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

[exnihilo]

The government absolutely cannot regulate films for content. The only reason X/NC-17 films are not widely distributed is due to the pressures of the marketplace. The only reason the government can regulate television for content is because the government is the only one that can issue broadcast licenses; very early in the days of radio, the government imposed its will on the airwaves.

The reason for the failure of internet regulation is simple; any government control of the internet disappears at the American borders. You might ban internet porn in America, but how can you stop the production of internet porn in Japan, Eastern Europe, etc. etc.?

The only alternative is to throw up something like China’s great internet wall to keep foreign porn at bay. Does anyone *really *want to give the government that much power over what people can and cannot see?

I don’t claim to be a history or legal expert on the issue. But I thought in the past the US did have a wider prohibition on content in films. Regardless, they still can regulate content today. Child pornography is illegal. It is a form of pornography, so pornography must be identifiable. It can’t be the case that pornography is unidentifiable.

The US has very wide control of the Internet. It controls the major search engines. I don’t claim that porn would be impossible to get. But it could be very much harder to get.

If the Chinese can do it, and I don’t know that they can, then the US can. We already do it with child pornography, so this is only a matter of expanding to include all porn. The US government is already a fascist police state. If we are going to have abortion and same sex ‘marriage’ forced on us we can at least get something good out of it.

 

[friardchips]

.
We can’t ban porn for any of those reasons.

Because:
–Porn doesn’t necessarily “promote adulterous behavior that result in many abortions”.

How would you know. Probably true. Depending on whether you are talking about ‘professionals’ or amateurs, of course. And they do use protection, no doubt, so not exactly in line with the belief that life is sacred.

Many people are ‘adulterous’ without the use of porn.

Probably so.

Many people are adulterous without getting pregnant.

How would we know this. Where do you get these apparently accurate statistics? WHat ‘precautions’ do they take…already dodgy ground?!

Many people are adulterous without having abortions.

This is a logical argument but speculation only as you can’t prove this.

And many people have abortions without being adulterous.

I’m not sure this makes sense though.

–the definition of “indecent” varies. Many people may not consider a lot of porn indecent.

Morality is not relative. Morality is based on definite truths. Can you expand on this so we can understand why you’d say this?

–Porn for the most part has nothing to do with religious freedom, national security, privacy law, etc.

Agreed.

Why are you linking porn so strongly to “adulterous behavior”?
Just as many unmarried people–probably more–look at porn. Also, lots of married couples look at porn together and it doesn’t produce any of the above results.

This is a slightly erratic paragraph. Because couples look at porn doesn’t mean that is a good thing. It means they have serious defects in their understanding of morality and also severe problems in their relationship. ANd again, where do you get such extravagant statistics?

I think it is impossible to count how many people are married that participate in the making of pornography.

You need to think about this more, IMO. Look up what a wrong act is in the CCC. This is helpful to do. I checked this myself recently and it helped me decipher to a finer degree between those things which are good and those which are bad. It helped to clear up grey areas.

All the best.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I don’t claim to be a history or legal expert on the issue. But I thought in the past the US did have a wider prohibition on content in films. Regardless, they still can regulate content today. Child pornography is illegal. It is a form of pornography, so pornography must be identifiable. It can’t be the case that pornography is unidentifiable.

You miss the point of child pornography laws. Child pornography is not illegal because it’s obscene. Child pornography is illegal because it’s filmed sexual predation, and it exploits a person who, by law, is unable to consent. Mainstream pornography is legal because it’s produced by and for consenting adults.

The US has very wide control of the Internet. It controls the major search engines. I don’t claim that porn would be impossible to get. But it could be very much harder to get.

The US government doesn’t control the major search engines. Google is a multinational corporation whose interests are often at odds with the US government.

If the Chinese can do it, and I don’t know that they can, then the US can. We already do it with child pornography, so this is only a matter of expanding to include all porn.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

The US government is already a fascist police state. If we are going to have abortion and same sex ‘marriage’ forced on us we can at least get something good out of it.

