It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Utah Lawmaker Says Internet Porn Violates First Amendment

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Sargeras


So the pimply teenagers will either start getting young girls pregnant with children...


Pretty much how it's happened for 250,000 years. Well, up until a few years ago.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Todd Weiler (R) said that the internet, essentially, violates a person's First Amendment rights by "delivering pornography" to people who don't want to view it.


What a moron. Is leaving a loaded gun laying around also unconstitutional? That is basically what he is getting at. Pornography, regardless of one's personal feelings about it, is protected speech; per the supreme court. It does not become unconstitutional simply because a minor may obtain access to it. Likewise, gun ownership does not become unconstitutional simply because a minor may obtain access to a fire arm.

What a pathetic attempt to ban constitutional rights. He seriously should rethink his position; especially given the party he is in...the self proclaimed "defenders of the Constitution".
edit on 23-4-2016 by WeDemBoyz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It is, isn't it? Harry Potter. Pron. Same danger...

Oh, it's bad for the kids.

Isn't that what parents are for?

McDonalds is evil for providing free Wi-Fi, because there's a chance that kids might see pron? Really? Again, isn't that what parents are for? Can't blocks be placed on phones, Ipads, laptops, etc...before they're handed over to the kids for use? I ask as someone who is strictly early 20th century in many ways as regards technology.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

I'm not defending pornography though, I am rejecting the idea that it being on the internet is a health crisis that deserves to tie up a state legislature or more importantly, is going against this guys first amendment rights. mainly the latter. can you explain how it is? I am really getting tired of this bit about the poor christian's rights are in danger being used to enforce holiness on the masses. you can't put pretty white gowns on the sinners and fool god into thinking they are saints. you can only create hypocrits!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVtech34
a reply to: AmericanRealist Do you think a child will suddenly develop the inability to click "Yes, i'm 18" if the site requires it? There is no way to keep a curious kid from seeing porn unless you issue everyone in the US a CAC (common access card) so they can log into a terminal.



That is the current method of security. I am talking more, credit card on file to confirm age just to access the domain type of security. A 1$ annual fee to maintain the security of the domain should not be too inconvenient. People spend hundreds of dollars buying virtual items in a fantasy video game. No reason a single dollar should ruin your world for access to adult content.

Now of course the dollar fee would only be to maintain the security portal so that you can view anything in the domain. There may be lots of free pron tube sites you can use. But you still would have to pay for whatever individual site or group subscriptions like today. The whole point is to move to a domain where no one can accidentally stumble on adult content. Anyone there knows exactly whats there because they looked to be there, and since they not ashamed, because Im not, there should be no problem with a one dollar fee to maintain a sure portal that keeps the majority of minors away from accessing prohibited content.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Did I not say there were more important things to be concerned with as regards pornography?

Did I not suggest this politician's focus was misdirected?

You are not defending pornography. I am not defending his gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   


You know, it's fascinating that the same people who blabber on and on about women's rights, the evil patriarchy, and "it's for the children!" will religiously defend pornography--an industry driven by people who, by-and-large, are caught in the cycle of sexual abuse themselves. The industry takes advantage of this and you, as a pornography consumer, are contributing to the perpetuation of this cycle.
a reply to: NthOther

sounds like you are trying to blame the liberals for something that the conservatives are instigating... for the sake of the religious rights.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No, I'm pointing out their blatant hypocrisy.

I suppose this is the part where words start getting shoved into my mouth and everything I say is completely distorted.

So, adieu.

*tips hat*



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: apydomis
There are far more important things to defend than the right to watch women and men live out your fantasies on film.

Naa, this seems the most important actually.



I hope this view of pornography is adopted nationwide. If you view pornography, you should consider giving it up. It is not healthy for your mind, and it is not a healthy view of relationships.

You know where a ban on porn is? middle east. thats a nice and healthy culture. must be such a idealistic area for you..you should consider a move. life goals and such.


People can sense how you view them.

Yep, people find other people sexually appealing..sort of how we continue to be a species.


If I had a choice in the matter, pornography would not be available.

Good to know, but you dont have that choice..your desires are flaccid..and will leave the second part of that unspoken.


I don't want it available to anyone.

I dont want religion available to anyone..many people and rulers have murdered specifically because of that. that seems a bit more critical for authoritarian banning for species security.



I don't want men and women shaping their minds with it.

