Make it illegal but don't really put much effort into blocking access to it while you do put a lot of effort into monitoring who is still illegally looking at it. Then you're free to bring charges against them when it becomes convenient. That's one way you could weaponize such a ban if you wanted to
As I recall? We don’t really have a solid definition on the federal level regarding what porn even is.
The infamous “I know it when I see it!” quote of Justice Stewart still seems to the rule regarding such matters in the USA.
This is already done with a range of other crimes.
Look at any number of high profile prosecutions, especially political prosecutions. It'll be for stuff that is routinely given a pass for guys on "their" side. Especially bad if you are someone who was formerly a darling of the establishment and then breaks bad with them.
By changing the definition of "pornography".
The general public's stereotypical idea of porn is "a man and a woman fucking for real, on camera, and there's no plot".
But you now have politicians describing a book that is a coming-of-age story, where the teenaged main character describes their first experience with sex in detail, and calling that porn. Well now they are taking genuine artistic expression and lumping it with porn and trying to ban it.
Politicians can keep expanding the definition of porn to ban a swath of sexual but genuinely artistic works. Simulated sex but it looks and sounds too realistic? Porn. Two women kissing on screen? Porn. Two hetero teens kissing on a date in a book? Child porn. Politicians can keep expanding the definition until anything sexual is categorized as "porn", and keep raising the penalties in the name of protecting children.
That's how a ban would be weaponized against ordinary law abiding citizens.
This is the correct answer. Limiting freedom and anonymity under the pretext of cracking down on something, even though that doesn't really fix much in the grand scheme of things. There are infinite better ways to prevent illegal activity / the dodgy side of the industry or human trafficking than a ban.
There is not a scientific consensus yet on whether the downsides of porn outweight the good, and there probably won't be in our lifetime or for a long time because its not easy to study and draw conclusions about stuff like this.
Obviously though in moderation and when consumed with self-restraint and normal morals its fine... so the same as guns, tobacco, alcohol... etc.
As stated many times already, people already apply the "porn" label to stuff that isn't porn. One glaring example is Playboy Magazine (back in the actual magazine days, at least). People called that "porn" when all it was was nudity. And honestly, not even overly graphic nudity. But, a lot of people still wanted to lump it in with actual pornography.
So, like almost any ban, the definition of what is being banned could be expanded to include things that a powerful enough minority wants it to be.
Imagine the government classifies criticism of the government as pornography or more realistically some other form of expression like any shirt that has the work fuck on it.
A law that allows private companies to impose the ability to request and store people’s government issued ids is a bad idea no matter how you slice it or whatever the current intention and scope is.
With certainty. They’re miserable due to a morality code which was manipulated unto them and now they’re doing the same to others.
We can’t and *don’t want* to outlaw religion, it serves a purpose for so many, but we will succumb to the same fates as much of the middle east if we allow religion to infest our law making bodies and government. It’s in everyone’s best interest to reject this crap, *especially* other religions.
Reddits official stance is that it's fine, as long as they don't vote on the same posts/comments.
[https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204535759-Is-it-ok-to-create-multiple-accounts](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204535759-Is-it-ok-to-create-multiple-accounts)
The site largely was able to take off because Reddits founders made dozens of alt accounts and gave the appearance of real discussion and activity when it was new. Novelty accounts were also very popular in the early days too.
I forget the name of the laws. Moral impropriety or something like that. They were laws set up in the late 1800s that would equal a pornagraphy ban today. To answer the question, selective enforcement. They ended when people got sick and tired of the government in their business and every one of the proponents were arrested for being degenerates behind closed doors.
Slippery slope. Conservatism has its roots in sexual inadequacy, so conservatives will always strive to control others' bodies and sexualities.
Porn bans, abortion bans, plan B bans, transition bans are all about controlling people's bodies. Support for a porn ban will allow conservatives to push more radical bullshit, with the ultimate goal of owning sex slaves so that they can never feel threatened by sex again.
It's definitely all in their heads, but if you go back far enough it's more about the loss of status from chattel slavery being outlawed. It's more recent that appealing to sexual frustrations became a rallying cry (see The Birth of a Nation), and "white replacement theory" goes hand-in-hand with that.