There is not a rational universe where I’d call the US government as the ultimate gateway of freedom of expression “good”.

 

[exnihilo]

You miss the point of child pornography laws. Child pornography is not illegal because it’s obscene. Child pornography is illegal because it’s filmed sexual predation, and it exploits a person who, by law, is unable to consent. Mainstream pornography is legal because it’s produced by and for consenting adults.

The US government doesn’t control the major search engines. Google is a multinational corporation whose interests are often at odds with the US government.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

There is not a rational universe where I’d call the US government as the ultimate gateway of freedom of expression “good”.

I don’t think the specific reasons why child pornography are illegal matter. The point is there are laws making it illegal to create, distribute, posses, or view certain content. But as to the reasons actually they are clearly not limited to the issue of consent. It is in fact illegal to create, distribute, and posses pornography which presents a participant as being under age. It is actually illegal to have completely computer generated child pornography. So this is banned merely on the nature or perceived nature of the content.

As for search engines the major ones all operate under the jurisdiction of the US. The search engines are required to and do act on take down notices concerning IP claims. I realize Google may at times appear to be at odds with the government. But when the Disney corporation wants to preserve its revenue streams the government accommodates them and the search engines comply.

 

[BillP]

The problem with banning porn is who gets to define it?

 

[friardchips]

The problem with banning porn is who gets to define it?

People with a lot of time on their hands. To save them time: intercourse made public (whether graphic or censored).

Nudity without intercourse is more difficult because art and photography possibly gives rise to lust eventually.

Films in which there is actually a storyline but contains nudity is not about the lust in itself but the lust is a part of the film and so is not ‘porn’ although it might be lustful.

Time saved.

 

[BillP]

People with a lot of time on their hands. To save them time: intercourse made public (whether graphic or censored).

Nudity without intercourse is more difficult because art and photography possibly gives rise to lust eventually.

Films in which there is actually a storyline but contains nudity is not about the lust in itself but the lust is a part of the film and so is not ‘porn’ although it might be lustful.

Time saved.

I don’t trust you to define. I want to define it. And force you to abide by my definition.

You’re totally ok with that, right?

 

[edwest2]

I don’t claim to be a history or legal expert on the issue. But I thought in the past the US did have a wider prohibition on content in films. Regardless, they still can regulate content today. Child pornography is illegal. It is a form of pornography, so pornography must be identifiable. It can’t be the case that pornography is unidentifiable.

The US has very wide control of the Internet. It controls the major search engines. I don’t claim that porn would be impossible to get. But it could be very much harder to get.

If the Chinese can do it, and I don’t know that they can, then the US can. We already do it with child pornography, so this is only a matter of expanding to include all porn. The US government is already a fascist police state. If we are going to have abortion and same sex ‘marriage’ forced on us we can at least get something good out of it.

Yes. The US did have a wider prohibition on film content, as did TV stations. There was the Motion Picture Production Code or Hays Code. TV stations had Standards and Practices Departments. In the 1960s, a man would appear in a short break and tell viewers that they watched everything we watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.

The Catholic Church formed the Legion of Decency, which rated films. Ratings included Condemned. This later expanded to include other religions.

amazon.com/The-Cross-Cinema-National-1933-1970/dp/0275941930

Ed

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Yes. The US did have a wider prohibition on film content, as did TV stations. There was the Motion Picture Production Code or Hays Code.

This was never a government responsibility. The Hays Code was created by Hollywood, and only applied to Hollywood. Films produced elsewhere, either in America or outside, were not bound by the production code standards, and could not legally be censored or banned.

The Catholic League was a pressure group, not an organization with any actual legislative power.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

People with a lot of time on their hands. To save them time: intercourse made public (whether graphic or censored).

What about simulated intercourse, the kind in softcore porn?

Nudity without intercourse is more difficult because art and photography possibly gives rise to lust eventually.

Films in which there is actually a storyline but contains nudity is not about the lust in itself but the lust is a part of the film and so is not ‘porn’ although it might be lustful.

