Arizona Weighs Declaring Porn a Health Crisis

[Cletus]

Michelle Udall, who is pushing the bill Polly is supporting, is a conservative Republican.

Udall is irrelevant. Griffin is the one who is proposing legislation that would infringe on the First Amendment. She may also be a registered Republican, but she is acting like a Democrat. She needs to pull her head out of her ass and get right or change parties and align herself with people of similar mind.


The fact that Polly supports the bill should tell you all you need to know.

[DGUtley]

This access to porn by children is a serious problem. Frankly, I'm not sure that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, I'd have to ask Justice Stewart. The issue, naturally, is who defines it. The $20 charge may be an attempt to identify adults with a credit card - hence restricting child's access. It may pass First Amendment Scrutiny, I don't know - there would be a balancing test. I doubt it but who knows. Restricting access by children is a laudable goal but it has to be done within the confines of the First Amendment - unless it's obscene, then I am not sure that the First Amendment applies (this takes me back to law school, which is why I'm not sure).

[MisterVeritis]

This access to porn by children is a serious problem. Frankly, I'm not sure that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, I'd have to ask Justice Stewart. The issue, naturally, is who defines it. The $20 charge may be an attempt to identify adults with a credit card - hence restricting child's access. It may pass First Amendment Scrutiny, I don't know - there would be a balancing test. I doubt it but who knows. Restricting access by children is a laudable goal but it has to be done within the confines of the First Amendment - unless it's obscene, then I am not sure that the First Amendment applies (this takes me back to law school, which is why I'm not sure).

It is a tax. Nothing more.

Imagine giving the state a new tax of twenty dollars on any device able to access the internet.

Anytime anyone claims to be doing something for the children, expect tyranny.

It is time to vote this person out of office.

[Ethereal]

Arizona state representative Michelle Udall has introduced a bill that would declare pornography a public health crisis, saying that the widespread availability of pornograpy to children leads to "low self-esteem, eating disorders, and an increase in problematic sexual activity at ever-younger ages", highlighting, among other things, that pornography "normalizes violence and the abuse of women and children by treating them as objects, increasing the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, and child porn."

Strange... I've watched porn before, yet I do not experience any of those symptoms or traits.

The core purpose of the non-binding resolution is to call the public's attention to research showing that pornography is biologically addictive and harmful. 11 states have already issued such formal declarations.

Watching people have sex is biologically addictive and harmful? Fascinating. I would have assumed that humans watching other humans engage in a natural act would be rather benign, perhaps even beneficial.

Surprise, Democrats disingenuously oppose the resolution even though it is nothing more than a statement, on the grounds that it lacks teeth. One would think that that would be a call to add teeth to it instead of actually opposing the bill. To that end, Republican state representative Gail Griffin unveiled an additional bill that would install blocking software on all internet-accessing devices sold in the state in the future. This software would render users unable to access sites featuring pornography unless they were willing to prove their age and pay a fee of $20 to the Arizona Commerce Authority. That would eliminate most porn consumption overnight!

Uh, no it wouldn't.

People could simply buy "internet-accessing devices" from elsewhere, or simply use their older devices. Or they could just hack the software somehow. Or they could go back to watching porn the old-fashioned way, on cold storage devices like DVDs.

Democrat Pamela Powers Hannley is sponsoring alternative legislation that would focus on providing medically accurate sex education. According to a 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arizona ranks fourth-lowest in the nation in terms of offering comprehensive sex education in the state's middle schools. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's being proposed as an alternative to, rather than a compliment to, Michelle Udall's legislation declaring pornography a public health crisis.

Personally, I'm in support of all of this legislation and wouldn't mind national analogies being passed.

Wow.

So just force everyone in America to pay an extortion fee to governments merely for watching something you personally disapprove of?

How about we pass a "national law" forcing women to undergo a psychiatric examination every time they want to have an abortion?

Unlike watching porn, an abortion can actually cause physical harm. And the psychological impact of getting an abortion can be devastating under certain conditions. I mean, as long as we're going to use the federal government to impose our morality on the entire country, why not?

[jimmyz]

Any parent that hands their kid a smart phone is responsible for the phones use to access to porn or not.

[Ethereal]

This access to porn by children is a serious problem. Frankly, I'm not sure that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, I'd have to ask Justice Stewart. The issue, naturally, is who defines it. The $20 charge may be an attempt to identify adults with a credit card - hence restricting child's access. It may pass First Amendment Scrutiny, I don't know - there would be a balancing test. I doubt it but who knows. Restricting access by children is a laudable goal but it has to be done within the confines of the First Amendment - unless it's obscene, then I am not sure that the First Amendment applies (this takes me back to law school, which is why I'm not sure).

Raising children is the job of parents, not government.

[DGUtley]

Raising children is the job of parents, not government.

That's true. I went to war with our local library 15 years ago when my oldest was young b/c I would not provide them a list of restricted access books / sites and refused to let them impose one. That is my job, not yours. However, it is illegal for children under the age of 18 to view pornography. Courts have permitted intrusion on things like child pornography.

[Ethereal]

That's true. I went to war with our local library 15 years ago when my oldest was young b/c I would not provide them a list of restricted access books / sites and refused to let them impose one. That is my job, not yours. However, it is illegal for children under the age of 18 to view pornography. Courts have permitted intrusion on things like child pornography.

It's one thing to punish such acts after the fact, it's another entirely to put preventative measures in place that impinge on the freedoms of adults.

Another person's inability to properly raise and supervise their child is not a valid excuse to restrict my freedom.

[The Xl]

This access to porn by children is a serious problem. Frankly, I'm not sure that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, I'd have to ask Justice Stewart. The issue, naturally, is who defines it. The $20 charge may be an attempt to identify adults with a credit card - hence restricting child's access. It may pass First Amendment Scrutiny, I don't know - there would be a balancing test. I doubt it but who knows. Restricting access by children is a laudable goal but it has to be done within the confines of the First Amendment - unless it's obscene, then I am not sure that the First Amendment applies (this takes me back to law school, which is why I'm not sure).

Why wouldn't arbitrarily defined obscenities be protected by the first amendment? Are curse words not protected by speech as well?

[Captdon]

Arizona state representative Michelle Udall has introduced a bill that would declare pornography a public health crisis, saying that the widespread availability of pornograpy to children leads to "low self-esteem, eating disorders, and an increase in problematic sexual activity at ever-younger ages", highlighting, among other things, that pornography "normalizes violence and the abuse of women and children by treating them as objects, increasing the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, and child porn." The core purpose of the non-binding resolution is to call the public's attention to research showing that pornography is biologically addictive and harmful. 11 states have already issued such formal declarations.

Surprise, Democrats disingenuously oppose the resolution even though it is nothing more than a statement, on the grounds that it lacks teeth. One would think that that would be a call to add teeth to it instead of actually opposing the bill. To that end, Republican state representative Gail Griffin unveiled an additional bill that would install blocking software on all internet-accessing devices sold in the state in the future. This software would render users unable to access sites featuring pornography unless they were willing to prove their age and pay a fee of $20 to the Arizona Commerce Authority. That would eliminate most porn consumption overnight!

Democrat Pamela Powers Hannley is sponsoring alternative legislation that would focus on providing medically accurate sex education. According to a 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arizona ranks fourth-lowest in the nation in terms of offering comprehensive sex education in the state's middle schools. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's being proposed as an alternative to, rather than a compliment to, Michelle Udall's legislation declaring pornography a public health crisis.

Personally, I'm in support of all of this legislation and wouldn't mind national analogies being passed.

My provider is out of state. How would that work? Who gave Arizona the right to regulate the internet?