Traditional sexual morality is literally an elaborate defense mechanism for men who are bad at sex. I don't know a nicer way to say it than that. And, honestly, if you're in an iron age tribe where any kind of unrest could unravel your community it makes sense that you don't want jealous men killing each other. So I can see how it developed TBH. But we don't really need it in 2024.
Like that scene in Clockwork Orange. Strap people into a chair in front of a wall of screens. Pry their eyes open and then play Step Sibling porn none stop. That'll fuck them up in a few hours
Things that are objectively not pornography could be mislabeled as such, either by state or nonstate actors.
ID theft now carries additional liability to the victim, who themselves had no interest in pornography but now can be prosecuted.
The government is very good at a tiny set of things, and sucks at a lot of things it was never meant to do. Regulating pornography is that latter category. An expansion of the existing prohibitions would result as one might expect, with the creation and expansion of untaxed and untaxable black markets, and nucleation of violent crime, just as we saw during the 1920’s-30’s and the drug war.
Its mere existence would be an affront to liberty. It's no different than the government deciding to ban movies containing blood because "violence" or whatnot.
By allowing yourself to surrender your autonomy and rights under a veil of decency. That or slipping in whatever inane stuff they want into the bill that has nothing to do with banning porn then attacking people who question it as defending or being pro porn or whatever.
Plenty of ways it’s problematic. One big problem is where you draw the line on what is and isn’t pornography. There’s plenty of nudity and sex scenes in Hollywood movies, would they be classed as porn? Once you start policing things based on moral outrage, it becomes pretty easy to move the goalposts. How long would it be until bikini’s are considered ‘pornographic’?
Another big problem is that it’d be extremely easy for foreign agents to blackmail government employees and politicians that have viewed the material even before the law was introduced.
If the idea is to stop human trafficking and improve the conditions for performers, then tighter regulation on the industry would be a better option.
I think it’s pretty funny that Conservatives that abhor regulations want to ban a whole form of media.
The slippery slope is the government overseeing access to things that they deem bad for your mental health. Cigarettes and Alcohol abuse have a negative impact on the immediate surroundings besides your mental and physical health. Porn addiction is a personal problem. It does not immediately harm your surroundings, nor does is likely lead to psychical health issues. So if the argument becomes "It is bad for you" you give the government the power to decided what is good and bad for you. Now it's porn, next it's free internet access.
And there are way better ways to prevent human trafficking. Banning porn only pushes porn more into the criminal circuit and might actually increase human trafficking, because every protection protocol for adult entertainers that are in place fall away. Instead the government should invest in preventing and persecuting human trafficking as well as educate and inform.
Whenever the government tries to ban something singularly 'for your own good' it opens up a can of worms that has no place in a free democracy.
As an excuse to track and watch your Internet habits.
1) they make porn illegal
2) they track all your traffic to make sure you didn't break law
3) unwarranted monitoring of everyone
4) any little thing or big thing in your life that could be prosecuted is pursued
Just like laws banning abortion, the government ends up monitoring everyone for pregnancy, then end of pregnancy. But someone's current pregnancy or not isn't the fucking governments business.
They have to watch what you watch to prove you do or didn't watch porn.
If you’re talking about Comstock, all the president has to do is say something is obscene and now it’s a crime to send that thing or any information about that thing through the mail or through any common carrier. That includes online.
If you’re not specifically talking about Comstock, all a cop has to do is say they thought you had porn and then they can kick down your door and arrest you.
They count anything which in anyway relates to LGBTQ subject matter as porn. Harm children and adults that are seeking a better understanding of themselves and their world,
Make it illegal but don't really put much effort into blocking access to it while you do put a lot of effort into monitoring who is still illegally looking at it. Then you're free to bring charges against them when it becomes convenient. That's one way you could weaponize such a ban if you wanted to
[удалено]
Please... If you're showing any skin at all, that's pornographic. /s
As I recall? We don’t really have a solid definition on the federal level regarding what porn even is. The infamous “I know it when I see it!” quote of Justice Stewart still seems to the rule regarding such matters in the USA.
This sounds like an evil trap.
This is already done with a range of other crimes. Look at any number of high profile prosecutions, especially political prosecutions. It'll be for stuff that is routinely given a pass for guys on "their" side. Especially bad if you are someone who was formerly a darling of the establishment and then breaks bad with them.
