[homtanks]

The Utah statute defines it as:

> (a) any material that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

> (b) material that exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of any of the following, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors:

> (i) pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or nipple of the female breast;

> (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or

> (iii) sexual intercourse, mastu rbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and

> (c) the material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Sounds reasonable enough, wouldn't you say?

I hope you would agree that children shouldn't be browsing these websites.

[EvanAnderson]

> Sounds reasonable enough, wouldn't you say?

You're willfully ignoring the "culture war" aspects of "a" and "c".

[homtanks]

Why don't you explain what you mean instead of making unsubstantiated claims about what you think I'm ignoring?

[EvanAnderson]

I suspect this is the output of an agent and not a human conversing in good faith.

[homtanks]

You are incorrect. I suspect that is simply your excuse not to engage curiously and examine your own biases.