If We Can Ban Terrorism Campaign, then Why Can't We Ban Porn?

[CompSciGuy]

K Fran. I hear you here. I get the reason for this. And I mean I’m with you most of the way. But the trouble is not everyone is you or me. The trouble is that all you’ll do by banning porn is to make a big, big market for people to do it illegally. And that means that it’s less likely the participants will be willing. If you know what I mean.

So it would be great. It would be a great idea. If it weren’t such a bad idea. Unfortunately. Sorry Fran.

Peace.

-Trident

Isn’t this the same reasoning that people use to argue that abortion and prostitution should be legal? The thing is, there are some things that should be illegal on principle. I get where you are coming from, but I don’t agree with your ‘live and let live’ attitude about it.
Child pornography is currently illegal based on moral principle. However, there is a black market for it and people do make child pornography and yes, it is made against kids’ consent, obviously. I am sure that someone somewhere will argue that child porn should be legal so that it can be made safely in a regulated environment where the least amount of harm is done to the children.

Which brings up the point, just because porn is legal doesn’t mean that it is done safely and with the full consent of the participants. If you do research on the topic you will hear about lots of porn actresses who are constantly pressured into doing things they don’t want to do, or have it forced on them in the middle of a shoot.

I do think that what is needed even more than a legal banning of porn is a better cultural attitude towards it. We have that advantage when it comes to child porn because as a culture we hold the protection of children to be a very high value (unless they’re unborn children, of course). We don’t, however, hold women in the same esteem, or hold the sanctity of marriage or sexuality in high esteem, which makes the porn issue harder. We are in a post-sexual revolution culture, which takes an “anything goes” attitude toward sex. A lot of people are slowly beginning to realize how harmful porn is to people, but that realization is very slow and met with much resistance.

 

[CompSciGuy]

To illegalize porn will get porn business illegal. Google, yahoo, etch will have to remove them and those who make porn video will be criminalized too.

I don’t think banning porn means to arrest those who watch it.

Ok lets make it more clear: what I mean is “to illegalize porn business”

Yes, people would have to go to the dark web to find it. Which is a deterrent because it would expose them to all kinds of risks. People would get arrested for hosting servers with it in their houses (like that Jared guy from the subway commercials). Nobody rushed to his defense when that happened. As widespread and accepted as porn is in modern culture, there is still a shame factor associated with it. I don’t know how many people would be fighting for it if it did become illegal.

 

[GEddie]

I guess. I mean I really don’t know. I don’t know how that business(?) works. I just wish it would go away. For good. But not because it was made illegal. I wish it would go away because there was no longer any market for it. I wish it would wither up and die because people were suddenly too good for that. Too good to waste their souls on that.

Peace Fran.

-Trident

As long as human life remains in its current form, with our animal bodies and our corrupted souls, there will be a demand for porn, just as there is for prostitution (the world’s oldest profession) and for the same reason. It’s not going away until life everlasting.

Just as, while I do not support legalizing drugs, our mountains of laws against them hasn’t made them go away.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[mikekle]

I do not understand this reasoning, really. To ban porn means will remove porn from our hanphones, google, etc.

So what’s the harm?

It doesnt work like that…look at drugs, they were banned, made illegal, and yet, people are dying in huge numbers due to drugs, costing us billions of dollars due to the consequences.

Banning something only makes it that much more popular, raises the price of it, and ensures criminal organizations reap millions of dollars off it.

Just like drugs, as long as there is a HUGE demand for porn, there will be those willing to make it available, banning it is not going to magically make it go away.

 

[Tim_D]

I’m trying to figure out why we still have terrorism since it is banned.

 

[francisca]

The biggest problem is getting past the 1st Amendment of the US, constitution, which protects freedom of speech. This guarantee has been universally interpreted as absolute, including by conservative jurists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The only exception is the indecency rule, which the supreme court has interpreted to include, inter alia, depictions of sexual violence, child pornography and other activities which I cannot mention by name as this is a Catholic forum (and because I am too disgusted to even acknowledge they exist). Mere nudity and consensual sexual activity is not included in this.

However, in the US the Court has upheld the principle of “community standards” which means certain porn can be prohibited in a specific area (state, county, city, etc) if it violates the standards of said community. Community standards vary widely, what people in West Virginia and Oklahoma find indecent might not be the case in California, for example.

