> The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.

> The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. There are two parts here. First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence. Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer: > and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes. Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal. I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later. Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.