Leftist Child Grooming

[mrttao]

I looked a bit into when it was that porn became "speech"...

TLDR
> over the years "free speech" mutated into "free expression".
> 1966: obscenity is "hardcore porn" which is not protected expression. but this movie is not porn. I know it when I see it.
> 1973: obscenity is not protected expression. porn is obscenity. it is up to local communities to decide what is and isn't obscene pornography
> bunch of cases upholding that porn is obscene
> 1996: obscenity is not protected by 1st amendment. but only child porn, porn for children, or porn of illegal acts is obscene. regular porn for adults is not obscene.
> 1997: porn websites not verifying age is ok.

Spoiler: longer post

This is what the first amendment says

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Interestingly, expression is not mentioned anywhere in it.
But at some point "freedom of speech" became "freedom of expression". It is Which is far more vague. Despite the fact that the law still says speech and not expression.
And it is maddeningly difficult to pin down exactly when this happened.

Porn has only ever been referred to as expression by courts, not as speech.
Never in the history of the USA has the supreme court argued that porn is all subject to the protection of the 1st amendment.

In 1964 it was ruled that... a movie containing a 3 minute sex scene is not porn (which is obscene and thus not subject to 1st amendment).
Under the guideline of "I know it when I see it". The judge argued that since it is not porn it is protected by 1st amendment.

In 1973 the courts created an actual definition called "the miller test" for determining what is "obscene hardcore pornography" which IS exempt from 1st amendment vs NOT obscene hardcore pornography which is protected by freedom of expression.

Spoiler: miller test

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable "national standards" when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact. ... It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City.​

(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.

souce: Prosecuting Obscenity - An Overview Of Past Pornography Rulings By The U.s. Supreme Court | American Porn | FRONTLINE |PBS
(I saw several other sites that said basically the exact same thing as this source. if you find a source that contradicts this info let me know)

This miller standard is allegedly still in use today according to any legal publication I found.

But all the millar test does is say that:
1. hardcore porn is obscene and NOT protected by 1st amendment
2. it is up to local communities to determine what is or is not obscene.

As far as I can tell, it was only starting in the late 1990s that the public got gaslighted into believing that pornography is perfectly legal and is protected speech under the 1st amendment.
Judges started ruling that "obscene" does not mean "pornography", it means "harmful to children".

1996 court ruled that cable TV had to restrict the way it distributes porn to adults such that minors cannot see it.

1997 court ruled in favor of ACLU, allowing internet porn sites to distribute freely to children.

 

[mrttao]

Now you want judges deciding if parts of a protest are necessary. This definitely won't lead to bad places.

Nice hyperbole. But:

1. we already have illegal parts to protests. arson, looting, assault are all "parts of a protest" which are against the law and which judges actively convict people for. (depending on their political affiliation)

2. we have "protests" / "parades" which explicitly involve 11 year old children strip dancing for men for adult men for dollar bills. The right is to assembly and speech, not "gather together into a group and then break literally all the laws"

Also, funny how you ignored the point about the book telling kids how to suck dick wouldn't be porn under your definition.

I didn't see this. its late at night and frankly I am exhausted from this debackle of a debate. So I have started only addressing the most egregious of parts instead of every single line of every single nutcase spewing nonsense at me.
Please excuse me for getting tired.

Let me address it then.
"Fully clothed Girl's gone wild" is not porn.
Ok, so it isn't. so what? why is that a bad thing?
I am not trying to come up with the most draconian laws possible here.

As for "child's guide to sucking dick" being "educational"...

A. It isn't. Just like "how to molest your dog" or "how to bury a body so the police won't find it" are not "educational". No school (openly) teaches children how to commit crimes or claims that "teaching how to commit crime is educational"

B. Even if it was somehow declared as educational. That would just at most make it "not porn". But not being porn is not the same as being legal.

C. Any judge who would deem that "illustrated child's guide to sucking dick" is "educational" and thus not porn, would have also just deemed it as not porn under any other definition that exists too. Because that judge is clearly a groomer who does not care about what the law actually says

 

[Cherico]

This is the most pathetic trolling attempt I have seen in a while.
You have no arguments.
Many posts, many days, and zero arguments.
All you have done is namecalling.

But you are too much of an ignoramus to even vary it up or come up with good namecalling. Instead you just repeat the exact same phrase over and over and over again.

