3 ms·

And prostitution, unless of course you film it.

by 3131s 10y ago

eru 10y ago
That always struct me as weird. I wonder if anyone has even tried that trick in practice? (Ie when the intention is not to produce profitable pornography, but just to make 'normal' prostitution legal.)
- tomjen3 9y ago
  You are entirely correct that the practice is weird, but the weird part is banning prostitution. After all as the late and great George Carlin pointed out: "fucking is legal, selling is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal???" The reason pornography is legal in the US, is the First Amendment, because the US Supreme Court has always and probably always will be very lax with the requirements for the "speech" part of "free speech" and very strict in imposing the "free" part of the bargain on the government. As such pornography is legal because it is an expression, and it is almost impossible for the government to ban these. Had the founders of the US, when they wrote the Constitution, included the right to free trade I am sure prostitution, and many other things among it, would have enjoyed similar protection. As things stand, they didn't, and they don't.
  - eru 9y ago
    Oh, I wasn't aware we were talking about the US only. They legalized prostitution a while ago in Germany (where I originally come from). There were some---probably predictable---consequences and I can see why a democracy might not want to do that. I might disagree with that perhaps pragmatic stance of the voters in most countries, but I wouldn't call them weird for it. Laws don't always have to be ideologically pure. About the US constitution: it doesn't care about free trade, just the opposite. Wasn't the federal government mostly financed by obstructions to free trade like tariffs in the beginning? In any case, the whole country is founded on a disregard for lawful government and an insurrection against it anyway.

3 ms·

And prostitution, unless of course you film it.

by 3131s 10y ago

And prostitution, unless of course you film it.

eru 10y ago
That always struct me as weird. I wonder if anyone has even tried that trick in practice? (Ie when the intention is not to produce profitable pornography, but just to make 'normal' prostitution legal.)
- tomjen3 9y ago
  You are entirely correct that the practice is weird, but the weird part is banning prostitution. After all as the late and great George Carlin pointed out: "fucking is legal, selling is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal???" The reason pornography is legal in the US, is the First Amendment, because the US Supreme Court has always and probably always will be very lax with the requirements for the "speech" part of "free speech" and very strict in imposing the "free" part of the bargain on the government. As such pornography is legal because it is an expression, and it is almost impossible for the government to ban these. Had the founders of the US, when they wrote the Constitution, included the right to free trade I am sure prostitution, and many other things among it, would have enjoyed similar protection. As things stand, they didn't, and they don't.
  - eru 9y ago
    Oh, I wasn't aware we were talking about the US only. They legalized prostitution a while ago in Germany (where I originally come from). There were some---probably predictable---consequences and I can see why a democracy might not want to do that. I might disagree with that perhaps pragmatic stance of the voters in most countries, but I wouldn't call them weird for it. Laws don't always have to be ideologically pure. About the US constitution: it doesn't care about free trade, just the opposite. Wasn't the federal government mostly financed by obstructions to free trade like tariffs in the beginning? In any case, the whole country is founded on a disregard for lawful government and an insurrection against it anyway.