Foot fetishists are often driven to lust by a woman’s feet. Are you going to insist that all women in the movies wear shoes.

 

[friardchips]

It looks like F-Chips gets to define it!!

Okay, ta! So, who defines what is sensible to eat, what makes us fat, what rape and murder is, what the names of flowers are etc…there are things in life that are based on fact. And defining pornography is not in fact difficult. If I can do it in two seconds then I am sure there are other people who can.

The CCC clearly states, as another poster already quoted, what the definition of pornography is. I am merely expanding on it.

 

[phil19034]

Because in the US, secular culture no longer views sexual sin as sinful.

 

[friardchips]

What about simulated intercourse, the kind in softcore porn?

So you like softcore porn storylines then? Do you find they challenge your integrity?

Foot fetishists are often driven to lust by a woman’s feet. Are you going to insist that all women in the movies wear shoes.

The difference is in obvious intended outcome/effect of said-production. As already stated.

 

[friardchips]

I don’t trust you to define. I want to define it. And force you to abide by my definition.

You’re totally ok with that, right?

Yeah. I think all Christians have a right to evaluate and hope for: “on earth as it is in Heaven”. Wow, you posters are rapidly changing my mind as to whether it should be banned. I was swaying towards the producers of porn having heavy pressure put on them only, but now…

 

[friardchips]

Because as I said…I know and thousands of other people know instances where:
Many people are ‘adulterous’ without the use of porn.
Many people are adulterous without getting pregnant.
Many people are adulterous without having abortions.

So we cannot say porn necessarily promotes these things, when these actions and events happen without it.
But I was talking about people who watch porn. Are talking about the actual porn actors?

So, by ‘I know’, how many do you know?

And where are the lists of these ‘thousands of people’?

So porn does not ‘promote these things’?

This is what promotion is. Promotion happens before an event. The consequences of promotion happen after the event has happened. Promotion can be intended or unintended. Direct or indirect. Porn is an extreme and not only promotes but entices and lures people toward lustful behaviour. Our Lord clearly said that if we look at a person lustfully then we have committed adultery in the heart.

I am looking at it from both accounts - the consumer and the actor/actress - because both require human interaction.

I didn’t give you stats. I said “many”.
We know this because I, for one, and so do others I know…know of “many” people who are “adulterous” who do not get pregnant when doing so. And we have public accounts of “many” people as well.

Are you sure these “many” people tell you all their personal details? And how “many” are the people you know compared to the numbers in the world that consume pornography and are involved in the making of it? These numbers of people wouldn’t be people who you know that watch and enjoy porn, and have no concerns about it, by any chance?

Not speculation. I can prove it.

Go on then…!

Well, yes. It makes sense. There are people who have abortions who are married, and are not acting adulterous. I know of some. Are you thinking that only “adulterous” people have had abortions?

If people have sex knowing they could have a baby then decide to kill it, then possibly they have acted adulterously, because marital sex is not meant to exclude the possibility of pregnancy. Interesting point. I can’t imagine these people were married in the Catholic Church and are practicing Catholics, right?

The OP and I didn’t say “morality”…we used the word “indecent”–and I used it twice, above.

Indecency and morality are in the same category! In decent behaviour is in fact immoral behaviour. I know that facts make some people nervous.

I think to compare Degas with pornography is a little insulting to Degas.

The perception of what is “indecent” or not is indeed relative.

No, it isn’t. Truth is not based on shifting sand but on concrete eternal principles.

Some people may consider a nude by Degas as beautiful art, and some may consider it indecent and porn.

In the case of an artist, the beauty of truth is reflected in the art, and so it is obvious that hard work and love and attention to beauty has been put into the process, therefore making it easy to see, in fact, that the work is not intended to be lustful as a means to an end but to be admired with the form along with it.

The paragraph isn’t talking about whether looking at porn is a “good thing” or not or whether a person has so-called “defects” or not or whether it means they have problems in their relationships or not.You need to read the original post again, which is what I copied and responded to.The OP specifically stated in her post that she thinks “porn promote adulterous behavior that result in many abortion”.That’s the thesis I’m commenting on.
You are commenting on issues I wasn’t touching upon in my post.

