3 ms·

Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. Questions like > What counts as a porn site? are really stale, and too often sophistic attempts at obfuscating wh

Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. Questions like > What counts as a porn site? are really stale, and too often sophistic attempts at obfuscating what is rather clear. If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. And it's not new. Israel effectively requires citizens to ask for permission from the state to view pornography, for example, while also using pornographic content against what it regards as its enemies (e.g., pornographic broadcasts from a captured TV station in Ramallah some time ago).

MiddleEndian 3y ago
> Porn isn't speech. Sure it is. It's just speech some people don't like. Just because some other government makes a shitty restrictive law doesn't mean the US should make shitty restrictive laws.
jcranmer 3y ago
> Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second prong under the Miller test is: > Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law There is a large amount of porn that isn't going to satisfy this prong because it's not going to be sexual conduct--fetishes like BDSM could well fail to depict any sexual conduct whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half the videos on PornHub were actually considered obscenity under the Miller test. > If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. Sorry, you don't get to curtail constitutionally-guaranteed free speech just because you don't like it, and "strangling [...] through onerous regulation" is no more viable a vehicle than an outright ban is under strict scrutiny.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  Furthermore, the third prong is: > Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Some people prefer to effectively exclude "porn" from this by definition, but I don't think that aligns with mainstream use of the term, and I also doubt that those people are using a similar standard to what would apply in a First Amendment case.

MiddleEndian 3y ago

> Porn isn't speech. Sure it is. It's just speech some people don't like. Just because some other government makes a shitty restrictive law doesn't mean the US should make shitty restrictive laws.

jcranmer 3y ago

> Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second prong under the Miller test is: > Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law There is a large amount of porn that isn't going to satisfy this prong because it's not going to be sexual conduct--fetishes like BDSM could well fail to depict any sexual conduct whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half the videos on PornHub were actually considered obscenity under the Miller test. > If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. Sorry, you don't get to curtail constitutionally-guaranteed free speech just because you don't like it, and "strangling [...] through onerous regulation" is no more viable a vehicle than an outright ban is under strict scrutiny.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Furthermore, the third prong is: > Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Some people prefer to effectively exclude "porn" from this by definition, but I don't think that aligns with mainstream use of the term, and I also doubt that those people are using a similar standard to what would apply in a First Amendment case.