We agree porn is bad, but should it be banned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guarantee your friend did not serve warrants for the possession of Penthouse. He either oversimplified or you completely misunderstood.
 
I guarantee you that he is my friend, I’d know better, and he did. Or else he would not had pointed that out.
 
Alright, not going to keep arguing with you. But any second year law student could tell you that your understanding of the law is flat wrong.
 
Well, that’s an arrogant way of putting law before the common man. It would be like saying any one who needs to obey a simple traffic law with the words “stop” on a sign, it would then require a law degree to make the case of giving a ticket. Which would undermine all the undegreed people who work in the DMV telling each driver they can get a ticket and pay a fine, for not obeying a stop sign.
 
Last edited:
Please don’t imagine I’m insulting you. I’m not saying you’re not an intelligent person. It’s just clear that you aren’t trained in legal analysis, because you’re getting a lot of issues confused. That’s all.

I’m not saying you’re dumb or anything. I’m just saying it doesn’t look like you have a background in this stuff.
 
Porn if it was just removed, no one being prosecuted. Just simply taken down. It would serve people good. And those people who are/were addicted to it can get counseling. And live a healthier/better lives. And simply be refreshed. Including the reduction of minors sharing inappropriate images of themselves. And that would be a remarkable and good thing. This would help families work together and be a family. For Saint Mother Theresa of Calcutta said in Detroit, “Go home. And take care of our families.”
 
But you stipulate the necessity of having a background. Which is not necessary to know you have to follow traffic laws, or you can get fined. It’s even with reason, the erotic imagery has become as addictive as a drug addiction, too.

In fact, dopamine which the body processes in the brain when doing drugs, eating, or watching erotic material online. And yes, both have addictive tendencies, because of pleasure to excess. And simply put, men who crave erotic imagery not only do erotic things to themselves, also cheat on their spouses, seek prostitutes, escort services, and etc. And yes, it reasons people who look at it to simply try it. And it also gives men the image of a woman as an object for pleasure. It’s not exactly dramatic play at art. People try in the silly best efforts to call it art. But when you look at the stuff, it really isn’t.

And it does surface and arise to excess that now children are being drawn into the whole epidemic worse than it has before. Since technology has ably made it available. And accessible to children. Which means Prosecution still has weight to carry out justice in a manner to shut down those services. Because it is getting worse.

The Three-Prong rule still gives leeway and room to carry out justice in a manner to take down offensive erotic material where it can be taken down. And as I stated, you cannot do this in a library or an airport. And there are avenues for law enforcement which can be undertaken to outlaw that material where and whenever they can.
 
Last edited:
You don’t need to convince me that porn is bad. I agree with that. But yes, to understand how to read the law, you need some training. I’m sorry, but it’s true. The law in general is more complicated than “if you run a stop sign you might get a ticket.”

For example, you keep saying, “if you look at porn in public, you can get arrested.” That’s true. But it’s the public nature of it that makes it illegal, not the porn itself. To use an analogy, if you urinate in public, you can get arrested. But obviously, urinating at home in your bathroom is not illegal.

I’m not going to keep going back and forth on this. You’re misstating a lot of basic legal concepts and your reasoning is pretty shaky. Do with that what you will.
 
PetraG said:
Oh, heavens yes. There is art being dug up from the Greek bathhouses that would curl your hair! There is no doubt it is art in terms of the skill of the execution, but if that isn’t indecent, nothing is. It is bawdier than bawdy.
Click to expand...
Sure, the Romans and plenty of other ancient cultures had pornographic art. I think you’d carve out a niche in the law for ancient works displayed in a museum.
 
You agreed it’s bad. You have confirmed it is illegal under public setting. And you concluded the laws (i…e which is public domain/discourse.) All place the predicament of erotic imagery in the place of being unlawful.

But, you use the analogy of urinating in public versus at home. But that also is an analogy that ignores another prospective public discourse/domain: a public restroom.

That then runs that not everything done in a public setting is considered unlawful. The act of urinating in public not only is it un-hygenic, but indecent. Very inappropriate. So there is in the public setting a right appropriate place to go to the bathroom. Now taking to the extent of someone’s home. Sure, they can urinate whereever they want. Until it becomes a danger to the public health. Who knows, someone who does stuff that is so un-hygenic that it affects their neighbor. For suppose a person leaves their toilets clogged? And all the water and what would be going into the sewage system simply flooded out of their house into the streets and drains? That would then be a danger to the public good.

So, when erotic imagery becomes an epidemic to the public good. It can then be prosecuted by the arm of justice and the law. For if you, bear with me as I am about go to into laughter saying this. But if you have a loud audio surround sound system with the screams of some person in an erotic movies or film, someone comes by, hears the sounds, and notices what they are. Yes, they can call police because of the indecent sounds/words emitting from the person’s home. Now, suppose this same person had all their windows open and were looking a the same material, and someone passed by? Yes, the person walking by can call the police, since it is still indecent exposure of indecent material. All it takes is that person.

