How hard is it for the law to ban porn or at least put them out of business?

[francisca]

What are the obstacles?

I ask this because I am certain that porn has wrecked humanity up to its innermost sense of being.

I read many people are homosexuals & bisexuals. I really do not believe them in the sense they might genuinely convinced of their own condition and sincerely think that they are gays/ bisexuals, but I really think that sexual orientation can be tricked by porn quite easily, especially if these people are exposed to it at early age, and then later on they chose to act on what they thought their sexuality.

I do acknowledge that there are genuine cases of hormonal/ chromosome/ genetic disorder cases. These cases do not include people with normal hormone/ chromosome/ genetic condition. Thus in the latter case, homosexuality/ bisexuality is more of psychological or ever spiritual conflict.

The bible call those abomination. This is related to idolatry. Porn is idolatry. People’s are the victims.

So again what is the possibility to ban porn by the secular law?

 

[edwest2]

The recent history of graphic pornography began in the United States in the 1970s. Adult Bookstores opened everywhere but they were not selling anything with redeeming value. Certainly, classic literature was not part of their merchandise.

Christians and Catholics protested but store owners were ready. Highly paid lawyers yelled First Amendment! Freedom of speech and expression! That remains the issue.

If you look at the British Opium Trade in the 1800s, you can see another example of the planned addiction model. Pornographers knew that access to porn would lead to addiction. The protests have not ended.

suncoastcatholicministries.com/home/golf-fundraiser/tmiy-defend-your-family-against-pornography/

Peace,
Ed

 

[valentino]

You know how difficult is it is to ban abortion it would be much more difficult to ban porn.

 

[edwest2]

Each one of us must make a conscious choice to avoid it. And pray for an end.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Infidel]

What you guys and gals called “porn” is an undefined and undefinable phenomenon. One man’s disgusting “porn” is someone else’s mildly interesting picture or movie. I can only suggest that you follow the advice of the old bumper sticker of a similar controversy which is now translated it into: “Against porn? Then don’t watch it!”. (I hope you know the original one.)

Yes, freedom of speech means to protect the rights of even those, whose message one vehemently disagrees with. And protecting others you protect yourself. You never know what the future will bring. It may very well happen that your message will be deemed unacceptable and disgusting in some future society and then you will need the support freedom-conscious individuals to protect your rights.

Let’s hope that there is no way, not now or ever to ban what you call “porn”.

 

[francisca]

Having read the article from Edwest,
I would say how about a collaborative work of science and social organizations and educators and even ex-sex-offenders in order to give testimony to the lawmakers of how harmful porn can be.

We see our generations go down, we would love it if somebody who understand the law can point it out to the law makers how “idiotic” (please excuse my language) we are for allowing porn to grow bigger and bigger and more and more sophisticated, wouldn’t we? Or maybe some of us still think that porn are harmless, which mean it’s about a battle of public opinion mainly at this stage.

So if we start by defining something as “addictive”, shall it be forbidden by law in theory?

Valentino, thanks for your comment. Porn shouldn’t be as complicated as abortion, I think. I’m saying this out of faith.

May God bless our little effort. He make things happen. Amen.

 

[Dale_M]

So again what is the possibility to ban porn by the secular law?

The possibility of banning printed pornography will likely depend on which country you are talking about. I am not sure which country you live in, but as Edwest has pointed out, the United States offers broad protections to freedom of speech. Federal challenges to obscenity laws go back at least to the 1950s, and possibly before. I suspect that other liberal democracies have a similar tradition. Non-Western countries such as Russia or China, however, might feel less misgivings about restricting speech.

The Internet, of course, makes pornography virtually impossible to ban. Websites are governed by the laws of the country in which their server is located and if laws become too restrictive in one country, the website simply has to move to a server in a different country.

So if we start by defining something as “addictive”, shall it be forbidden by law in theory?

I don’t think “addictive” would be reason enough to ban anything. After all, caffeine is well-known to be physically addictive, but I think a ban on coffee would have a very hard time being passed by any legislature (even in Utah.)