Everyone else on the side of your argument at least tries their hand at crafting an argument. To varying degrees of competence.

Not you, here you sit with pride just bleating your slogan
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"
"baaah, petty little tyrant"

So lets use a different argument


The law of unintended consequences.

What are the conqsequences of outlawing porn?

I want you to really think about what is needed to outlaw porn through out the entire country.

All you need to create porn is a willing person and a camera, or even some one with decent art skills. You also have to think about what the punishment is going to be for the people who create it and consume it. Please keep in mind america has the single largest prison population in the world.

Your going to have to create an even more intrusive and invasive government which by the way is the thing were all currently bitching about to enforce these new laws.

Think about the war on drugs and how much we have blown on that shit, people in prison today can get drugs and regularly have access to hard drugs. This is an environment where the government has maximum power and they cant keep drugs out of prison.

If Prisons cant keep drugs out what do you think your chances are of actually enforcing this law on something where the means of enterance are so incredibly low.


What you are suggesting is an utterly unenforcible law, and trying to enforce it would have a lot of unintended consequences that will be worse than having pornography be around.


And this isn't even getting into the big issue no one wants to talk about.

And that's that were in an era where men are having the least amount of sex in recorded history. The marrage age is way outside of historical norms, most americans don't even have 300 dollars worth of savings and live hand to mouth. Inflation is destroying what savings people have left. The global supply chains are being wreaked as we speak and most of the west is dangerously unstable.

We have a very large amount of men who will never be able to get married and have children and their very aware of it and you want to take away their porn.

I don't think you fully grasp how tenuous and dangerous that kind of situation is, historically when a large group of men cant get laid and get the message they can never have children that's typically murder blender time. China's dealt with that issue enough times that they call such men bare sticks and are rightfully terrified of them rebelling. And you are talking about getting rid of one of the few things keeping that very angry mass of men placated.....

So I'm not going to call you a tyrant.

But we do not live in perfection, life is a series of trade offs where you basically try to pick the least shitty outcome possible. Are you willing to pay the price for your ideal?

 

[mrttao]

So lets use a different argument

Cherico, you are actually using arguments. Captain X isn't. He is literally the ONLY person on your side of the argument that has not put forth a single argument. only many many posts of name calling.

I honestly respect you. You are one of those "high competence" arguers. I disagree with you sometimes, but I respect you.

The law of unintended consequences.

What are the conqsequences of outlawing porn?

I want you to really think about what is needed to outlaw porn through out the entire country.

All you need to create porn is a willing person and a camera, or even some one with decent art skills. You also have to think about what the punishment is going to be for the people who create it and consume it. Please keep in mind america has the single largest prison population in the world.

Your going to have to create an even more intrusive and invasive government which by the way is the thing were all currently bitching about to enforce these new laws.

Think about the war on drugs and how much we have blown on that shit, people in prison today can get drugs and regularly have access to hard drugs. This is an environment where the government has maximum power and they cant keep drugs out of prison.

If Prisons cant keep drugs out what do you think your chances are of actually enforcing this law on something where the means of enterance are so incredibly low.


What you are suggesting is an utterly unenforcible law, and trying to enforce it would have a lot of unintended consequences that will be worse than having pornography be around.

I think you got caught up in what others have been saying about me.
As this post has you making assumptions about my position instead of asking me.

Where have I said that I want to throw in prison any person who posts some naked selfies online? Where have I said that I want to throw in prison anyone who downloads a porno?

I offhandedly said in a different thread that porn aught to be outlawed...
based specifically on the harm it does to children who are consuming it online.

In this thread, I spoke in defense of texas law that requires porn websites to do age verification of their customers.
And have proposed it can be done the same way prepaid phones are handled. a box containing a card with a code. You buy the box at the store, showing ID which is not kept. There is no way to link the buyer of the box to the ID card within.

And yes I am aware that this is not a perfect system and could be possibly circumvented. Such as adults providing such cards to children.

When I spoke the above, I was dismissed under the ad hominem of "your support of not giving minors porn is a ruse. you are an evil person who wants to ban all porn"

I absolutely do not think that drugs nor porn should involve any arresting of customers.
If anything you should bribe the customers to turn in their dealers and only go after dealers exclusively.

