4 ms·

> but watching porn is not a right if any kind That's not really true, depending on how you define "porn". There are very strong first amendment rights around

by dgacmu 3y ago

> but watching porn is not a right if any kind That's not really true, depending on how you define "porn". There are very strong first amendment rights around producing and consuming all sorts of potentially objectionable content: https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-th... Is it a "fundamental human right?" Dunno, I'm not the arbiter of that. But the US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that it is a constitutional right to be able to do so free of government interference. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have access to it - it's a free market and others 1st amendment rights allow them to choose what they provide. But the government can't stop you, and that's a right.

nashashmi 3y ago
How do you define which is what? "I know it when I see it." -- US Supreme Court
- _8j50 3y ago
  IMO: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/reasonable-person-standard/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/reasonable-person-standard...
_8j50 3y ago
If the reason is that it is objectionable you are right but if there is that it is harmful, even to adults, that is debatable and they can settle that in court. Keep in mind there is a big difference between banning porn and banning nudity, the later is a form of expression but the former is nudity used for sexual gratification. If what is restricted is the message or meaning then it is a 1st amendment violation, if the state can prove that its laws only prohibit porn that isn't part of artistic or other speech (e.g.: the sarah palin parody porn not included) I don't see how that is speech. If you follow the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person find the content to contain any message other than "here is sexual content, enjoy" then I agree that it is speech. I mean, all porn makers probably have to do is display some political message at the begining of the video anyways.
- dgacmu 3y ago
  It _has_ been settled in court. Please read the article I linked, or one of dozens of others on the subject. It's been litigated for print, for photos, for magazines, for film. The distinction that you are looking for is between material that is pornographic, and material that is "obscene". The First amendment does indeed protect the expression "here is sexual content, enjoy!". https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-... "Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For adults at least, most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers — receives constitutional protection." Speech does not have to be political to be protected. There are almost certainly films on pornhub that some communities might find obscene and others that they would not. But your understanding of the test is wrong. There's a lot - a lot - of information about the standards for obscenity out there and what a trash fire it is to try to have a consistent and legible definition. But it's not about whether someone finds it "sexually gratifying", and porn on its own is not unprotected. Only obscenity escapes first amendment protection. (And child porn but presumably that goes without saying and isn't the topic under discussion)
  - _8j50 3y ago
    I am aware of oscenity laws and tests but the question is if Utah was outright violating the constitution or not, to the point the person I replied to claimed they were being authoritarian. Now, they can fight with DoJ or ACLU in court and resolve the legality of it, but similar restrictions are not unusual.

by dgacmu 3y ago

nashashmi 3y ago

How do you define which is what? "I know it when I see it." -- US Supreme Court

_8j50 3y ago
IMO: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/reasonable-person-standard/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/reasonable-person-standard...

_8j50 3y ago

If the reason is that it is objectionable you are right but if there is that it is harmful, even to adults, that is debatable and they can settle that in court. Keep in mind there is a big difference between banning porn and banning nudity, the later is a form of expression but the former is nudity used for sexual gratification. If what is restricted is the message or meaning then it is a 1st amendment violation, if the state can prove that its laws only prohibit porn that isn't part of artistic or other speech (e.g.: the sarah palin parody porn not included) I don't see how that is speech. If you follow the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person find the content to contain any message other than "here is sexual content, enjoy" then I agree that it is speech. I mean, all porn makers probably have to do is display some political message at the begining of the video anyways.

dgacmu 3y ago
It _has_ been settled in court. Please read the article I linked, or one of dozens of others on the subject. It's been litigated for print, for photos, for magazines, for film. The distinction that you are looking for is between material that is pornographic, and material that is "obscene". The First amendment does indeed protect the expression "here is sexual content, enjoy!". https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-... "Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For adults at least, most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers — receives constitutional protection." Speech does not have to be political to be protected. There are almost certainly films on pornhub that some communities might find obscene and others that they would not. But your understanding of the test is wrong. There's a lot - a lot - of information about the standards for obscenity out there and what a trash fire it is to try to have a consistent and legible definition. But it's not about whether someone finds it "sexually gratifying", and porn on its own is not unprotected. Only obscenity escapes first amendment protection. (And child porn but presumably that goes without saying and isn't the topic under discussion)
- _8j50 3y ago
  I am aware of oscenity laws and tests but the question is if Utah was outright violating the constitution or not, to the point the person I replied to claimed they were being authoritarian. Now, they can fight with DoJ or ACLU in court and resolve the legality of it, but similar restrictions are not unusual.