And if you mean by “addiction” some kind of psychological dependence, the issue becomes even more slippery. What constitutes addictive? And for whom? Are video games addictive? Should they be banned? What about smart phones and the seeming dependence that some people have with them? Texting while driving is insane, yet some people do it. Should cell phones be banned?

 

[edwest2]

What you guys and gals called “porn” is an undefined and undefinable phenomenon. One man’s disgusting “porn” is someone else’s mildly interesting picture or movie. I can only suggest that you follow the advice of the old bumper sticker of a similar controversy which is now translated it into: “Against porn? Then don’t watch it!”. (I hope you know the original one.)

Yes, freedom of speech means to protect the rights of even those, whose message one vehemently disagrees with. And protecting others you protect yourself. You never know what the future will bring. It may very well happen that your message will be deemed unacceptable and disgusting in some future society and then you will need the support freedom-conscious individuals to protect your rights.

Let’s hope that there is no way, not now or ever to ban what you call “porn”.

This is not what we think but what we know. Porn is easily definable. We certainly know it when we see it. It is degrading to the participants and viewers. It damages human dignity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

Porn is easily definable. We certainly know it when we see it.

That is pretty much the absence of a definition, at least from a legal point of view. Its entirely subjective and varies with an individual’s personal taste and values.

It is degrading to the participants and viewers. It damages human dignity.

Yes, This is a reasonable point of view. But so do other activities, such as appearing on (or watching) Jerry Springer.

 

[ANNE_2]

CCC - **" **2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.
It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other.
It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others.
It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world.
It is a grave offense.
Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. "

It is a Mortal Sin to purposely view any pornography.

Child pornography should be reported to the police immediately.

The Supreme Court established that obscenity is NOT protected by the First Amendment, but the difficult question in each case has been defining what is and what is not obscene.
Court rulings gradually shifted from a broad, forbidding position of the late 1950s to holding, in the 1970s, that communities could set their own standards for obscenity.pornography at the federal level has been traditionally determined by the Miller test, which dictates that community standards are to be used in determining whether a piece of material is obscene.

internetlaw.uslegal.com/pornography/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography

Note: if something is deemed to be legal, does not obsolve it from being mortally sinful, and against Church teaching. (In addition to porn, abortion is another example.)

 

[francisca]

Child pornography should be reported to the police immediately.

If child porn is crime, then why adult porn is not?

 

[Dale_M]

If child porn is crime, then why adult porn is not?

Because a child can not give consent to have sex. In the US, and probably in all Western countries, it is illegal to have sex with children.

 

[francisca]

So regarding public opinion, we have parents supporters, theoretically, and they are many.

But we don’t even have any definition of porn.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The problem with porn is the viewers of porn, and not the porn itself. Porn is an important outlet for sex! Let the viewers of porn alone until they scream that they have had enough self abuse and seek recovery.

 

[francisca]

The problem with porn is the viewers of porn, and not the porn itself. Porn is an important outlet for sex! Let the viewers of porn alone until they scream that they have had enough self abuse and seek recovery.

At least the law shall have IT companies to pre-set “restriction” to “no-adult material”, so as to assume protection agaist porn for all users, unless the user reset the pre-set restriction. So those who want to view porn, they have to do the setting themselves, while those who don’t want porn, need not do anything (automatic protection).

We need to get those IT companies involved. The law shall punish them if there is child porn case because of their failure to pre-set restriction. Many computer users are oblivious regarding how to restrict against porn. So IT companies, having made a fortune of those customers, they at least shall be responsible regarding the morality of the usage of their product. Don’t they?

 

[Robert_Sock]

At least the law shall have IT companies to pre-set “restriction” to “no-adult material”, so as to assume protection agaist porn for all users, unless the user reset the pre-set restriction. So those who want to view porn, they have to do the setting themselves, while those who don’t want porn, need not do anything (automatic protection).

We need to get those IT companies involved. The law shall punish them if there is child porn case because of their failure to pre-set restriction. Many computer users are oblivious regarding how to restrict against porn. So IT companies, having made a fortune of those customers, they at least shall be responsible regarding the morality of the usage of their product. Don’t they?

I agree.