You also do not have to throw every single dealer in prison.
Simply confiscate businesses distributing porn would eliminate 99.99% of it.

And this isn't even getting into the big issue no one wants to talk about.

And that's that were in an era where men are having the least amount of sex in recorded history. The marrage age is way outside of historical norms, most americans don't even have 300 dollars worth of savings and live hand to mouth. Inflation is destroying what savings people have left. The global supply chains are being wreaked as we speak and most of the west is dangerously unstable.

We have a very large amount of men who will never be able to get married and have children and their very aware of it and you want to take away their porn.

I don't think you fully grasp how tenuous and dangerous that kind of situation is, historically when a large group of men cant get laid and get the message they can never have children that's typically murder blender time. China's dealt with that issue enough times that they call such men bare sticks and are rightfully terrified of them rebelling. And you are talking about getting rid of one of the few things keeping that very angry mass of men placated.....

So I'm not going to call you a tyrant.

But we do not live in perfection, life is a series of trade offs where you basically try to pick the least shitty outcome possible. Are you willing to pay the price for your ideal?

1. For my porn law to be put into effect would mean I am a ruler which means I would have already resolved those issues too. (which stem from the robber baron oligarchs).

2. Porn is not at all helping people have children, quite the opposite.

3. Don't threaten me with a good time.

Disclaimer: I don't think you are an NPC. but I have seen this argument you just pulled repeated very very often in many places. Even the best of us sometimes fall for such a thing. But I think you are someone better than that and if you think about it a bit would realize the problem with this argument

If you really believe that the reason we have not risen up against the robber baron oligarchs who ruin everything is because people self medicate with porn to the point of being too weak to rebel. Then this is an excellent argument for banning porn.

 

[Cherico]

Cherico, you are actually using arguments. Captain X isn't. He is literally the ONLY person on your side of the argument that has not put forth a single argument. only many many posts of name calling.

I honestly respect you. You are one of those "high competence" arguers. I disagree with you sometimes, but I respect you.

I think you got caught up in what others have been saying about me.
As this post has you making assumptions about my position instead of asking me.

Where have I said that I want to throw in prison any person who posts some naked selfies online? Where have I said that I want to throw in prison anyone who downloads a porno?

I offhandedly said in a different thread that porn aught to be outlawed...
based specifically on the harm it does to children who are consuming it online.

In this thread, I spoke in defense of texas law that requires porn websites to do age verification of their customers.
And have proposed it can be done the same way prepaid phones are handled. a box containing a card with a code. You buy the box at the store, showing ID which is not kept. There is no way to link the buyer of the box to the ID card within.

And yes I am aware that this is not a perfect system and could be possibly circumvented. Such as adults providing such cards to children.

When I spoke the above, I was dismissed under the ad hominem of "your support of not giving minors porn is a ruse. you are an evil person who wants to ban all porn"

I absolutely do not think that drugs nor porn should involve any arresting of customers.
If anything you should bribe the customers to turn in their dealers and only go after dealers exclusively.

You also do not have to throw every single dealer in prison.
Simply confiscate businesses distributing porn would eliminate 99.99% of it.



1. For my porn law to be put into effect would mean I am a ruler which means I would have already resolved those issues too. (which stem from the robber baron oligarchs).

2. Porn is not at all helping people have children, quite the opposite.

3. Don't threaten me with a good time.

Disclaimer: I don't think you are an NPC. but I have seen this argument you just pulled repeated very very often in many places. Even the best of us sometimes fall for such a thing. But I think you are someone better than that and if you think about it a bit would realize the problem with this argument

If you really believe that the reason we have not risen up against the robber baron oligarchs who ruin everything is because people self medicate with porn to the point of being too weak to rebel. Then this is an excellent argument for banning porn.

1. getting into positon of leadership is a very difficult thing. Much easier said then done.

2. Lots of things people do, do not help them. Booze, cigarettes, other drugs, life style choices. People have always done such interviening like this will have a price.

3. Talk to some one who's lived through a revolution, that shit is not fun. I personally pray to god a lot that were able to fix our current mess with peaceful reform and have personal dred to something I see as the envitable outcome. You will most likely get your way on that front the current Oligarchs are a particularly stupid bunch and I don't see them lasting forever.

