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

[francisca]

I was in my bathroom thinking about this thread. I didn’t close the door because I was alone at home. Suddenly I think this way: what if I were in public toilet but didn’t close the door? Such is considered obscenity or at least indecency.

Can a person have sex in public area?
If such is obscenity in real life, then theoretically it should be obscene for any public exposure too, right? And the media is public exposure.

What’s the difference between obscenity in real life and obsceniy in the media?

Can my husband and I have sex beside the public swimming pool?
Or, can we make video behind close door, and then show the video in a big screen projector beside the public swimming pool?

I think there is no difference between the two…

And even more, if we post the video in the internet for even wider audience to see.

 

[BillP]

what if I were in public toilet but didn’t close the door? Such is considered obscenity or at least indecency.

By whom? I’ve never heard of anyone being prosecuted for leaving the door to the stall open.

Can a person have sex in public area?

Nope.

If such is obscenity in real life, then theoretically it should be obscene for any public exposure too, right? And the media is public exposure.

What’s the difference between obscenity in real life and obsceniy in the media?

Can my husband and I have sex beside the public swimming pool?
Or, can we make video behind close door and then show the video in a big screen projector beside the public swimming pool?

I think there is no difference between the two, is there?

Here’s where I think your problem lies. Its the public vs. private distinction. You and your husband aren’t allowed to have sex in a public place, but you are allowed to have sex in a private place, be it your home or a hotel room, or even a tent in a national park.

Similarly, clearly you’re allowed to produce a video and view it privately. I think you would rapidly run afoul of existing law should you try to screen the video at an outdoor screen in a public park. This is as it should be.

If you choose to show your video to other people who also wish to watch it privately, I don’t think you should legally prohibit that because no one should get to decide what other people can read, watch, or listen to.

 

[friardchips]

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

Cool, will I get payed for it? Easy money!

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.

These films are merely about sex for the sake of sex and so I guess they’d come under soft porn. Clockwork I thought was banned - it is porn. Porn disguised as filmage.

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?

Yes. It is easy in most cases. The only line that is hard to draw is between art photography and porn. Is much of art photography just an excuse to take pictures of nuddy all bearers.

You have yet to demonstrate such ability.

Im waiting for the money as I think my definition was pretty accurate. More definite than the dictionary. More explicit anyway.

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.

Okay, so a person types ‘porn’ (don’t) into a search engine then goes to a site (please don’t) and comes back and tells us that what they were looking at doesn’t EXACTLY fit both definitions just given. PLEASE…let’s stop being disingenuous! You know exactly the sort of thing that clearly constitutes PORN.

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

 

[friardchips]

I was in my bathroom thinking about this thread. I didn’t close the door because I was alone at home. Suddenly I think this way: what if I were in public toilet but didn’t close the door? **Such is considered obscenity or at least indecency. **

Could you not claim it was accidental?

 

[francisca]

By whom? I’ve never heard of anyone being prosecuted for leaving the door to the stall open.

Well maybe my example was too mild. Let’s say somebody run around naked in the mall. A mall is public place therefore public exposure.

I am not talking about the law yet. I am trying to figure out how to define obscenity/ indecency in the media with comparison to real life.

Here’s where I think your problem lies. Its the public vs. private distinction. You and your husband aren’t allowed to have sex in a public place, but you are allowed to have sex in a private place, be it your home or a hotel room, or even a tent in a national park.

Exactly.
Having sex in private is not obscene, but showing it to public exposure (example public places/ the media) is.

Similarly, clearly you’re allowed to produce a video and view it privately.

Yup.

I think you would rapidly run afoul of existing law should you try to screen the video at an outdoor screen in a public park. This is as it should be.

If you choose to show your video to other people who also wish to watch it privately, I don’t think you should legally prohibit that because no one should get to decide what other people can read, watch, or listen to.

Agreed.