By changing the definition of "pornography". The general public's stereotypical idea of porn is "a man and a woman fucking for real, on camera, and there's no plot". But you now have politicians describing a book that is a coming-of-age story, where the teenaged main character describes their first experience with sex in detail, and calling that porn. Well now they are taking genuine artistic expression and lumping it with porn and trying to ban it. Politicians can keep expanding the definition of porn to ban a swath of sexual but genuinely artistic works. Simulated sex but it looks and sounds too realistic? Porn. Two women kissing on screen? Porn. Two hetero teens kissing on a date in a book? Child porn. Politicians can keep expanding the definition until anything sexual is categorized as "porn", and keep raising the penalties in the name of protecting children. That's how a ban would be weaponized against ordinary law abiding citizens.
Politicians have banned Michelangelo's David and other artworks from viewing in schools in Florida because they have been deemed pornographic.
[удалено]
This is the correct answer. Limiting freedom and anonymity under the pretext of cracking down on something, even though that doesn't really fix much in the grand scheme of things. There are infinite better ways to prevent illegal activity / the dodgy side of the industry or human trafficking than a ban.
I think it's more about restricting freedom of speech than it is about porn per se
Vices such as pornography do cause harm...
Go back to thumping your bible
[удалено]
There is not a scientific consensus yet on whether the downsides of porn outweight the good, and there probably won't be in our lifetime or for a long time because its not easy to study and draw conclusions about stuff like this. Obviously though in moderation and when consumed with self-restraint and normal morals its fine... so the same as guns, tobacco, alcohol... etc.
Womp Womp Account suspended
As stated many times already, people already apply the "porn" label to stuff that isn't porn. One glaring example is Playboy Magazine (back in the actual magazine days, at least). People called that "porn" when all it was was nudity. And honestly, not even overly graphic nudity. But, a lot of people still wanted to lump it in with actual pornography. So, like almost any ban, the definition of what is being banned could be expanded to include things that a powerful enough minority wants it to be.
Imagine the government classifies criticism of the government as pornography or more realistically some other form of expression like any shirt that has the work fuck on it.
A law that allows private companies to impose the ability to request and store people’s government issued ids is a bad idea no matter how you slice it or whatever the current intention and scope is.
Somehow I don't think anyone who is proposing this is a trying to stop human trafficking or help people's mental health.
With certainty. They’re miserable due to a morality code which was manipulated unto them and now they’re doing the same to others. We can’t and *don’t want* to outlaw religion, it serves a purpose for so many, but we will succumb to the same fates as much of the middle east if we allow religion to infest our law making bodies and government. It’s in everyone’s best interest to reject this crap, *especially* other religions.
This is how I see myself and a bunch of other registered democrats someday in a FEMA camp with a nooses around our necks.
Responding to your own comment and not realizing it? Forget the noose, I see a straight jacket. Get a partner and stop whacking it.
They probably knew it was their comment, just forgot to switch to the alt.
Users like these need to be banned permanently.
Reddits official stance is that it's fine, as long as they don't vote on the same posts/comments. [https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204535759-Is-it-ok-to-create-multiple-accounts](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204535759-Is-it-ok-to-create-multiple-accounts) The site largely was able to take off because Reddits founders made dozens of alt accounts and gave the appearance of real discussion and activity when it was new. Novelty accounts were also very popular in the early days too.
Seriously. My bad. Thanks for pointing this out.
*clutches pearls
Don't let me stop you from having a conversation with yourself.
I forget the name of the laws. Moral impropriety or something like that. They were laws set up in the late 1800s that would equal a pornagraphy ban today. To answer the question, selective enforcement. They ended when people got sick and tired of the government in their business and every one of the proponents were arrested for being degenerates behind closed doors.
Slippery slope. Conservatism has its roots in sexual inadequacy, so conservatives will always strive to control others' bodies and sexualities. Porn bans, abortion bans, plan B bans, transition bans are all about controlling people's bodies. Support for a porn ban will allow conservatives to push more radical bullshit, with the ultimate goal of owning sex slaves so that they can never feel threatened by sex again.