I just hope and pray we actually learn from the whole disaster when its all over.

 

[mrttao]

3. Talk to some one who's lived through a revolution, that shit is not fun.

I have in fact spoken to such people. I am well aware that it is awful.

But you also described how awful things are right now

And that's that were in an era where men are having the least amount of sex in recorded history. The marrage age is way outside of historical norms, most americans don't even have 300 dollars worth of savings and live hand to mouth. Inflation is destroying what savings people have left. The global supply chains are being wreaked as we speak and most of the west is dangerously unstable.

What you describe is just the tip of the iceberg. And I don't want the entire rest of my life to be this. And it is just getting worse and worse every year.

I am willing to accept a few years of horror of civil war if it means ousting the blood sucking parasites who have done this to us so we can start healing.
I am willing to accept that I might die too. But what I have right now cannot be considered living.

 

[Cherico]

I have in fact spoken to such people. I am well aware that it is awful.

But you also described how awful things are right now

What you describe is just the tip of the iceberg. And I don't want the entire rest of my life to be this. And it is just getting worse and worse every year.

I am willing to accept a few years of horror of civil war if it means ousting the blood sucking parasites who have done this to us so we can start healing.
I am willing to accept that I might die too. But what I have right now cannot be considered living.

Like I said I'm hoping for a peaceful outcome I just see it as doubtful.

I think we both agree that the current state of things is comepletely unsustainable and shit though.

 

[mrttao]

Like I said I'm hoping for a peaceful outcome I just see it as doubtful.

I think we both agree that the current state of things is comepletely unsustainable and shit though.

if a peaceful solution somehow materializes I would be very happy.
It is just that my hope of such a thing actually coming to be is so beaten and battered. There is very little of it remaining.

 

[Jormungandr]

if a peaceful solution somehow materializes I would be very happy.
It is just that my hope of such a thing actually coming to be is so beaten and battered. There is very little of it remaining.

I can't see there being a peaceful solution now, to be honest. We've already crossed that unseen Rubicon.

The divide is too great, mostly due to the Left's constant pushing of it and then hypocritically declaring anyone but they are the ones responsible.

They won't stop until you're dead or subsumed.

Violently shutting down the Left looks to be the only recourse now, and if so it'd be a small price to pay to restore some semblance of sanity to Western society.

 

[Scottty]

Which political point? penis goes in vagina?

For thousands of years of human history, that would not be seen as remotely political. Indecent of course, in cultures where anything to do with such bodily functions are expected to be discussed only in euphemisms, but everyone knew what the difference between a man and a woman was.

Now? There are people who would gleefully have you killed for "hate speech" or something.

At this point I think the tobacco companys would still put them on because if they were removed some idiot would get cancer and sue.

And claim that there should have been a warning

When do boxes of matches need to start having clearly printed warnings not to put a lighted match into one's nose?

 

[Cherico]

For thousands of years of human history, that would not be seen as remotely political. Indecent of course, in cultures where anything to do with such bodily functions are expected to be discussed only in euphemisms, but everyone knew what the difference between a man and a woman was.

Now? There are people who would gleefully have you killed for "hate speech" or something.



When do boxes of matches need to start having clearly printed warnings not to put a lighted match into one's nose?

we both know that some idiot has put a lit match up their nose by some point allready.

 

[Scottty]

Okay so let's look at the topic:

Mrttao: "Pornography has been proven to be harmful to children, so we should restrict access to it."
Captain X: "Noooo! Mah pooorn!"
Cherico: "Dude, it's just not practical to try to ban it completely."

Well, I think Cherico has a point. Alcohol, for example, has been known from time immemorial to be harmful if consumed in excess, and yet attempts to ban it completely never work. People find a way. But at least 6 year old children cannot download vodka from the internet.
More relevant here is that the US govt is not a good-faith actor, and cannot be trusted not to abuse any power given to it.

But boolean, all-or-nothing thinking is not helpful there. Making bad things harder to obtain, so that more people will not consider it worth the risk or effort, is often doable. What is needed on a societal level is the will.

 

[Abhorsen]

B. Even if it was somehow declared as educational. That would just at most make it "not porn". But not being porn is not the same as being legal.

In the US, even with your addition, it literally is. It becomes presumptively legal, on the same level as any other book like Moby Dick.