 

[BillP]

Okay, so a person types ‘porn’ (don’t) into a search engine then goes to a site (please don’t) and comes back and tells us that what they were looking at doesn’t EXACTLY fit both definitions just given. PLEASE…let’s stop being disingenuous! You know exactly the sort of thing that clearly constitutes PORN.

Thanks, you just perfectly illustrated my point.

I cited Midnight Cowboy (which won three Oscars!), Clockwork Orange (which was nominated for four Oscars and won a Hugo, two awards from the NY Film Critics and two Italian film awards), and Last Tango in Paris (two Oscar nominations) and you dismissed them as “porn”.

These films are merely about sex for the sake of sex and so I guess they’d come under soft porn. Clockwork I thought was banned - it is porn. Porn disguised as filmage.

Which clearly demonstrates your inability to decide what I should and shouldn’t watch.

 

[francisca]

The pornographers knew what would happen when graphic pornography became available throughout the West in so-called “Adult Bookstores” starting in the 1970s.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/pornography/the-harmful-effects-of-pornography/

Thankyou Edwest for the many good articles you posted , especially this one, shows how harmful porn is. But again the secular media do not write these things

 

[friardchips]

Similarly, clearly you’re allowed to produce a video and view it privately. I think you would rapidly run afoul of existing law should you try to screen the video at an outdoor screen in a public park. This is as it should be.

If you choose to show your video to other people who also wish to watch it privately, I don’t think you should legally prohibit that because no one should get to decide what other people can read, watch, or listen to.

The internet is a public online highway. People can easily accidently click on porn. It can be done. Therefore, this is the same as walking into a park and seeing an indiividual or couple in the middle of naughty wobble wotsits. But with a sign nearby saying this is happening that people can easily miss. Thus, scandalizing possibly innocent-minded people.

 

[friardchips]

Thanks, you just perfectly illustrated my point.

I cited Midnight Cowboy (which won three Oscars!), Clockwork Orange (which was nominated for four Oscars and won a Hugo, two awards from the NY Film Critics and two Italian film awards), and Last Tango in Paris (two Oscar nominations) and you dismissed them as “porn”.

Yes, but no one said Hollywood was the Educational Department for Virtue and Morality!

Sometimes (often), not even an accurate measure of good taste.

If 'Fast and Furious 7’ gets any nominations then I’ll trust Hollywood in the taste category.

We deceived each other. I don’t know whose deception was worse.

Which clearly demonstrates your inability to decide what I should and shouldn’t watch.

Not really. Case still standing. Just don’t take Hollywood as your Fairy Godmother.

It is not Hollywood who puts the classifications to films, or is it?

 

[BillP]

The internet is a public online highway. People can easily accidently click on porn. It can be done. Therefore, this is the same as walking into a park and seeing an indiividual or couple in the middle of naughty wobble wotsits. But with a sign nearby saying this is happening that people can easily miss. Thus, scandalizing possibly innocent-minded people.

I reject your characterization.

Yes, people can accidentally click on porn, but that is an argument for restricting advertising/links to it, not prohibiting its existence.

People can accidentally wander into my backyard too, but I’m still allowed to have sex with my wife there if I have a fence giving me a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Beside, you still haven’t legally defined it to my satisfaction. Any definition of description that would prohibit serious films (Midnight Cowboy! Forsooth!) is nonsensical.

What else ya got?

 

[BillP]

Yes, but no one said Hollywood was the Educational Department for Virtue and Morality!

We deceived each other. I don’t know whose deception was worse.

There’s no deception here. I gave you a list of serious, artistic, meaningful, films which you dismissed as porn, thus demonstrating that you don’t know what porn is.

It is not Hollywood who puts the classifications to films, or is it?

Actually it IS Hollywood. Its the MPAA, a trade association of Hollywood studios…

We are the voice of one of the country’s strongest and most vibrant industries – the American motion picture, home video and television industry. We aspire to advance the business and the art of filmmaking and celebrate its enjoyment around the world. Our members include: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

mpaa.org/

 

[francisca]

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.

