when we didn’t believe pornography was covered under the 1st Amendment. I’m all for turning back to those days.


#14

I am happy that they have done this. Porn is most definitely a public health hazard. The effects that it has on the brain are not good. I may be wrong but from what I understand, lately there has been an increase in the attention given to the harmful effects of porn. That is definitely a good thing. It is something that needs to be discussed. The Truth will come out.


#15

Porn is NOT FREE SPEECH…it’s immoral and exploitation of women!


#16

I agree with you. I am a libertarian though. I want to protect free speech.


#17

:thumbsup:


#18

“Obscene” material can still be prohibited if it does not have any “redeeming social value”.

From the First Amendment Center website:

There are two types of pornography that receive no First Amendment protection — obscenity and child pornography. The First Amendment generally protects pornography that does not fall into one of these two categories — at least for adult viewers. Sometimes, material is classified as “harmful to minors” even though adults can have access to the same material.
Even a 1986 Attorney General Commission Report on Pornography said that “not all pornography is legally obscene.” The question becomes what types of pornography cross the line into the unprotected categories of obscenity and child pornography. Or to put it another way, courts often struggle with whether pornography is too “hard core.”

firstamendmentcenter.org/pornography-obscenity


#19

thanks for posting this!


#20

From what I read, the sources are scattered in St Thomas Aquinas’ writings, which are vast.

But here’s a source that can guide a person to St Thomas Aquinas’ reasoning and beliefs.

illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.