JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:23 am
Yes, and the tobacco industry argued for a long time that people had an “individual right” to choose to smoke (and become addicted to cigarettes).
The government didn't criminalize tobacco use. It educated, regulated, and placed restrictions on marketing, especially toward minors.
There’s a big difference between public health regulation and criminalization.
Adults can still choose to smoke, drink, gamble, and yes, watch or participate in pornography — not because those things are moral or risk-free, but because consent and personal autonomy matter, even when we’re talking about behavior others may find harmful or wrong.
0 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:23 am
Yes, and the tobacco industry argued for a long time that people had an “individual right” to choose to smoke (and become addicted to cigarettes).
But it isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Any more than there is a Constitutionally protected right to sell raw unpasteurized milk or build an apartment building on a lot zoned for single family homes.
States can and do regulate all manner of commerce and activity for all manner of reasons subject to the limits of the Constitution. But unless you want to repeal the First Amendment, the production and distribution of ordinary sexually explicit material to adults is going to remain legal and common. And that is actually how the American public wants it.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:23 am
Yes, and the tobacco industry argued for a long time that people had an “individual right” to choose to smoke (and become addicted to cigarettes).
The government didn't criminalize tobacco use. It educated, regulated, and placed restrictions on marketing, especially toward minors.
There’s a big difference between public health regulation and criminalization.
Adults can still choose to smoke, drink, gamble, and yes, watch or participate in pornography — not because those things are moral or risk-free, but because consent and personal autonomy matter, even when we’re talking about behavior others may find harmful or wrong.
The government criminalized selling cigarettes to adults. It’s illegal to sell or give them to someone 18-20.
So no, adults can’t choose to smoke or drink until they’re 21, and it’s entirely illegal to sell or give tobacco or alcohol to someone under 21 (in most states).
Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:05 am
That’s the difference, John. Murder is illegal not just because it’s immoral, but because it violates the most basic legal and human right -- the right to life. It’s a crime of direct harm against another person.
Watching or producing pornography — however morally objectionable you may find it — doesn’t automatically violate another person’s rights. That’s why it falls into a different category: private, consensual behavior.
Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. That’s not moral relativism — it’s the foundation of any pluralistic legal system.
Why do you oppose criminalizing pornography, but support criminalizing child pornography? This seems a clear cut case of allowing society to shape your morals.
Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.
You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.
R7ehr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:13 am
Why do you oppose criminalizing pornography, but support criminalizing child pornography? This seems a clear cut case of allowing society to shape your morals.
Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.
You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.
Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?
Last edited by Ken on Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:21 am
Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.
You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.
Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?
The question at hand is “freedom of speech”, not any of those things.
R7ehr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:48 am
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.
Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?
The question at hand is “freedom of speech”, not any of those things.
Children also have less freedom of speech than adults. For example, teens can and do get arrested for "sexting" when adults do not.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:21 am
Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.
You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.
Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?
Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.
Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?
The question at hand is “freedom of speech”, not any of those things.
Children also have less freedom of speech than adults. For example, teens can and do get arrested for "sexting" when adults do not.