The best bet from a legal standpoint would be to go out and speak to your community, and convince them that said activities are indecent.

The fact that indecency, child pornography, and terrorism campaign is not protected by “freedom of speech” shows that “freedom of speech” has a boundary. Yes it is absolute within the boundary, but outside, no. So the discussion is whether porn cross that boundary, and therefore not worthy of freedom of speech protection.

I suppose “community stadard” can be improved in our devices: example youtube include “report inappropriate content”, this can be seen as “community stadard”. Thus if many report received by youtube, then youtube has duty to categorize similar content as porn. I am saying it is not impossible to do this, the question

1. whether google, youtube, browsers and other devices provide such facility for community stardard being heard (this requires the law I guess?)
2. whether people will make report, and how many people required in order it becomes community standard in the area. I am optimistic that many people nowadays want to be free from porn, and therefore these will vote against these content, if they’re informed about their participation in reporting content that they consider as porn so that it will become community standard.

 

[francisca]

I’m trying to figure out why we still have terrorism since it is banned.

We are not discussing about terrorism (yes terrorism activity is banned too), but we are focusing more about terrorism “campaign” (terrorism websites, giving out information about terrorism) as compared to porn sites, in relation to freedom of speech: whether such is an evidence that freedom of speech has boundary and whether such boundary is being crossed by porn, and if so which boundary exactly

 

[francisca]

Wanting religion to coerce the state into forcibly censoring porn is a horrible idea for numerous reasons.

Religion can’t coerce any gov. We have only our bible
We need gov to protect us

**

1. How would you censor Internet porn?**

You could force companies to censor their Domain Name Servers, what DNS do, is take a name of a website, such as Google.com, and pair it with its IP address, so instead of having to type 198.252.206.16, something which is hard remember, you type its a name and DNS will correctly match it to its IP address. If they were censored typing in a porn site would only take you too a error page.

However this is a bad way to implement state censorship. This is because you can still access websites just by using their IP address, also websites can easily change their name, hundreds, if not thousands of slightly different porn site names would have to be blacklisted each day, not only that, people can use what are known as proxies to access blocked data, proxies are essentially computers located in a nation that does not have totalitarian laws, this proxy then sends data, in this case porn, to the user located in the totalitarian state, because the data transfer is encrypted it is impossible to be censored using this method.

This is why freedom loving nations such as China and North Korea, use what is known as deep packet inspection.

What is deep packet inspection? Why is the absence of privacy!*** The destruction of web encryption! ***No nasty SSL to block the government from looking in at all your browsing habits. It is the equivalent of the government opening all your mail. Unfettered access to every detail of your online life available at any moment to the government.

And even then. Even if this hellish 1984 type scenario were to happen in my beloved nation. It still would not stop porn from spreading. As people would just simply transfer existing porn stashes that they have on hard drives via USB. Unless you want to install government spyware on people’s computers. Which I’m going to give everyone here the benefit of the doubt in saying that no one here would want that, right?

2. You would have to destroy the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

I think most people would agree that a good definition for porn whether it’s a video, image or story, is something that exists solely for sexual gratification.

So you ban porn. Great. Now what do you do when people start using regular movies as pornography? Are we going to have to burn all copies of Titanic, because of that one boob scene? Or James Bond movies? Troy? Twilight? Basic instinct? All of these movies are not porn. But could be used as such.

3. What would the punishment be for having porn?
Would it be a fine? Or maybe 2 years in jail? Perhaps you would like to give a 14-year-old a criminal record thus ruining his or her chances of employment, all because they committed a victimless “sex crime”.
**
4. The government has a lousy track record of legislating morality.**
Prohibition and the war on drugs is pretty good proof.

5. Why stop at porn?
Lets go full on theocratic and make all premarital sex illegal. After all it would be silly to ban porn but not the real thing right? That’s like banning drug paraphernalia but not drugs themselves.

There is copyrighted Hollywood movies vs piracy war in internet/ youtube. How do they fight this piracy war? By chasing every suspected content, I suppose.

 

[francisca]

I have to say I am somewhat bemused by the OP’s suggestion that banning porn is a matter of national security.

I was trying to throw on the table everything I had in my pocket

 

[francisca]

It doesnt work like that…look at drugs, they were banned, made illegal, and yet, people are dying in huge numbers due to drugs, costing us billions of dollars due to the consequences.