 

[michelleds]

Supreme Court Justice Potter actually said that he didn’t need to define obscenity because he knew it when he saw it.

Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment (US). However, there are lots of little permutations such as obscenity is measured according to “community standards” and whether is has little or no redeeming value. Both highly subjective standards. Then there’s the case law from 2003 where SCOTUS said that child porn laws that banned the depiction of child porn but without actual children were unconstitutional, arguing that this banned “thoughts”.

I heard a radio program recently about porn. The guest said that he was doing a show once and a caller identified by name and location a gas station that had recently started selling porn magazines. about an hour later, another caller, sounding quite tremulous called in and said that he was the owner of that gas station. he’d had so many people call and complain in the last hour that he had gone out front, pulled all of the magazines off the shelf and threw them all in the trash. he said that he was never going to sell them again.

That’s a great example of expressing community standards.

 

[Infidel]

Supreme Court Justice Potter actually said that he didn’t need to define obscenity because he knew it when he saw it.

This only shows that the Justices can be just as dumb as everyone else. If something is about to be codified into a law, the very minimum requirement is that it should be defined exactly and precisely, so that the law stays objective.

Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment (US). However, there are lots of little permutations such as obscenity is measured according to “community standards” and whether is has little or no redeeming value. Both highly subjective standards. Then there’s the case law from 2003 where SCOTUS said that child porn laws that banned the depiction of child porn but without actual children were unconstitutional, arguing that this banned “thoughts”.

I heard a radio program recently about porn. The guest said that he was doing a show once and a caller identified by name and location a gas station that had recently started selling porn magazines. about an hour later, another caller, sounding quite tremulous called in and said that he was the owner of that gas station. he’d had so many people call and complain in the last hour that he had gone out front, pulled all of the magazines off the shelf and threw them all in the trash. he said that he was never going to sell them again.

That’s a great example of expressing community standards.

“The partols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.” - quotation from 1984, of course. The idea of “community standards” is a horrible concept - because it can cut both ways. Of course people who advocate censorship to weed out ideas they don’t like will be very upset if and when the “community” changes, and all of a sudden, their ideas will be deemed “obscene”.

 

[ANNE_2]

If child porn is crime, then why adult porn is not?

Because State and Local legislators have not passed a law to make it a crime. The law would have to meet several community standards requirements.
Community Standards is difficult to define on behalf of the community.

I suppose one way of proof of community standards could be to put in on the ballot, or perhaps a community standards petition against adult porn ?
Wording would have to be extremely cautious because of interstate commerce clauses, etc.

We must tell our fellow Catholics that purposely viewing Porn is a Mortal Sin, for the reasons stated and defined in the CCC.

 

[francisca]

Thankyou all for your comments some of what you write are hard for me to understand.

I’m not deep in these, but I try to continue :

So if child porn is a crime, we do have standard of what is porn for children, but not necessarily for adult, because adult able to give consent. How about adults who are not interested in porn, but being “flashed” by some pictures against his will (no consent from viewer’s point of view). Can they sue anyone for that? Can these “flashing” be traced to the web owner which flashed those?

Anyway, business-wise: I’m still fixed with my idea to get IT companies morally responsible to protect their users against malicious contents such as browser giants safari, firefox, microsoft. I really do not understand why–despite porn is getting crazier-- why these companies have not pre-set restriction yet. Has anyone talked to them yet? And if porn guys can make a fortune, those IT guys should be able to create as good business of child protection device that run “plug and protect”. Yet nobody really seriously doing it yet. Recently my hubby and I tried to find such device, we can’t find it, not in the local shop, not in amazon.com.

Maybe porn can still continue to operate because restriction and user-protection are not in the interest of IT business. It is more like burden for them (for IT people), so that none really willing to do it. They just close one eye and let justice systems (such as police and court of law) do the job. But if they can make those a big business, maybe they will do an excellent job.

Michelleds, I’m really glad that you are here. I hope you can share any aspect of the law that seems getting brighter (progressing) according to your opinion regarding defending citizen from porn. thanks

That’s about all I have at this moment. So please continue your discussion about what are the obstacles to ban porn and possibility to put them out of business. Thankyou all for your participation and God bless.