If a person is married and they are looking at porn then the person is committing adultery with the porn actor/actress in their heart.

If a person is watching porn we don’t know if the actor/actresses in the movie is married or not.

It is quite likely that if people watch movies with other people having sex it will ruin their own relationships and therefore cause sex outside of marriage. If it doesn’t then it will make each other lust after each other rather than long for each other. And again, if they are participating in the watching of movies, then both are committing adultery.

There are plenty of accounts in which marriages have been destroyed.

 

[BillP]

Okay, ta! So, who defines what is sensible to eat, what makes us fat, what rape and murder is, what the names of flowers are etc…there are things in life that are based on fact. And defining pornography is not in fact difficult. If I can do it in two seconds then I am sure there are other people who can.

In point of fact you cannot define it objectively in two seconds or in any other time period.

By the way, you might have noticed that there is no scientific consensus of what is “sensible to eat”, low fat, low carb, gluten free, organic, raw food, clean food, unprocessed good, fruittitarians, vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, and ovo-lacto vegetarians all have their proponents.

Really?

Here is the what the CCC says:

**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.So, what, exactly, constitutes a “sexual act”? I’ll bet if you conducted a poll of 100 members of this forum you couldn’t find consensus.

Some would maintain that ANY act with sexual gratification in mind is a sexual act and ban kissing, hugging, etc.

Others would draw the line at “suggestive dancing”, for others it would be nudity, suggestive dancing is ok as long as no one takes their clothes off.
There would be a whole range of opinions all the way down to those who would only ban graphic depictions of explicitly sexual acts.

And the CCC requires partners. Are depictions of masturbation ok? They don’t involve partners.

Then there’s the requirement that the depiction be shown to a third party. Does that mean I can make a sex video with my wife for our own pleasure and amusement?

Finally, there is the purpose of the depictions. How about a book of sexual positions to educate couples who have physical issues such as obesity or arthritis or any number of other physical limitations? How about a book showing the best positions for conception?

No, you can’t define pornography in two seconds. You only think you can.

 

[friardchips]

In point of fact you cannot define it objectively in two seconds or in any other time period.

By the way, you might have noticed that there is no scientific consensus of what is “sensible to eat”, low fat, low carb, gluten free, organic, raw food, clean food, unprocessed good, fruittitarians, vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, and ovo-lacto vegetarians all have their proponents.

Really?

Here is the what the CCC says:

So, what, exactly, constitutes a “sexual act”? I’ll bet if you conducted a poll of 100 members of this forum you couldn’t find consensus.

Some would maintain that ANY act with sexual gratification in mind is a sexual act and ban kissing, hugging, etc.

Others would draw the line at “suggestive dancing”, for others it would be nudity, suggestive dancing is ok as long as no one takes their clothes off.
There would be a whole range of opinions all the way down to those who would only ban graphic depictions of explicitly sexual acts.

And the CCC requires partners. Are depictions of masturbation ok? They don’t involve partners.

Then there’s the requirement that the depiction be shown to a third party. Does that mean I can make a sex video with my wife for our own pleasure and amusement?

Finally, there is the purpose of the depictions. How about a book of sexual positions to educate couples who have physical issues such as obesity or arthritis or any number of other physical limitations? How about a book showing the best positions for conception?

No, you can’t define pornography in two seconds. You only think you can.

I can give it a go but please excuse the fact that I have to type therefore taking it longer to express the truth…ready:

An external action, recorded or simulated live, and publically displayed, expressing behaviour that visualises intercourse, by oneself or with another, for no other intention than stimulating the consumer to arousal?!

Or (this was quicker):

Writings, pictures, films etc…designed to stimulate sexual excitement and the production of such material.

What say thee?

 

[BillP]

I can give it a go but please excuse the fact that I have to type therefore taking it longer to express the truth…ready:

An external action, recorded or simulated live, and publically displayed, expressing behaviour that visualises intercourse, by oneself or with another, for no other intention than stimulating the consumer to arousal?!

