Bill would expand the scope of warnings on pornographic materials
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
A Utah lawmaker has introduced a bill to increase the scope of which entities are required to put warning labels on pornographic material.
The bill appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.
“A few years ago, we passed a bill that required warning labels to be displayed for those who predominantly distribute or otherwise predominantly provide pornographic material,” Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, said. The warning label that was required said “exposing minors to obscene material may damage or negatively impact minors.”
After hearing from parents, Brammer said he decided to introduce HB334, a bill that’s aimed at expanding “the scope slightly” to include “a person who distributes or otherwise provides pornographic material to consumers.”
“A person who distributes or otherwise provides pornographic material to consumers may not distribute any obscene material or performance as defined in Section 76-10-1203 without first giving a clear and reasonable warning of the harmful impact of exposing minors to the material or performance,” the bill states.
Darlene McDonald, speaking for herself, said she was concerned that the bill could have “unintended consequences” if it’s passed.
“We know that there is a broader push to ban books, so I am really concerned about the vagueness of this bill. It is already illegal to distribute pornographic material to minors,” McDonald said.
After the public comment portion of the committee meeting closed, Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, expressed his opposition to the bill. “This has too many earmarks for me — hallmarks — of exactly that government overreach and nanny state. I’m not going to support it.”
Rep. Tyler Clancy, R-Provo, disagreed.
“I would respectfully disagree with my colleague from Salt Lake City. Just as I don’t think warning labels for children on cigarettes or tobacco products — products that we know are harmful to children. I don’t think putting a warning label on those constitutes a nanny state,” Clancy said.
After the discussion of the bill, a roll call vote was taken on the motion to recommend the bill favorably out of committee. The vote was 9 to 1, so the bill was favorably recommended — moving it one step closer to being read on the floor.