C. Any judge who would deem that "illustrated child's guide to sucking dick" is "educational" and thus not porn, would have also just deemed it as not porn under any other definition that exists too. Because that judge is clearly a groomer who does not care about what the law actually says

It will literally be designed so that it qualifies as educational on purpose. You established the exception for educational purposes. They will shove an elephant through that hole. You need a better definition. Or, hear me out here: your idea of relying on judges to judge whether something is porn or not is moronic.

1. we already have illegal parts to protests. arson, looting, assault are all "parts of a protest" which are against the law and which judges actively convict people for. (depending on their political affiliation)

2. we have "protests" / "parades" which explicitly involve 11 year old children strip dancing for men for adult men for dollar bills. The right is to assembly and speech, not "gather together into a group and then break literally all the laws"

Again, this is resolved by a simple understanding of the core rights that the right to protest come from, something the US legal system is based on, something that does not apply to porn: the issue with a riot is the instigation of violence. That doesn't exist with porn. It's the classic "your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins". This does not include porn, because people consent to watch porn, and so whether or not it hurts someone is irrelevant, as it hurts them in the same way that alcohol does: consensually. You have a right to do stupid shit to yourself.

I think you got caught up in what others have been saying about me.
As this post has you making assumptions about my position instead of asking me.

Where have I said that I want to throw in prison any person who posts some hate speech online? Where have I said that I want to throw in prison anyone who downloads a hateful video?

I offhandedly said in a different thread that hate speech aught to be outlawed...
based specifically on the harm it does to children who are consuming it online.

In this thread, I spoke in defense of texas law that requires websites that allow hate speech to do age verification of their customers.
And have proposed it can be done the same way prepaid phones are handled. a box containing a card with a code. You buy the box at the store, showing ID which is not kept. There is no way to link the buyer of the box to the ID card within.

And yes I am aware that this is not a perfect system and could be possibly circumvented. Such as adults providing such cards to children.

When I spoke the above, I was dismissed under the ad hominem of "your support of not giving minors hateful content is a ruse. you are an evil person who wants to ban all hate speech"

I absolutely do not think that drugs nor porn nor hate speech should involve any arresting of customers.
If anything you should bribe the customers to turn in their dealers and only go after dealers exclusively.

You also do not have to throw every single dealer in prison.
Simply confiscate businesses distributing hate speech would eliminate 99.99% of it.

You, making the same arguments a liberal does to shut down this website or the Blaze or Tucker or any other conservative site.

I looked a bit into when it was that porn became "speech"...

TLDR
> over the years "free speech" mutated into "free expression".
> 1966: obscenity is "hardcore porn" which is not protected expression. but this movie is not porn. I know it when I see it.
> 1973: obscenity is not protected expression. porn is obscenity. it is up to local communities to decide what is and isn't obscene pornography
> bunch of cases upholding that porn is obscene
> 1996: obscenity is not protected by 1st amendment. but only child porn, porn for children, or porn of illegal acts is obscene. regular porn for adults is not obscene.
> 1997: porn websites not verifying age is ok.

Spoiler: longer post

This is what the first amendment says


Interestingly, expression is not mentioned anywhere in it.
But at some point "freedom of speech" became "freedom of expression". It is Which is far more vague. Despite the fact that the law still says speech and not expression.
And it is maddeningly difficult to pin down exactly when this happened.

Porn has only ever been referred to as expression by courts, not as speech.
Never in the history of the USA has the supreme court argued that porn is all subject to the protection of the 1st amendment.

In 1964 it was ruled that... a movie containing a 3 minute sex scene is not porn (which is obscene and thus not subject to 1st amendment).
Under the guideline of "I know it when I see it". The judge argued that since it is not porn it is protected by 1st amendment.

In 1973 the courts created an actual definition called "the miller test" for determining what is "obscene hardcore pornography" which IS exempt from 1st amendment vs NOT obscene hardcore pornography which is protected by freedom of expression.

Spoiler: miller test

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable "national standards" when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact. ... It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City.​

(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.

souce: Prosecuting Obscenity - An Overview Of Past Pornography Rulings By The U.s. Supreme Court | American Porn | FRONTLINE |PBS
(I saw several other sites that said basically the exact same thing as this source. if you find a source that contradicts this info let me know)

This miller standard is allegedly still in use today according to any legal publication I found.