Banning something only makes it that much more popular, raises the price of it, and ensures criminal organizations reap millions of dollars off it.

Just like drugs, as long as there is a HUGE demand for porn, there will be those willing to make it available, banning it is not going to magically make it go away.

I guess the reason why we can’t ban porn (yet) because it produces HUGE $$$.

It’s a sad thing to legalize something for the sake of $$$ eventhough it destroy families, kill some women and their fetus, many of porn actors commit suicide, it destroys people’s faith too.

 

[francisca]

Then I started hearing the concept of: If you don’t want your kids to see the program, change the channel.

Thank’s frangiuliano for the example above. I really think that porn is an intrusion to family life and child (sex) education.

 

[iohannes13]

You can’t ban porn anymore than you can ban sin. Somehow, in some way you would have to worm your way into the mind and mindsets of those that you wish to give up porn or terrorism. That would be mind control. It would also counteract free will. I think if you wish to eliminate the dark side of the Id you must do it via education and awareness and of course, the grace of God. Banning anything, no matter how efficasious the intent, will never work.

The US government will not ban something based solely on morality. Morality is not the word I want to use, I just can’t think of a better term right now. The US already tried that and it was a big mess. The US tried to legislate morality when it passed the Prohibition laws. These laws ended up making the country very bad morally and unstable. Since very high numbers of Americans did not obey these laws, millions were breaking the law. Breaking the law made them sin because it was an act of disobedience. And it made them criminals just the same. The law caused many many people and government officials to become corrupt so that they could continue to get and drink their boooze. So eventually the Prohibition laws were repealed and things calmed down. The U.S. learned a hard lesson and has then stayed out of legislating morality.

 

[Trident_H]

Isn’t this the same reasoning that people use to argue that abortion and prostitution should be legal? The thing is, there are some things that should be illegal on principle. I get where you are coming from, but I don’t agree with your ‘live and let live’ attitude about it.
Child pornography is currently illegal based on moral principle. However, there is a black market for it and people do make child pornography and yes, it is made against kids’ consent, obviously. I am sure that someone somewhere will argue that child porn should be legal so that it can be made safely in a regulated environment where the least amount of harm is done to the children.

Which brings up the point, just because porn is legal doesn’t mean that it is done safely and with the full consent of the participants. If you do research on the topic you will hear about lots of porn actresses who are constantly pressured into doing things they don’t want to do, or have it forced on them in the middle of a shoot.

I do think that what is needed even more than a legal banning of porn is a better cultural attitude towards it. We have that advantage when it comes to child porn because as a culture we hold the protection of children to be a very high value (unless they’re unborn children, of course). We don’t, however, hold women in the same esteem, or hold the sanctity of marriage or sexuality in high esteem, which makes the porn issue harder. We are in a post-sexual revolution culture, which takes an “anything goes” attitude toward sex. A lot of people are slowly beginning to realize how harmful porn is to people, but that realization is very slow and met with much resistance.

Yeah. Ok. I mean I’m with you here to a point. I guess I just worry about women getting forced into doing stuff because now the mafia’s involved or something. I mean right now with it being legal there’s not a real shortage of girls willing to do this stuff for money so it’s not profitable enough to risk doing it illegally. But make it illegal and it would be. But then you’re talking to a guy who used to do a lot of illegal things so I don’t know if I’ve really got the right answer for you on this. I don’t know that I’ve got the moral high-ground to say this is bad, but not bad enough to make it illegal. Or that this is bad, but making it illegal would be worse. I don’t know. I just wish guys weren’t so into this. I wish it wasn’t a thing.

Porn tears my heart out. I can’t look at it without feeling really bad inside. I look at those people and I see victims. How can a guy get off by looking at victims? I don’t know.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[Trident_H]

As long as human life remains in its current form, with our animal bodies and our corrupted souls, there will be a demand for porn, just as there is for prostitution (the world’s oldest profession) and for the same reason. It’s not going away until life everlasting.

Just as, while I do not support legalizing drugs, our mountains of laws against them hasn’t made them go away.

ICXC NIKA.

