Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[JohnH]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that ordinary porn (but not child porn) is free speech protected by the First Amendment. This subject has been litigated to death in this country.

The Supreme Court could claim (for example) that slaves aren't people, but that doesn't make it actually true. They could say the sky is green, but the sky will actually be blue. The Supreme Court is often wrong.

Pornography is not speech.

[Thomas_muntzer]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that ordinary porn (but not child porn) is free speech protected by the First Amendment. This subject has been litigated to death in this country.

The Supreme Court could claim (for example) that slaves aren't people, but that doesn't make it actually true. They could say the sky is green, but the sky will actually be blue. The Supreme Court is often wrong.

Pornography is not speech.

The supreme court in fact claimed slaves aren't people in Dred Scott v. Sandford and yes ethics ≠ Legal system

[Heirbyadoption]

Pornography should be illegal, with severe punishments.

John, serious questions here: could you elaborate on why you feel pornography in general should be illegal? And do you draw any line between what immoral actions should be made illegal and penalized and which ones you would be willing to allow people to have the freedom to choose or reject legal repercussions?

[ken_sylvania]

The Supreme Court said it is in Miller. V California. And in this country they have the last say, not you.

They who?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that ordinary porn (but not child porn) is free speech protected by the First Amendment. This subject has been litigated to death in this country.

OK you used the pronoun "they" which is the wrong number of pronoun for the Supreme Court, hence my question. It seems like a good thing that ordinary porn is now dead.

[JohnH]

Pornography should be illegal, with severe punishments.

John, serious questions here: could you elaborate on why you feel pornography in general should be illegal? And do you draw any line between what immoral actions should be made illegal and penalized and which ones you would be willing to allow people to have the freedom to choose or reject legal repercussions?

Generally speaking, I think that very harmful things shouldn't be legal, because part of the role of government is to "punish evildoers". Profiting from another person's misery or demise (particularly a young person or a child) is particularly immoral.

I do not draw some giant dividing line between what is "immoral" and what is "illegal". And, of course, it may not be "practical" to make a government that (for example) punishes burglary, robbery, or murder - but that doesn't mean those things should be legal.

When a government (particularly a court) declares something is legal, that is, in a manner of speaking, a society giving its assent that the thing involved is not so bad. And bad things should not have such assent. There is no sensible reason for prurient obscene materials to commercially produced and sold.

As a practical matter, when 15% of children are seeing pornography at age 10 or younger, there is a serious problem; perhaps once pornography is no longer being exposed to young children (which is indeed still illegal), I will be more willing to entertain how it is "free speech" and should be legal.

It is very similar to the games and lies that the tobacco industry played for decades. They knew cigarettes were highly addictive and designed them to be so. They lied and said they were not. They intentionally marketed them to children and youth. They lied and claimed they did no such things. Instead, they waxed poetic about "personal responsibility" and "individual choice".

[Ken]

Pornography should be illegal, with severe punishments.

John, serious questions here: could you elaborate on why you feel pornography in general should be illegal? And do you draw any line between what immoral actions should be made illegal and penalized and which ones you would be willing to allow people to have the freedom to choose or reject legal repercussions?

Generally speaking, I think that very harmful things shouldn't be legal, because part of the role of government is to "punish evildoers". Profiting from another person's misery or demise (particularly a young person or a child) is particularly immoral.

How about handguns and assault weapons? Those are extremely harmful things. Should the government ban them?

[JohnH]

How about handguns and assault weapons? Those are extremely harmful things. Should the government ban them?

I'm not sure what an "assault weapon" is, but someone claiming a handgun can't kill someone should absolutely not be allowed to sell such a thing.

They're just tools, though, and have existed for a long time. Tools are not inherently harmful. It depends upon how they are used.

Cigarettes, on the other hand, are designed to addict, and ultimately are designed to kill the consumer of them. It is unfathomable how someone could not understand the difference between cigarettes and firearms.

[Szdfan]

How about handguns and assault weapons? Those are extremely harmful things. Should the government ban them?

I'm not sure what an "assault weapon" is, but someone claiming a handgun can't kill someone should absolutely not be allowed to sell such a thing.

They're just tools, though, and have existed for a long time. Tools are not inherently harmful. It depends upon how they are used.

Cigarettes, on the other hand, are designed to addict, and ultimately are designed to kill the consumer of them. It is unfathomable how someone could not understand the difference between cigarettes and firearms.

The primary difference is that you apparently approve of the one, but not the other.

[JohnH]

The primary difference is that you apparently approve of the one, but not the other.

Firearms and cigarettes aren't the same thing at all, and no, I don't approve of people misusing firearms or shooting each other with them.

However, I do think lawful self defense is lawful, regardless of my own personal feelings on the issue. I don't see a problem with people who lawfully bear arms and don't misuse them.

Do you?

[Szdfan]

The primary difference is that you apparently approve of the one, but not the other.

Firearms and cigarettes aren't the same thing at all, and no, I don't approve of people misusing firearms or shooting each other with them.

However, I do think lawful self defense is lawful, regardless of my own personal feelings on the issue. I don't see a problem with people who lawfully bear arms and don't misuse them.

Do you?

I’m not disputing lawful self-defense. I’m pointing out that you allow nuance with firearms — distinguishing between use and misuse — but deny that same nuance with pornography.

That suggests it’s not really about harm, but about what you personally approve of. And personal approval isn’t a stable foundation for law in a free society.