What would be the negative effects of banning pornography?

It is my opinion that pornography in all its forms should be made illegal. It’s simply unnatural, and it’s not good for our culture and a healthy mind. I love freedom of speech and expression, but the first amendment isn’t a license for anything goes.

I always remember a quote that says technology isn’t a good or an evil in itself, but it is the ways in which we use it that determine whether it is used for a good or an evil. The motion picture camera and Internet are powerful technologies that allow us to do many good things. But it turns out that it also allows us to watch other people have sex, which is something that if we were to do without these technologies, we would rightly be considered a sex offender or as grossly violating another person’s privacy. Simply put, before the advent of these technologies, it wasn’t possible to watch other people have sex without us spying on people and doing things that would be condemned by our community.

I guess I believe that when technology enables people to engage in activities that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to, and enable them to do it shamelessly and as if it is “normal,” then the government needs to step and yes, censor these obscenities. And I believe that a government that doesn’t do this is either implicitly or purposefully encouraging license and a culture of “anything goes.”

Is there any argument that can be reasonably made that banning pornography from the Internet would have negative effects? (I can’t get off anymore on my computer doesn’t count…)

Not even commenting on constitutional issues - the Internet is not a US-only network. It’s, to coin a phrase, “world-wide”. So - how do you propose US government should prevent its citizens from watching porn from foreign sites?

Well, isn’t that a compelling argument indeed.

You mean, you love certain types of freedom of speech and expression, and hate others so much you want to bring to bear the force of the State to prevent other people from using them, because it’s not enough for you to simply avoid them yourself.

. . . it quite explicitly is.

What in the world are you talking about? Lots of people watch lots of other people have sex with no screen or camera in between. Have you seriously never watched people engage in a sex act before? (I mean, of course, in a context that didn’t involve violating anyone’s privacy.)

But you totally love freedom of speech.

Is there any argument that can reasonably made that it would have positive effects? And that’s still far below the minimum standard we normally use to evaluate whether a law taking away people’s freedom is acceptable.

Is there any argument that can reasonably be made that stopping people from engaging in types of activities they enjoy that aren’t harmful isn’t ipso facto negative?

The first obvious reasonable argument is that you are reducing the freedom of American citizens. Taking away people’s freedom is bad; it’s inherently a negative. Whether or not the loss of freedom is offset by a benefit is another matter, but you can’t deny that you are proposing to reduce freedom, and quite significantly. So can you in fact demonstrate that the benefits to banning pornography are greater than the damage you’re doing to basic freedom?

Secondly, your proposed law will be nearly impossible to enforce and will therefore cause both injustice and contempt for the institution of justice. Either the law won’t be enforced to any practical extent, or to have any sort of deterrent value you would have to impose preposterously huge punishments, or you’d have to severely restrict people’s freedom in many other ways - like cutting off Internet access - or vastly, vastly increasing the apparatus of law enforcement.

Third, there is an argument to be made that repressing people’s sexual desires and their ability to relieve them can have severe negative consequences in the form of increased sexual and non-sexual violence, mental health issues, and the like.

Before the motion picture camera there were pornographic still photos. Before the camera, there were pornographic woodcuts. Besides the many theatres in Victorian London, there were places one could go to watch live sex shows. The internet didn’t introduce anything new. It just made pornography easier to get.

No, you don’t.

So are my glasses, clothing, and the apartment I live in.

Prove it. With cites.

Prove it, with cites.

You know what IS natural? Snake venom.
BTW, the idea that pornography is a recent thing is laughable. Ever hear of the Marquis de Sade? There was pornography in ancient Greece and before that. They’ve found pornographic art in ancient ruins all over the world.

Do some research, kiddo, then get back to us.

Pornography isn’t any more unnatural than the OP using a computer, so I suggest he or she start there. Fill your computer with syrup. Maple, if possible.

Why is it technically illegal for people under 18? Why don’t people who support keeping internet pornography legal for adults on the basis of the first amendment advocate for elimination of parental controls, which are reducing the freedom of minors? Why do they accept parental controls as “necessary?”

Nonsense; it’s very natural. And even if it wasn’t, “unnatural” doens’t mean it is bad and should be outlawed; in fact, laws are themselves unnatural, so there’s a certain paradox here. And the evidence I’m aware of indicates that it’s good for society, not bad. The availability of pornography seems to be correlated with a lower rate of sex crimes. And reducing people’s sexual frustrations & letting them have a little fun are good in themselves.

Pure nonsense. Sex shows and erotic art and sculpture are ancient.

Yes, it does count.

Why haven’t you provided the cites I asked for?

How does this relate to the question you posed at the beginning of this thread?

WTF? Because freedom to look at porn doesn’t mean looking at porn is compulsory.

First, we need a definition of what pornography is.

Is it graphic depictions of sex including penetration and fluids?
Is it simulated depictions of sex?
Is it pictures of models fully nude or partially nude?
Are depictions of fetish behavior, such as spanking videos, where there is no nudity and no sex taking place be considered porn?
Is the Statue of David pornography because you can see his doodle?

I think taking away of any freedom is a bad thing and can only damage society.

ignore the above post

Why is it technically illegal for people under 18? Why don’t people who support keeping internet pornography legal for adults on the basis of the first amendment advocate for elimination of parental controls, which are reducing the freedom of minors? Why do they accept parental controls as “necessary?” How can it be argued that the first amendment protects the free transmission of internet pornography, yet simultaneously prohibits child pornography and (technically) the viewing of it by children when the constitution doesn’t say anything about legal age limits for viewing pornography? If one argues from a basis of the first amendment, shouldn’t parental controls for minors and laws against child pornography be also unconstitutional, or at least “extra-constitutional?”

Why are child pornographers treated under the law so harshly when many people who are 16 or 17 are perfectly able to make their own decisions regarding whether they “star” in such a film? The age of 18 as some magical limit for being in a porno flick is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. It is a law that we have decided to collectively make as a compromise between common decency and the first amendment. Thus, there is already a precedent that says that the first amendment on the issue of pornography is not absolute. So why is a debate on the banning of it for people over the age of 18 and for all adults suddenly unconstitutional when it’s already illegal for underage persons?

In short: Why is someone a sex offender if they use 17 year olds in porn movies and not so if they use 19 year olds? What in the constitution justifies this distinction, which is written in our laws and strictly enforced?

Still waiting for those cites.

It’s pornography (imho) if it involves people engaging in sexual activity that is meant to sexually arouse the viewer that the person(s) so shown in the medium wouldn’t do, willingly, directly with the viewer or in public.

This post is such a massive and confused pile of fail that the fact that it doesn’t in any way make up for the lack of argument in your first post seems almost beside the point.

So, if I’m reading this right, porn is A-OK with the OP so long as the performers are

a) total sluts who’ll do anybody or
b) exhibitionists who’d cheerfully Do It right there on the sidewalk.

Why don’t we allow children under 18 to vote? Isn’t voting enshrined in our Constitution as well?

What about allowing people under 21 to drink? People under 16 to drive?