Yeah. It’s sad really. I feel bad about it though.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The US government will not ban something based solely on morality. Morality is not the word I want to use, I just can’t think of a better term right now. The US already tried that and it was a big mess. The US tried to legislate morality when it passed the Prohibition laws. These laws ended up making the country very bad morally and unstable. Since very high numbers of Americans did not obey these laws, millions were breaking the law. Breaking the law made them sin because it was an act of disobedience. And it made them criminals just the same. The law caused many many people and government officials to become corrupt so that they could continue to get and drink their boooze. So eventually the Prohibition laws were repealed and things calmed down. The U.S. learned a hard lesson and has then stayed out of legislating morality.

I don’t understand this line of reasoning.

You say:

“Since millions of Americans did not obey these laws, it made criminals just the same. The laws caused many people and govt officials to become corrupt. So eventually the prohibition laws were repealed and things calmed down.”

Then how come drugs and prostitution are illegal? Many seem to be doing both. Should something be legal just because many are engaging in the practice?

Is it so right that prohibition was abolished? Think of all the auto accidents and deaths every year caused by drunk driving. It would be sufficient to not drink and drive, but man is so woefully lacking in good reasoning powers or hardly any laws at all would be necessary.

I lived through the supreme court trying to come to a definition of “obscenity”. Many of us thought it was pretty funny. You know: I can’t explain obscenity but I know it when I see it.

Man gets adjusted to each increase in gradation and that’s why things are just getting worse and worse. I used to think that moral control would bring us to 1984, but what’s going on now is not going to bring us to anything desireable either.

Fran

 

[mikekle]

The US government will not ban something based solely on morality. Morality is not the word I want to use, I just can’t think of a better term right now. The US already tried that and it was a big mess. The US tried to legislate morality when it passed the Prohibition laws. These laws ended up making the country very bad morally and unstable. Since very high numbers of Americans did not obey these laws, millions were breaking the law. Breaking the law made them sin because it was an act of disobedience. And it made them criminals just the same. The law caused many many people and government officials to become corrupt so that they could continue to get and drink their boooze. So eventually the Prohibition laws were repealed and things calmed down. The U.S. learned a hard lesson and has then stayed out of legislating morality.

You are kidding right? The US didnt learn anything from prohibition, they have the failing war on drugs going on for decades now, same thing with drug prohibition, but they cant recognize its failing, when they really should have years ago, so…??

You are right about morality though, funny though, websites like Youtube, seem to think morality is very important, in that they strictly do not allow any type of porn, not even nudity!!! and this is the secular internet…??? Same thing with network TV, they are VERY VERY strict about even very trivial curse words, even on after hours tv, especially since many other nations allow some degree of nudity on network tv…yet the US has strict laws against it…again, I have to ask…what is going on? Do morals factor into laws or not?

 

[pnewton]

If you put the world “child” in front of this topic, most arguments made against banning porn could be used for that as well.

 

[Trident_H]

If you put the world “child” in front of this topic, most arguments made against banning porn could be used for that as well.

Well maybe. Except for the one about them doing it voluntarily for pay instead of secretly by force. Because that would just never be right. So in a way it’s still a bit different. I don’t know. I’m just glad that society hasn’t slid that far. Not yet.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[pnewton]

Well maybe. Except for the one about them doing it voluntarily for pay instead of secretly by force.

That is a good point. However, let us remember when before we think we could never slide that far that the precedents are already in place to allow this if some judge ever decides to connect the dots. Parents have the right to consent for children in many areas already. Just look at child actors. Parents agree to allow them to perform for money and they are allowed to do so. We say on one hand that children are not allowed to consent to sex, yet then we do allow them to consent to sex in some situations.

This is why I wish we would have maintained the same public decency standards that once prohibited the sale of “Men’s” magazines and just expanded it to new media.

 

[francisca]

What is deep packet inspection? Why is the absence of privacy!*** The destruction of web encryption! ***No nasty SSL to block the government from looking in at all your browsing habits. It is the equivalent of the government opening all your mail. Unfettered access to every detail of your online life available at any moment to the government.

If you put the world “child” in front of this topic, most arguments made against banning porn could be used for that as well.

I think child porn is under different category because child porn related to “predatorism”. If one own child porn he is a suspect predator. Therefore investigation towards him will go into his private emails, chat, harddrives.

I don’t think illegalizing porn will get the police to snoop and search people’s privacy. Whatever people have in their privacy is not porn until they publish it/ distribute it publicly.

Only if you own child porn then you should worry that police will tap you into your privacy.