I watched Edward Snowden documentary he said NSA compells google, yahoo, microsoft to give up some of their data and give it to NSA. If they can do this it seems gov can do “some” to them?

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”.

 

[friardchips]

I reject your characterization.

Yes, people can accidentally click on porn, but that is an argument for restricting advertising/links to it, not prohibiting its existence.

People can accidentally wander into my backyard too, but I’m still allowed to have sex with my wife there if I have a fence giving me a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Beside, you still haven’t legally defined it to my satisfaction. Any definition of description that would prohibit serious films (Midnight Cowboy! Forsooth!) is nonsensical.

What else ya got?

I think my classifications were sound. And you also disagreed with a world renowned dictionary so interviewing chimps is the only option left available.

Midnight Cowpat was an excuse for sexist filming.

Again, you are being disingenuous, otherwise, this sentence would have convinced you:

‘Okay, so a person types ‘porn’ (don’t) into a search engine then goes to a site (please don’t) and comes back and tells us that what they were looking at doesn’t EXACTLY fit both definitions just given. PLEASE…let’s stop being disingenuous! You know exactly the sort of thing that clearly constitutes PORN.’

If you mean for people to see you and your wife having sex in your garden then that is public sex enticing neighbour-arousal, and therefore, in the non-virtual sense, it is public indecency; in the virtual sense, however, it would be porn.

 

[friardchips]

There’s no deception here. I gave you a list of serious, artistic, meaningful, films which you dismissed as porn, thus demonstrating that you don’t know what porn is.

Actually it IS Hollywood. Its the MPAA, a trade association of Hollywood studios…

mpaa.org/

But, but, but…nooooooooooooo. :crying:

 

[BillP]

I think my classifications were sound.

I disagree. And I live in a representative democracy with 1st Amendment protections, so I don’t have to listen to you.

I don’t know where you live so others may have to.

And you also disagreed with a world renowned dictionary so interviewing chimps is the only option left available.

Or you could just mind your own business and not try to censor what other people watch?

 

[friardchips]

I disagree. And I live in a representative democracy with 1st Amendment protections, so I don’t have to listen to you.

I don’t know where you live so others may have to.

I live next door…!

I don’t really live next door, btw. Telling you, just in case, upon receipt of previous post, you take your garden exposition to the next level.

And breathe…

 

[pnewton]

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?

I would be totally alright with that. I do not think it that hard to define in a way that encompasses 99% of all smut. If it doesn’t catch everything, that too is okay. Any definition and any attempt at morality is preferable to hedonism. Besides, I really do not care if it is even banned (though that would be great), if we could just keep it off the regular, normal user, internet. Put it all behind pay windows and secondary ISPs, if we just have to have it. In the past, stores had to put smut up on the top shelves behind opaque barriers. We have the internet equivalent of allowing it to be up at the checkout, displaying any and all sex acts, right next to the candy, oh, and allowing minors to buy it. In our hypocrisy, we say that one can not expose themselves to a minor, except on the internet, of course.

If nothing else, I guess francisca has seen the barriers to restoring morality in this country. Not enough saints, willpower or desire. There is a way to balance morality and liberty.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

It is really not that hard to define a sexual act. If it were then sexual assault and molestation charges would be meaningless.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

It is the business of all people to be concerned for the welfare and common good of the world in which we live and for the lookout of more vulnerable people who are exploited in this disgusting industry where there are no winners apart from those who make the money and those who couldn’t care less.

It’s nice that you feel that way about the military, but what do you think about the porn industry?

 

[BillP]

I would be totally alright with that. I do not think it that hard to define in a way that encompasses 99% of all smut. If it doesn’t catch everything, that too is okay. Any definition and any attempt at morality is preferable to hedonism.

I vehemently disagree. Its not the 1% of porn your system doesn’t catch that bothers me, its the percentage of non-porn that your system will catch that bothers me.