But all the millar test does is say that:
1. hardcore porn is obscene and NOT protected by 1st amendment
2. it is up to local communities to determine what is or is not obscene.

As far as I can tell, it was only starting in the late 1990s that the public got gaslighted into believing that pornography is perfectly legal and is protected speech under the 1st amendment.
Judges started ruling that "obscene" does not mean "pornography", it means "harmful to children".

1996 court ruled that cable TV had to restrict the way it distributes porn to adults such that minors cannot see it.

1997 court ruled in favor of ACLU, allowing internet porn sites to distribute freely to children.

This is literally just mirroring the story with all speech. In the 1910s, speech against the draft was likened to a fire in a movie theater. Slowly, laws have fixed shit supreme court precedent, especially with speech.

As for the Miller test, you forgot some of it. It's not just that one clause. There are 3 clauses, all of which have to be met:

Miller test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that the Miller test labeled more things as porn than the previous test.

The key clause is "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Serious, in this case, is not actually a high bar to meet (The Twilight books easily clear it, for example), but it excludes stuff like "It's a literary choice to have the pizza delivery guy make a sausage joke."

The "National community standard" is simply because in the internet age, there is no way to say, "Oh, in this one town with one user of an online service, they find X obscene, when the rest of the US disagrees." Otherwise I imagine P-Town would quickly jokingly decide some straight sex thing was obscene. (Provincetown is a famously very gay town at the end of Cape Cod).

Also, the summary of the 1996 ruling isn't correct. Basically, the CDA banned obscene or indecent content. The indecent part got tossed by the supreme court as overbroad, but the obscene part was kept, and the Miller test is still intact for what obscene content is, though now subject to a national community standard in some cases.

 

[Captain X]

Cherico, you are actually using arguments. Captain X isn't. He is literally the ONLY person on your side of the argument that has not put forth a single argument. only many many posts of name calling.

Again, I do, you just either misrepresent said arguments or just outright ignore them.

 

[King Arts]

1. That is a statue, statues are not pictures, movies, nor test.

Well I've never been to Florence so I've only ever seen David in books or online pictures. Which are pictures and you said pictures can be porn, which is not speech. Also are you saying statues would not count as porn even if it was explicit sex, even orgies?

2. I did forget to account for antiques. good catch there.

Wait are you saying antiques can be porn, or they are excluded from being porn?

3. edge cases exist for literally any law in existence.

You want those edge cases to be as few as possible to avoid bullshit games.

Alright, lets update the definition.

Hardcore Porn: Explicit depiction of sexual intercourse via pictures, movies, or text.
Softcore Porn: Explicit depiction of nudity via picture or video, except antiques or scientific/medical/educational literature.

Oh boy that left a huge fucking hole(heh) I guess now teachers can show Nina Hartley's how to guide on how to perform cunnilingus. It's teaching people how to perform a skill for their future lovers.

And they can also make other porn dealing with everything else: "How to perform anal sex safely and cleanly" "How to perform BDSM in a safe sane consensual manner" "Hey girls(and guys) this is how you suck a dick!" "How to put on a condom the right way and screw your partner the right way!"

A picture of david... is a depiction of an antique and would require a judge to intentionally be trying to misinterpret the law to count as softcore porn.

Aside from that, softcore porn is not the end of the world.
As there is no need to regulate softcore porn since it is literally just nudity. (unless it is softcore porn of children which should be banned)

Actually it would not require a judge trying to intentionally misinterpret the law. Because the example of David goes against your definition. Unless you exempt antiques, but that leads to a sort of hypocrisy and lack of artistry because you are forbidding artists from doing the same thing today that was allowed back then. So new Davids(not a pure copy because that would lack artistry. But something similar and inspired by it) would not be allowed to be made.

Also while it is admirable to protect children, I think that it should be limited to depictions aka pictures of real people. And not paintings or drawings because for real people you can say "This person is underaged." for a drawing you can't and it will lead to stupidity. Behold a child:

Also just to make it known the character is 19 and going to college at the start of this thing.

There you go, there is your "impossible to define" definition. All it took was one person, 5 minutes of effort, and a 3 people trying to poke holes in the definition so it can get refined (in the same 5 minute period)

Actual legal definitions exist btw. and they specify intentions. Using terms like "vulgar" and "intent to arouse", but honestly don't need it.
Although its fine even if you do use the legal definition too.