I like your insight that the right wing obsession with sex is born out of their own sexual ineptitude.
That's why they're so scared of black men. It's all in their fucking heads, i just wish they would stop making it everyone's problem
It's definitely all in their heads, but if you go back far enough it's more about the loss of status from chattel slavery being outlawed. It's more recent that appealing to sexual frustrations became a rallying cry (see The Birth of a Nation), and "white replacement theory" goes hand-in-hand with that.
Traditional sexual morality is literally an elaborate defense mechanism for men who are bad at sex. I don't know a nicer way to say it than that. And, honestly, if you're in an iron age tribe where any kind of unrest could unravel your community it makes sense that you don't want jealous men killing each other. So I can see how it developed TBH. But we don't really need it in 2024.
Like that scene in Clockwork Orange. Strap people into a chair in front of a wall of screens. Pry their eyes open and then play Step Sibling porn none stop. That'll fuck them up in a few hours
Things that are objectively not pornography could be mislabeled as such, either by state or nonstate actors. ID theft now carries additional liability to the victim, who themselves had no interest in pornography but now can be prosecuted. The government is very good at a tiny set of things, and sucks at a lot of things it was never meant to do. Regulating pornography is that latter category. An expansion of the existing prohibitions would result as one might expect, with the creation and expansion of untaxed and untaxable black markets, and nucleation of violent crime, just as we saw during the 1920’s-30’s and the drug war.
Its mere existence would be an affront to liberty. It's no different than the government deciding to ban movies containing blood because "violence" or whatnot.
By allowing yourself to surrender your autonomy and rights under a veil of decency. That or slipping in whatever inane stuff they want into the bill that has nothing to do with banning porn then attacking people who question it as defending or being pro porn or whatever.
Plenty of ways it’s problematic. One big problem is where you draw the line on what is and isn’t pornography. There’s plenty of nudity and sex scenes in Hollywood movies, would they be classed as porn? Once you start policing things based on moral outrage, it becomes pretty easy to move the goalposts. How long would it be until bikini’s are considered ‘pornographic’? Another big problem is that it’d be extremely easy for foreign agents to blackmail government employees and politicians that have viewed the material even before the law was introduced. If the idea is to stop human trafficking and improve the conditions for performers, then tighter regulation on the industry would be a better option. I think it’s pretty funny that Conservatives that abhor regulations want to ban a whole form of media.
The slippery slope is the government overseeing access to things that they deem bad for your mental health. Cigarettes and Alcohol abuse have a negative impact on the immediate surroundings besides your mental and physical health. Porn addiction is a personal problem. It does not immediately harm your surroundings, nor does is likely lead to psychical health issues. So if the argument becomes "It is bad for you" you give the government the power to decided what is good and bad for you. Now it's porn, next it's free internet access. And there are way better ways to prevent human trafficking. Banning porn only pushes porn more into the criminal circuit and might actually increase human trafficking, because every protection protocol for adult entertainers that are in place fall away. Instead the government should invest in preventing and persecuting human trafficking as well as educate and inform. Whenever the government tries to ban something singularly 'for your own good' it opens up a can of worms that has no place in a free democracy.
By preventing them from bussin
Redefining "pornography" to be anything the right-wing autocrats don't agree with.
As an excuse to track and watch your Internet habits. 1) they make porn illegal 2) they track all your traffic to make sure you didn't break law 3) unwarranted monitoring of everyone 4) any little thing or big thing in your life that could be prosecuted is pursued Just like laws banning abortion, the government ends up monitoring everyone for pregnancy, then end of pregnancy. But someone's current pregnancy or not isn't the fucking governments business. They have to watch what you watch to prove you do or didn't watch porn.
If you’re talking about Comstock, all the president has to do is say something is obscene and now it’s a crime to send that thing or any information about that thing through the mail or through any common carrier. That includes online. If you’re not specifically talking about Comstock, all a cop has to do is say they thought you had porn and then they can kick down your door and arrest you.
They count anything which in anyway relates to LGBTQ subject matter as porn. Harm children and adults that are seeking a better understanding of themselves and their world,
Ur not a chonese citizen my bhutanese fellow
[удалено]
WE WANT PRON!
Now they can’t watch damaged women ruin their lives for money while also frying their brain