Oxford Union Porn Debate

[Chuck]

Did I also mention that a society has a right to make moral judgements as well as legal ones. In short this will not be tolerated by civilized people as a message can be sent no matter how legal.

It's just the same old silly 'logic' that says the majority have no rights while the most demented and outlying ravings and needs of lunatics and degenerates have unlimited rights.

[DGUtley]

Wasn't pornography banned as late as 1960s? Are we better off now?

I don't know that it was. Who gets to define pornography? Who gets to define what is or isn't acceptable? You? Me? Them?

[DGUtley]

It's just the same old silly 'logic' that says the majority have no rights while the most demented and outlying ravings and needs of lunatics and degenerates have unlimited rights.

I already explained, those first amendment rights aren't unlimited.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Humans have been making "porn" for thousands of years. It's nothing new.

Humans have been murdering each other for thousands of years too, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. And there is overlap, incidentally.

A few people have made porn for thousands of years, but the mass consumption of it by the majority of men and a substantial minority of women is new. That is a phenomenon of the last 15 years, not of the last 15,000. For nearly all of human history, the average person instead primarily used something called their imaginations. It should, consequently, be entirely possible for you to imagine a different world because the world has almost always been different than this.

[Chuck]

I already explained, those first amendment rights aren't unlimited.

I know, I'm just making another observation. F.A. Hayek is a libertarian of the Austrian School whose The Fatal Conceit has highly instructive arguments on why Christian traditions and morality shouldn't be so lightly replaced by the 'rational constructivism' fad favored by modern 'atheism' and pseudo-science. Hayek is an atheist himself, so he can't be accused of being a biased apologist. He points out those values are based on solid experience and wisdom re human nature.

[carolina73]

It's just the same old silly 'logic' that says the majority have no rights while the most demented and outlying ravings and needs of lunatics and degenerates have unlimited rights.

You have no right to control the morality of others and what they do in private. A snuff film obviously is involuntary for one at least one party.

The only argument is how you get exposed to it. So you should not have to see objectionable materials to society unless you go looking for it. That is the libertarian in me, not me as a person or father. I also believe that the war on drugs and going after the user is ridiculous. The allure is the taboo. 6th grade they handed us the pamphlet of drugs and told us the older kids in Jr. High will be doing this but you shouldn't. Really? The older kids are doing it, was all we heard. We were getting high that summer. Prohibition always fails. That is proven.

[Ethereal]

It's just ridiculous to keep claiming that degeneracy is 'Art'.

So when will the arguments start that 'snuff films are artistic creations, cuz the Romans started murdering slaves on theater stages' when their 'culture' and become jaded and degraded to that point?

Snuff films... you mean like people being murdered? Are you seriously trying to compare that to adults having sex for money?

[Ethereal]

Humans have been murdering each other for thousands of years too, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. And there is overlap, incidentally.

Murder involves the violation of a person's right to life. Porn doesn't.

A few people have made porn for thousands of years, but the mass consumption of it by the majority of men and a substantial minority of women is new. That is a phenomenon of the last 15 years, not of the last 15,000. For nearly all of human history, the average person instead primarily used something called their imaginations. It should, consequently, be entirely possible for you to imagine a different world because the world has almost always been different than this.

Humans didn't need porn because prostitution was widely available throughout most of human history.

[Ethereal]

Under the constitution, States and localities are free to regulate or even ban porn. I support federalism.

That said, it's a totally pointless exercise that will accomplish nothing. Circumventing a ban on porn would be trivial.

[DGUtley]

Under the constitution, States and localities are free to regulate or even ban porn. I support federalism. That said, it's a totally pointless exercise that will accomplish nothing. Circumventing a ban on porn would be trivial.

I'm not sure that they are. I think the First Amendment as applied to the States through the 14th restricts or bars their ability to do so. It's been almost 40 years since I studied it (and the law may have evolved since) but that's my recollection. Obscenity is a different issue but because censorship laws enacted to combat obscenity restrict the freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a First Amendment issue.

It is a very interesting legal issue.