I do


Sadly, it will always have a home because of our cultures desire to give it one.

yep, but not all cultures allow this..seriously..go check out Saudi Arabia..seems right up your alley.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: SaturnFX

Hmm, well facts are facts I guess. Crow tastes horrible. In any case, you as a grown adult would not be so inconvenienced by simply typing .xxx instead of .com . I love porn too, but I am not going to claim the end of the world because it should be on a whole other domain inaccessible to the majority of minors. In fact the only one that would be inconvenienced by such a move is minors trying to view adult content.

I dont support banning it like this crazy Utah legislator, but the responsible thing to do for society is to cast it back into the dark corners and back alleys of the net that only adults with authentication can reach. An adult who cannot make that compromise is just immature.

Nope
so you have to give certified authorization/identification in order to visit XXX websites..cool story. let me just identify my political self online to then be tracked and marked in a online presence the fact I like looking at asian toe fetish websites..that surely wont be a recipe for intense blackmail, leaks, and chaos.
No
No no no
no a thousand times.
I would be in favor of the XxX extension if it was simply a voluntary thing, no tracking, etc..and it being used mostly to help out blockbots for kids computers. Otherwise, no deal.
Childhood obesity is far, far more dangerous than porn exposure.
Have parents have to register to get sugar.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

You already are tracked and marked online. If you have ever signed up for any website with a credit card, for instance maybe to shop, why would you be against it for adult entertainment. And in fact, I think there should be penalties for allowing ones child to become dangerously obese. Like slightly overweight is not a big deal. But if a twelve year old weighs close to or over 200 pounds, thats just parental neglect and/or abuse.

However, if you like asian toe fetish own that #! I love group sex and Im not ashamed of that. In fact the real thing is even better (TMI?? 2 bad!). But I would have no problem registering for an authentication login or whatever if it keeps all that stuff where little ones cannot see it, even by accident.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think Republicans have the first amendment backwards.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
as far as feminist opposing laws against pornography and such, gee that was probably more common in earlier times..




The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the "Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use". The Act criminalized usage of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[1]

erotica,
contraceptives,
abortifacients,
sex toys,
or any information regarding the above items.

In places like Washington D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, the act also made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell, give away, or have in possession any "obscene" publication.[1] Half of the states passed similar anti-obscenity statutes that also banned possession and sale of obscene materials, including contraceptives.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'll watch some porn tonight in honor of his stupidity.


Lightweight.

I have two other tabs open right now.


Amateur.
I have my two other screens tuned to my favourite entertainment sites.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I guarantee this guy is neck-deep in internet porn at every opportunity.

Very likely gay or child.

It's just the way these things work.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: apydomis
It's amazing that our culture (and all of you) are defending your perversion so intensely. There are far more important things to defend than the right to watch women and men live out your fantasies on film. I hope this view of pornography is adopted nationwide. If you view pornography, you should consider giving it up. It is not healthy for your mind, and it is not a healthy view of relationships. People can sense how you view them.
If I had a choice in the matter, pornography would not be available. Not just because I don't want it available in mcdonalds where children can watch it- which is a serious problem- but because I don't want it available to anyone. I don't want men and women shaping their minds with it.
Sadly, it will always have a home because of our cultures desire to give it one.


I don't care what people do with their eyes.... Are you converting to Islam so we can have burka clothed beaches ?

All things begin with the first step.

IMO there have been way to many steps to erode people's freedom of thought by the control freaks who think they know better because some perverted goat shagging thoughts made it to print way back when... Maybe they really are preparing the world for a place like "BELGISTAN"
www.cbn.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I won't tolerate this PC bull# form the left, I sure as hell not going to let the right get away with it.

Its simple if you don't want to see porn don't look for it.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
What a waste of goddamn time. -sigh-



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBRiddle
I won't tolerate this PC bull# form the left, I sure as hell not going to let the right get away with it.

Its simple if you don't want to see porn don't look for it.




Either they don't know how to internet(safe searches) or they are looking for it. If it pops up otherwise just as much ignore it if it pops up on a non safe search. See spam sites that include porn picked up by internet search spiders.

Utah and many Mormons violate the Constitution. There I said it.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

That is why mormons are in Utah, from their beginning it was about going against the laws of the United States.

Every day we move closer and closer becoming like our enemies the Taliban and ISIS. Controlling the individual, money, religions, life, sanctioned with individual tribes (states) with laws against individuals.



new topics




 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join