This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
I know this is probably a little rude of me to bring up, cognitive dissonance being so uncomfortable and all, but I can't quite figure out the logic of legislating the ability to sue pornographers for some ephemeral and ill-defined psychological damage to the few, when the producers of products which cause massive fatalities and unconscionable psychological and physical damage to the many are protected in some special class of law.
I'm not sure how we reconcile the morality, the constitutionality or even the common sense of that choice. Why are Utah legislators so willing to interfere with a First Amendment right and personal liberty choice to publish and view material that has never killed anybody to my knowledge, but refuse to address the deaths and violence done to tens of thousands of people each and every year by products sold by groups who peddle lethality and violence. Viewing porn is a personal choice, getting shot often is not.
It seems to me like we're comparing the heartbreak of psoriasis to terminal cancer and it seems like a massive waste of resources, when pollution, education and healthcare and other real problems, such as gun violence and suicide, await solutions.
Michael Bodell
St. George