Ok, so as long as I ascribe at least one other purpose to the depiction I’m legally good to go?

Remember the movie RobRoy? There was a depiction of rape that was central to the movie. Obviously, it wasn’t done to “stimulate the customer to arousal” but to drive the plot of the movie and create conflict between MacGregor and Cunningham. So by your definition, thats ok.

And, incidentally, the USCCB gives it an A-III rating making it ok for adults.

archive.usccb.org/movies/r/robroy1995.shtml

That movie was rated R. Now, what if the depiction had been much more graphic and explicit, such that the movie rating was X? Its purpose was still arguably to advance the plot so its still ok under your definition.

Writings, pictures, films etc…designed to stimulate sexual excitement and the production of such material.

By this definition I could make a case for banning the Song of Solomon in the Bible.

What say thee?

Back to the drawing board I think.

 

[friardchips]

Ok, so as long as I ascribe at least one other purpose to the depiction I’m legally good to go?

Remember the movie RobRoy? There was a depiction of rape that was central to the movie. Obviously, it wasn’t done to “stimulate the customer to arousal” but to drive the plot of the movie and create conflict between MacGregor and Cunningham. So by your definition, thats ok.

We could say the scene was pornographic, only that the rape is central to theme, but set against the backdrop of a storyline. So the prime intention is clearly not to display lust on its own merit (or lack of it) but to be the catalyst moment for a series of ongoing drama. I think movie makers possibly push that line, sometimes. I can think of a host of films in which this kind of happening was also the central theme and yet no suggestive imagery was shown at all. Hence, I suppose, why we have imaginations. The films were brilliant without. And because the same amount of drama was suggested and was still a brilliant film this gave light to the intelligence of the film. Which leads me to thinking that porn decreases people’s brain sizes. It certainly devalues the consumer’s integrity.

That movie was rated R. Now, what if the depiction had been much more graphic and explicit, such that the movie rating was X? Its purpose was still arguably to advance the plot so its still ok under your definition.

Well, I guess it would be a film with a pornographic scene. But it would be obvious whether the film was indulging in such a scene for reasons mentioned.

The thing is, all porn is for 18s and over and X-rated, so it is not difficult.

By this definition I could make a case for banning the Song of Solomon in the Bible.

The same applies to this. It is a question of the difference between what is made for art or to retell a happening truthfully and poetically, and sex for sex’s sake.

Back to the drawing board I think.

I wouldn’t say that.

Btw, the second definition I gave is the definition given in the Collins English Dictionary!

 

[BillP]

But it would be obvious whether the film was indulging in such a scene for reasons mentioned.

What is “obvious” to you may not be obvious to everyone, and you’re writing laws here".

The thing is, all porn is 18 or over and X-rated, so it is not difficult.

No, porn is almost never rated X. In point of fact the X rating doesn’t exist anymore having been replaced by the rating of NC-17, but when it did exist it was a voluntary system administered by the MPAA and such films as: Midnight Cowboy, Clockwork Orange and Last Tango in Paris were rated X. So that’s not an indicator of porn.

There is an informal marketing shorthand in which pornographers used to indicate how explicit their material was by the number of X’s from X to XXX, I won’t bore you with the details, but there was no legal requirement or universal definition of what constituted each of the three Xs. If you want to outlaw such labeling I suppose that’s ok but it won’t impact the availability of such material.

The same applies to this. It is a question of what is made for art or to retell a happening truthfully or poetically and sex for sex’s sake.

Really? You can tell whether something was “made for art” or whether it is “sex for sex’s sake”? And codify the definition legally so that people can be imprisoned for violating it?

You have yet to demonstrate such ability.

This is the problem. What you find pornographic isn’t definitive for everyone. I don’t want anyone other then me defining pornography for me. I don’t trust your definition.

Btw, the second definition i gave is the definition given in the Collins English Dictionary! Sorry, that was mean!

There’s a world of difference between a dictionary definition that illustrates how people generally use a word and a legal definition.