4 ms·

The judge in this case was appointed by a Republican president. Republicans have recently started to come out against porn [0]. Legislating porn away would be d

by dfxm12 4y ago

The judge in this case was appointed by a Republican president. Republicans have recently started to come out against porn [0]. Legislating porn away would be drastically unpopular (and ostensibly unconstitutional), but of course, judges are appointed undemocratically and thus are above having to answer to voters, so using judges to attack big porn sites' income seems like the strategy they're going with. 0 - https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/culture-war-throwback-republicans-eye-porn-restrictions-rcna31640 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/culture-...

istinetz 4y ago
Why would it be unconstitutional? Is there any mention of porn in the US constitution at all?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  Motion pictures aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but most would consider censoring movies to be a violation of free speech. Do you think because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention motion pictures, government should be able to directly or indirectly control what you watch?
- CGamesPlay 4y ago
  Porn is a form of speech, and speech is protected by the constitution.
  - shp0ngle 4y ago
    There are existing obscenity laws that are constitutional. Not all speech is allowed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test From that wikipedia page: —- The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[3] It has three parts: Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law, Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. (this sentence has “citation needed” though) —- I don’t think regular porn fits there, but yeah I am not a lawyer edit: reading more about that case, it was actually directly about porn, and the decision was directly used against porn producers.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    Construing recorded copulation as "speech" was always a reach. That interpretation remains only a case or two away from being discarded. Until the money runs out, I don't think it will be though.
  - maxlybbert 4y ago
    But courts have repeatedly held that child porn is outside the protection of free speech, along with fraud, false advertising, threats, defamation, and some other kinds of speech.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Free speech. There should be no problem as long as no one is harmed in its production. That it offends some people's sensibilities is ultimately irrelevant.
  - 5newyork 4y ago
  - claudiawerner 4y ago
    I have no particular horse in this race, but it's worth noting that quite a few legal scholars have designed proposals or at least theorized under what conditions pornography could be illegalized with a First Amendment friendly law[0]. I don't know how successful their proposals are from my POV as a layperson. Some philosophers have also suggested that even if there are good reasons for protecting the availability of porn, it may not count as speech from the POV of the philosophy of rights - it is simply too unlike other forms of speech to count. I think their arguments are at least worth considering. [0] https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume20/summer2011/2.Dixon.pdf https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/d...
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      I could barely make it past the title without objecting on principle. There's a quote below the title: > If true equality between male and female persons is to be achieved, we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting from exposure to materials portraying women as objects for sexual exploitation and abuse. So exposure to this stuff is a "threat" which I presume they intend to combat. The implication being what people are allowed to expose themselves to is supposed to be regulated. This is advocating for censorship and I will never agree with that on principle. I kept reading that document and saw several insinuations that pornography causes a lot of things, including rape and violence against women. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Sounds a lot like so many similar claims like video games cause violence and school shootings or rap music causes violence.
      - 4y ago
bediger4000 4y ago
This strategy worked for abortion. Republicans will keep using it, because, as you note, their policy agenda is toxic, and if legislatively enacted, would cist them control.
ATsch 4y ago
This is the same strategy as used by vague supposed "anti traficking" laws and such. These do absolutely nothing against actual trafficking of course, but they create lots of fear and doubt around having any business relationship with someone who might be a sex worker. This leads to regular occurrences of things like people who are e.g. just running an onlyfans account on the side getting cut off from companies or evicted by their landlord. Because sex work might be "trafficking" and if it's trafficking, you might be held responsible for renting to them or providing them services, so it's safer to just blanket cut them off. Which is, of course, the goal.
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
Recently? Social conservativism has always been anti-porn, and social conservativism has been gravitating towards Republicans since Roe v Wade. It's pretty evident there are no social conservatives left in the Democrat party anymore, and 2 decades ago it was still large enough that Obama came out against gay marriage while campaigning.

by dfxm12 4y ago

istinetz 4y ago

Why would it be unconstitutional? Is there any mention of porn in the US constitution at all?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Motion pictures aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but most would consider censoring movies to be a violation of free speech. Do you think because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention motion pictures, government should be able to directly or indirectly control what you watch?
CGamesPlay 4y ago
Porn is a form of speech, and speech is protected by the constitution.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  There are existing obscenity laws that are constitutional. Not all speech is allowed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test From that wikipedia page: —- The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[3] It has three parts: Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law, Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. (this sentence has “citation needed” though) —- I don’t think regular porn fits there, but yeah I am not a lawyer edit: reading more about that case, it was actually directly about porn, and the decision was directly used against porn producers.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  Construing recorded copulation as "speech" was always a reach. That interpretation remains only a case or two away from being discarded. Until the money runs out, I don't think it will be though.
- maxlybbert 4y ago
  But courts have repeatedly held that child porn is outside the protection of free speech, along with fraud, false advertising, threats, defamation, and some other kinds of speech.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Free speech. There should be no problem as long as no one is harmed in its production. That it offends some people's sensibilities is ultimately irrelevant.
- 5newyork 4y ago
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  I have no particular horse in this race, but it's worth noting that quite a few legal scholars have designed proposals or at least theorized under what conditions pornography could be illegalized with a First Amendment friendly law[0]. I don't know how successful their proposals are from my POV as a layperson. Some philosophers have also suggested that even if there are good reasons for protecting the availability of porn, it may not count as speech from the POV of the philosophy of rights - it is simply too unlike other forms of speech to count. I think their arguments are at least worth considering. [0] https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume20/summer2011/2.Dixon.pdf https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/d...
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    I could barely make it past the title without objecting on principle. There's a quote below the title: > If true equality between male and female persons is to be achieved, we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting from exposure to materials portraying women as objects for sexual exploitation and abuse. So exposure to this stuff is a "threat" which I presume they intend to combat. The implication being what people are allowed to expose themselves to is supposed to be regulated. This is advocating for censorship and I will never agree with that on principle. I kept reading that document and saw several insinuations that pornography causes a lot of things, including rape and violence against women. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Sounds a lot like so many similar claims like video games cause violence and school shootings or rap music causes violence.
    - 4y ago

bediger4000 4y ago

This strategy worked for abortion. Republicans will keep using it, because, as you note, their policy agenda is toxic, and if legislatively enacted, would cist them control.

ATsch 4y ago

This is the same strategy as used by vague supposed "anti traficking" laws and such. These do absolutely nothing against actual trafficking of course, but they create lots of fear and doubt around having any business relationship with someone who might be a sex worker. This leads to regular occurrences of things like people who are e.g. just running an onlyfans account on the side getting cut off from companies or evicted by their landlord. Because sex work might be "trafficking" and if it's trafficking, you might be held responsible for renting to them or providing them services, so it's safer to just blanket cut them off. Which is, of course, the goal.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

Recently? Social conservativism has always been anti-porn, and social conservativism has been gravitating towards Republicans since Roe v Wade. It's pretty evident there are no social conservatives left in the Democrat party anymore, and 2 decades ago it was still large enough that Obama came out against gay marriage while campaigning.