# Political Compass #58: Pornography should be legal. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148 "2005-07-12T08:13:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/101 "2005-07-15T15:56:28Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sure, but none of my rationales have anything to do with the content of the information, which is where I think a reasonable dividing line may be drawn here. Of course they do. šŸ™‚ If the _content_ was created non-consensually, you think it should be illegal to posess (if Iā€™m understanding you right). Itā€™s a restraint on content, even if itā€™s a restraint on content that was created a certain way rather then on content that depicts a certain act. > [@](#): > > That is, the first exception is ceding the autonomy of parents ā€“ surely you would not be one to say, ā€œYour children MUST have access to hard-core porn ā€“ itā€™s the only way we can be FREE!ā€ would you? Of course not; I donā€™t think children should have the same rights as free adults. > [@](#): > > The others all deal with other protected class or speech that must involve a crime to be made. . People being raped or assaulted to make a video. Children (protected class again.) SM people who are too far gone into it to be sane by any reasonable definition of the word, a protected class as well. _Why_ do you think that posession of such videos should be illegal? Iā€™d guessā€“and correct me if Iā€™m wrongā€“that itā€™s because you believe that posession of such material somehow indirectly harms those victimized by its creation (i.e., by creating a demand for such videos). Ultimately, you think that the posession of those videos should be illegal because the interests of the victims of the videoā€™s production is harmed by someone posessing them, and that the harm caused by posessing them outweights the free speech rights of the person posessing them. More abstractly, you think that posessing information can cause harm, and that the harm caused can be reason to limit the liberty of the person who wishes to possess such information. **Shodan** believes in this same principle; the difference between his position and yours is that he believes that more kinds of information can cause harm by being posessed then you do. > [@](#): > > Troop locations and movements during wartime would be an exception here ā€“ would YOU violated it, my absolutist friend? Would I do what? Would I distribute information on troop movements if I had it? Of course not. Should it be legal for me to do so? Well, that depends. If Iā€™m a member of the military or a related organization and I voluntarily agreed not to distribute that kind of information (and in doing so voluntarily agreed to waive part of my free-speech rights), then it most certainly should be illegal for me to do so. I wouldnā€™t maintain that the right canā€™t be voluntarily waived. Also, Iā€™d like to once again point out that Iā€™m only talking about posession. What harm is caused by anyone _possessing_ information about troop movements, if I do nothing irresponsible with the information? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/102 "2005-07-15T15:58:52Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > As for the ā€œpossessionā€ issue, itā€™s such an obvious dodge. ā€œI, uh, I FOUND this collection of child porn in my DVD player when I bought it!ā€ Iā€™m afraid that issue doesnā€™t get much respect from me. ā€œPossessionā€ to me also includes non-commercial distribution. I agree that it doesnā€™t make any sense to have possession be legal but all forms of distribution be legal; if that were the case possession would be criminal evidence of distribution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/103 "2005-07-15T16:02:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Wow, what a completely stupid response. > > If you are going to ask a question like ā€œshould such-and-such a movie be banned, and if not, why not?ā€, get an answer of 'No, and hereā€™s why", and then complain that the answer is evasive, then it becomes clear that a rational debate is not going to be possible. My bad for expecting anything else. Youā€™re misrepresenting what you were asked, and you know it. _The Passion_ was an example of a kind of movie but the question was not just about that example. What about my other examples? What about just an unnamed _hypothetical_ example? Itā€™s obvious that you simply canā€™t answer the questions without either contradicting yourself or sounding ridiculous. If you want to run away, thatā€™s fine. We understand. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/104 "2005-07-15T16:18:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Wow, what an ingeniously evasive answer. Actually, I think Shodan answered the question well, and clarified for me why TPotC would not meet his criteria for censorship. > [@](#): > > Never mind _The Passion_ (and the point is that it can be perceived as _sadistic_. It seemed to me like the director was getting off on it. How on earth could you conclude that Gibson was ā€œgetting off on itā€? > [@](#): > > Whether the _victim_ enjoyed it is of no consequence at all), just answer the greater question about sympathetic portrayals of murder in general. For instance, the movie _Million Dollar Baby_ ends with a symathetic portrayal of the murder of a paraplegic woman with the full consent- indeed, in accordance with the fervent wishes- of the victim. Should that be illegal? > > How about movies like _The Godfather_ in which organized crime is portrayed sympathetically and acts of murder as well? Much better examples than TPotC. Iā€™d also like to hear Shodanā€™s response to that. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/105 "2005-07-15T16:23:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How on earth could you conclude that Gibson was ā€œgetting off on itā€? Dude, did you not see the South Park episode ā€œThe Passion of the Jewā€? :dubious: Mel Gibson is clearly a nutter who gets off on being physically abused. Q.E.D. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/106 "2005-07-15T17:12:37Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, and military secrets during wartime. But this would be limited to factual information. Opinions about military activities after the fact cannot and must not be suppressed. That ā€œaiding the enemyā€ bullshit doesnā€™t fly here. This topic would make for an interesting debate. Have you thought about starting a thread for it? I will withhold comment on it here, as to not derail the current discussion. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148/107 "2005-07-16T00:37:31Z")
[semi-threadjack] > [@SentientMeat](#): > > (I like the ā€œBlair Rape Projectā€ title, **JRD** - perhaps it could be set in the House of heh Commons?) Ooooh, kiinkeeeā€¦ ā€¦wait a minute, who would be raping whom? 'cause Iā€™ve seen the broadcasts from the Commons and there ainā€™t nobody there I wanna see tied up and given the treatment, yā€™know? BTW for those who are unaware of the origin of the reference, it relates to _The Blair Witch Project_, an indie horror film from back in the late 90s, that was pitched before release under the guise of being a posthumous documentary by some amateur filmmakers, using the footage they had shot while being stalked by their killer; of course it was obvious soon enough it was all an act. As in the case of _The Blair Rape Project_, as soon as the faux-reality veneer is shown to our satisfaction to be just that, then it moves into the legal-but-tasteless zone. [/semi-threadjack] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-58-pornography-should-be-legal/312148.md?page=5)