Meanwhile in Little Rock...
Posted on 04/11/2017 9:12:39 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The Arkansas General Assembly has declared that “pornography has created a public health crisis,” leading to a broad “spectrum” of public health “impacts and societal harms.” The Assembly also stated that pornography can increase “the demand for prostitution and the sex trafficking and slavery of children and young adults, primarily girls.”
The Resolution, HR 1042, is an official recognition by the Arkansas government. It is not a law. It reflects the official view of the legislature and a copy of the Resolution is sent to the director of the Department of Health in Arkansas. Similar resolutuions have passed in South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia, and in the State Senate in Tennessee. The Arkansas resolution passed the Assembly on March 28.
Introduced by Rep. Karilyn Brown, the Arkansas resolution in part says, “pornography normalizes violence and abuse of women and children by depicting rape and abuse as if such acts are harmless.… [D]ue to advances in technology and the universal availability of the Internet, the average age of exposure to pornography is currently 11 to 12 years of age.”
Further, exposure to porn may “lead to the hypersexualization of teenagers and even prepubescent children” and “research indicates that pornography is potentially biologically addictive.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Will they ban “50 shades of gray” and other “women’s porn”?
At the risk of being flamed by Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists here...I’d have to agree.
I haven’t read the resolution, but just based on the excerpt, I love it
Meanwhile in Little Rock...
Truly strict Constitutionalists would not object to this. There is no right to engage in behavior that violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, porn being a medium that attacks the family and hence attacks the basic underpinning of society.
This isn’t a law.
Not to mention hairy palms and blindness......................
Maybe the FR church lady contingent can weigh in on which government agency will be tasked with that determination ...
Have they given it a name? I would suggest it contain Clinton in it somewhere . . . May be insert sub-thread here.
hmmm so how does watching this in the privacy of my own home violate that??
so your argument is basically that it “could” lead to something... well I guess that also goes for alcohol too....or guns for that matter... better listen to big gov and do as i’m told...
“Truly strict Constitutionalists would not object to this”
Then you need to look up what that is again.
“porn being a medium that attacks the family and hence attacks the basic underpinning of society.”
Yeah, that’s cute, but that weasel language is not an excuse to not mind your own business no matter how much you don’t like the stuff.
Wasn’t there a court case at one time on porn, in which the judge said he knows it when he sees it?? And that discussion came up because of the difficulty in giving a precise definition of this subject. Is the display of a woman’s breast always pornographic? What if it is part of a discussion of health matters such as breast cancer?
If I recall correctly from court cases on obscenity decades ago, these are exactly the types of issues which came up in trying to define what is obscene.
One of the things I tried to do as a father was rigidly control my children’s access to the internet.
They were home schooled, no cell phones till they were teenagers, and only “stupid” phones.
They did get personal computers, but I killed the internet access until they were just shy of going to college, then they got regular laptops for taking to college.
If they saw porn, then they had to work overtime to get it. And probably learned a heck of a lot of how to use the computer to do so.
But being gay or a tranny is OK?
These are not goals of Constitutionalists. These goals of the commies in the Congressional Record have been repeatedly posted on this website.
- Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
- Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
- Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” …
Nonsense.
It’s like saying masturbation leads to sex.
Sex crimes do not occur because people masturbate. They don’t even occur because people don’t masturbate. This is a ridiculous connection.
Children need to be raised by parents. They love their parents so much and try hard to be good people. The farther away kids grow up from parents, the less time the parents care for them, kids don’t have quite the same ease at developing morals.
If we worry about sex crimes, we need stronger parental supervision and to keep poor kids who can’t afford children from hooking up etc. the stronger the family the better chance of not raising criminals.
Sex crimes are violent crimes and only a certain person devoid of morals becomes a violent criminal.
What is wrong with letting an older child say 15,16 see porn? First of all, aren’t they going to find it on their own somewhere at that age? Don’t kid yourself. Every 15 year old has some time alone. Next, they will have sexual urges. Wouldn’t porn be preferable to sex at that age?
Kids at 15 and 16 need to be slowly released into adulthood. I don’t want my sons mixed up with OTHER PEOPLE like pervy teachers at that age. I am wholly unconcerned about porn. It doesn’t bother me.
(Of course if it’s underage porn or the people making it we’re forced etc that is different)
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t know what this gets the legislature. The law on porn is well developed. Its protected so they can’t ban making it. Its distribution can be limited but not banned. Even if hard core porn in banned, most cable and even network TV has loads of softcore porn that falls just short of showing actual sex acts. The state can’t ban internet porn. So what can they do? Provide therapy sessions for horny teenage boys? They’d be better off spending their money on other epidemics, like drug enforcement laws to fight the heroin and meth epidemics that now infect rural America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.