Umm but it took more than 5 minutes, and your definition still has holes in it.

Also again the legal definitions are trash "I'll know it when I see it." that is discretionary as hell and every person can have their own know it when they see it that is different than others.

Also again as @Abhorsen brought up the U.S. has been shit at actually upholding the principles of the constitution as they banned speaking out against world war 1. So expression should be considered under speech and the school kids in the Vietnam era should be allowed to wear shirts that say "fuck the draft" or "fuck the war" Just like you should be allowed to do the same for ukraine, or say "fuck Biden."


Honestly if you wanted to ban things instead of comparing them to oh "Oh freedom of assembly does not mean freedom to arson!" you should know we specefically prohibit arson. Instead of going full Muslim iconoclast to make sure bad things aren't there. You should take a more nuanced view.

For example don't ban "porn" or "sexually explicit material" be clear ban things that are unnatural sexual acts and then specefically define them. "It shall be against the law to depict anal sex, where a person inserts something into another person's anus." or "It shall be against the law to depict bestiality sex of a human with an animal." That would be clear and you could avoid banning historical things that were well known, like David. So sure "softcore nudity" would be allowed to be shown but other stuff wouldn't.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

What you describe is just the tip of the iceberg. And I don't want the entire rest of my life to be this. And it is just getting worse and worse every year.

I am willing to accept a few years of horror of civil war if it means ousting the blood-sucking parasites who have done this to us so we can start healing.
I am willing to accept that I might die too. But what I have right now cannot be considered living

Then go out there and be the change instead of sitting on your butt and being a professional victim dude. You are not actually doing anything to promote a revolution or change your situation, you are sitting on your rear "🎶 waiting (waiting) Waiting on the world to change🎶" spewing your bitterness and misery to everyone around you draining the lifeblood out of any and all conversation. You are acting much like a parasite yourself.

If you don't want the rest of your life to be like this, then do SOMETHING to try and change it. Get a job, get a hobby, get some friends, get your heart broken, and get back up and try again. Let me make this as clear as possible. No one and I mean NO ONE is going to save you but you. So you want the world to change? Start with your own house.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

For example don't ban "porn" or "sexually explicit material" be clear ban things that are unnatural sexual acts and then specefically define them. "It shall be against the law to depict anal sex, where a person inserts something into another person's anus." or "It shall be against the law to depict bestiality sex of a human with an animal." That would be clear and you could avoid banning historical things that were well known, like David. So sure "softcore nudity" would be allowed to be shown but other stuff wouldn't.

while I personally don't agree with banning, if you do take the stance, this would be the way to sell it. Nice job @King Arts

 

[Ixian]

While I'm 100% positive that pornography is harmful at a societal level, and can be harmful at an individual level, I'm also fully aware that banning it is outright impossible.

Plus, regardless of anything else, Cherico has a point that, historically, large numbers of single men with zero chance to find a long term romantic partner, and zero chance at having a family typically means very very big problems for the national stability of their nations.

Gross as it is, pornography is probably one of the few things keeping that shit from spiraling into hell.

 

[Abhorsen]

Gross as it is, pornography is probably one of the few things keeping that shit from spiraling into hell.

Very true. Also, history bares this out. Generally, in medieval times, whorehouses were seen as necessary evils lest a bunch of single men decide to take out their lusts on anyone, willing or otherwise. Having improved from that to porn is just one of the reasons the modern day is better than then.

For example, Aquinas' opinion on them:

"Prostitution in towns is like the sewer in a palace; take away the sewers and the palace becomes an impure and stinking place."

We've improved from prostitution to porn. That's not nothing.

 

[King Arts]

Very true. Also, history bares this out. Generally, in medieval times, whorehouses were seen as necessary evils lest a bunch of single men decide to take out their lusts on anyone, willing or otherwise. Having improved from that to porn is just one of the reasons the modern day is better than then.

For example, Aquinas' opinion on them:


We've improved from prostitution to porn. That's not nothing.

Meh I’d disagree porn ends up with people getting all sorts of depraved fetishes. While with whores at least it’s normal sex. If it wasn’t for diseases there would be no debate and prostitution would be obviously better.