Alright, now let’s take another turn, with children. Some kid goes to his friends house. Is exposed to this material. Later keeps images on his phone. The parents see it. They go to the parents home of their child’s friend. And take the parent to court for exposing their child.

There are many cases under that Three-Prong measure that give leeway. Sure, people can take that stuff into their private living space, closed doors, and just stare at it. But when it affects the public good, and is a danger. It is therefore unlawful.

Now, if law enforcement see certain online entities with erotic imagery that has no credible limit to access, all they need is to develop the right grounds for prosecution. For if a child is found to have access to it as other children, then they have the right to either tell the entity to keep credible measure to keep children off of it. Or else, it gets shutdown. And if children steal parents credit cards and get online, That then means the parents are negligible, and are still accountable.

So yes, you cant take down porn in manners where they are perceived under the Three-Prong rule as necessary.
 
Last edited:
This is the last thing I’ll say on the subject and then we can just agree to disagree.

You’re confusing particular situations in which porn can be illegal (looking at it in public, showing it to children, etc) with porn being illegal in general.
 
So erotic imagery is therefore not always legal. Thus means it’s still illegal. With some exceptions of provision. But still unlawful. It’s like in this analogy, you can use metamorphine or even steroids under exceptions of the practice of medicine. But outside of it, you may not. A terrible analogy though. Since medicine is for your good, and erotic imagery isn’t really.

But in keeping where the analogy applies, There are exceptions, and it is within the limits of justice as certain drugs are merited to be used under prescription or administered by a doctor.

Yet on the outside, metamorphine, steroids are unlawful. Just in those few cases/exceptions they are used/can. And thus to the same degree of limits, erotic imagery is limited to an adult wherefore it isn’t in public exposure/setting.

So limits in/of law still prevail. And thus places it under some unlawful account. Wherefore does make it on consideration illegal. And there are cases it can be prosecuted outside of the exceptions stated.
 
BoyGenius said:
So erotic imagery is therefore not always legal. Thus means it’s still illegal.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is really my last response and then I gotta go.

But this statement is really bizarre logic. Something not being “always legal” does not make it “illegal.” Virtually nothing is “always legal.” Sex is not “always legal.” You can’t have sex with an unwilling person, or someone believe the age of consent, etc. But no one would say with a straight face that “sex is therefore illegal.”
 
Last edited:
The idea of erotic imagery being legal is based on the subjective of the viewer. So if it falls outside that viewers per-view, and it is seen as offensive by another, that then entails becoming unlawful. Because the other person see’s it, and judges it as offensive.

People can pretty much do what they want to themselves. Even though suicide is self murder. They get away with it, wherefore can the prosecution fall? Well, it is still unlawful because not all attempted suicide is successful. Which is good. Because you can still keep the person alive. And it is murder. Erotic imagery is till considered indecent as it takes only one person to see it that way.

The matter of erotic imagery still gives law enforcement to shut it down, because they can say in the public domain (i.e. the internet, the store) it is in the public eye. And with that, they can subjectively under the Three-Prong rule, take prosecution to it. And prove it is accessible/exposed within the public eye.

As for the age of consent or someone’s willfulness to participate in sex not against their will, has to do with two parties. And injury done to another person, making the act unlawful under that circumstance. Thus preventing abuse.

Wherefore erotic imagery has to do which is seen as offensive. Can you look at other people having sex? Like peeping toms? I guess erotic imagery makers can show what they want. And thus it’s out there. So it’s open to the peeping tom. Adults who consent to erotic imagery being shared is saying they are able to share indecent material (as is understood under the public setting and eye.) And with that, they can’t. Wherefore, if they do, It has to fall on the premise wherefore (i.e. a website, magazine, subscription, some property, etc.) On their own property. But, when it is seen under the public eye, it thus becomes unlawful. And that public eye can be flexed in so many situations.

Which the public eye is quite mobile. That it can perceive in any circumstance that something is indecent. That gives mobility and strength to the law to take it down. All it takes is an observer who see’s it is offensive. The person who views it may have more freedom. But the person who creates it, does not. Thus just by one observer, it can be judge indecent. And prosecuted. Which still means there’s room to it’s unlawful character according to the subjective that has more leeway under that Three-Prong measure.

A person might have freedom to subjectively look at whatever they want. In fact, you can see, sadly, what happened to Jewish people. Or any form of torture. And sadly, horribly, people who align themselves as racist keep those images for their sick reasons. Is it unlawful for people to view those images since they are offensive? It could be. But people preserve those images to take account of history. But erotic imagery, afraid that is not what it is meant, and for.
 
There were so many languages before English. I don’t think it is the second language. There were others before it.
 
I am advising you your posts don’t really make much sense sorry.
 
Therein lies the problem… defining it.

The statues of the great artists both of antiquity and of other times tended to be rather anatomically correct. And, since these were artistic representations of the ideal man/woman, they tended to be rather well endowed.

The famous photo of the sailor and his girlfriend/wife kissing in Times Square at the end of WWII could, by some people’s definition, be considered porn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top