Estimated read time: Less than a minute
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Pornography has become an ingrained part of popular culture with widespread acceptance among the public at large. But there is mounting evidence that pornography ought to be classified as a threat to public health.
Consider the research. Studies have found that repeated exposure to pornography encourages children to become sexually active at younger ages, and that it also provokes more sexually aggressive behavior. On a broader scale, pornography users find it far more difficult to establish functional and healthy relationships with the opposite sex.
Yet when proposing restrictions on pornography distribution, many insist that First Amendment rights trump all else.
But if that's true, then why is there not a similar outcry to protect the free speech of tobacco manufacturers? Pornography, like tobacco, is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Because of its deleterious health effects, surely the product of pornography ought to merit a similar level of concern and regulation.
There are no easy answers, but the well-being of the public at large requires that we start asking many of the hard questions necessary to reduce pornography's negative impact on public health.
Darrell K. Brown is the president of Bonneville International.
