« Waiting for Homestead | Main | A night at the theater »

A pornucopia of news

So they busted a woman in St. George for allegedly dealing pornography out of the back room of her shop.

Oh, yeah. We got a big fish on the line here! Better reel in before the morals of an entire community are tossed in the dumpster.

First off, we need a few clarifications.

It is not illegal to possess or view pornography in Utah. It is illegal to sell it, according to state statute. The felonies thrown at this woman and a young man at the shop are not a result of local ordinance offenses. They do not face St. George Municipal Code charges.

Now that we've got that clear, let's get to the heart of this matter.

Who is going to define whatever this woman had in her shop as obscene or pornographic? Even in straight-laced, red state Utah, that will be difficult. And, I mean no disrespect by that statement, nor do I mean to diminish anybody's personal beliefs. Utah is a very conservative state, top to bottom, period. We all know that.

Even so, coming up with a prosecutable definition of obscenity could be a challenge, even by St. George community standards.

The most obscene thing I've ever seen? The opening 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan," with the blood flowing vividly. It was so intense, so impactful. It offended my senses. It repulsed me in a way that two naked bodies would not.

There was a series of videos once called "Faces of Death," featuring, you guessed it, people dying in painful ways -- from a grizzly mauling to self-immolation. A neighbor had one of these videos and called me up to take a look once when I was still in L.A. It was horrible stuff, much more so than two naked bodies engaged in an intimate act.

And, that's my point. Why can we see vulgarity in a naked body, but not in a cruel or violent act?

We can be pretty sure that the materials found at this shop do not include child pornography. Had the cops uncovered any of that trash, which IS illegal anywhere in the United States, thank God, we would have certainly heard about it.

There were films. There were sex toys. OK. They weren't out front in a display case, they were not in the public view. They were handled in a seemingly discrete manner. What's the problem?

I heard that response: "It's against the law!" Well, so are the little house parties some local women promote to sell these same items.

Do I detect a double standard or is it selective enforcement?

Some of the Story Chat comments I've seen posted are pretty scary, equating porn with drug addiction, crime, etc. How would those posters know? I haven't seen those statistics. How do they know the impact of these films if they haven't seen them? How would they know if they are offensive, titillating or just plain boring?

Bottom line is that the quality of life in St. George is no better or worse now that the cops have confiscated this stuff.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.southernutahblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/128

4 Comments

Comments

I felt the information on how this women was dressed or how her hair looked had NO importance in or for the story. Let's stick to the facts and not HELP judge a person.

I'm sure they were just trying to describe the hearing when they talked about her outfit and hair.

I seriously doubt Laura Duncan is after this lady.

That said, Kociela hit the nail on the head. No pun intended. I'd rather my kid see a couple of nipples than play a video game that instructs him to shoot cops or run over innocent people.

Pornography and toys can be a very private thing, and something highly beneficial to a married couple. I know my husband and I enjoy a little mischief now and then. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

This bust was one based entirely on morality and not safety. Nobody died when I bought a vibrator.

I agree with Duck fully. To me the violence is much worse for anyone to see compared to a little skin. I am sure no one died, maybe even lived more!

Well, if I were this woman and had been arrested and wanted to tell the justice system where to go, I would wear exactly what she wore.

Regardless of the possibly inevitable dismissal, if you are right, Ed, I'd have erred on the side of basic black in court. What was she thinking?

Post a comment

(Your comment will not appear immediately, it must first be approved by a moderator. Your comment will be rejected if it contains profanity or inappropriate material. All posted comments are unedited.)

Powered by Movable Type 3.2

Contact Us | Subscribe | Place an ad
Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.
Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy (Terms updated 7/20/05)

USATODAY.com     USAWEEKEND.COM     Gannett Foundation     Gannett.com