# What would be the negative effects of banning pornography? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013 "2012-06-23T02:18:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/61 "2012-06-23T19:32:24Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > We have laws against child pornography because we think it is harmful to children, partly because we don’t feel like children are able to make their own decisions on such matters and may be forced against their will to partake in such activities, and also because we want to protect our children’s innocence. > > But isn’t this position arbitrary? The cut off age is pretty arbitrary, and an argument can be made that, in the US, we’ve set it too high. But it’s pretty much an indisputable fact that in the vast majority of cases, an adult having sex with a child causes measurable, long-term harm to the child, lasting well into adulthood. There have been countless studies illustrating this. So we’ve made sex with children illegal, and by extension, pornography involving children. There is no such data to support the idea that two adults having sex causes long-term damage for the majority of the participants. That’s why we haven’t criminalized sex between adults, and while we have at time criminalized pornography, we have not done so because we think that sex between two adults is inherently harmful. So the comparison between adult and child pornography does not hold in this context. > [@](#): > > For if there was an underage person who was involved in what we call child pornography, and that child willingly consented to being filmed in the porn studio, and furthermore insisted that the experience wasn’t harmful to him/herself, this argument wouldn’t be a mitigating factor in the criminal offense that the pornographer committed, according to law. If I get busted for driving 120 MPH through a residential neighborhood, I can’t get out of the charge by finding a kid who lives there to testify that I didn’t run him over. Engaging in sexual activity with a child places the child at an extraordinarily high risk of long-term harm. It is criminally irresponsible to put a minor in that position of risk, even if the criminal in question thinks what he’s doing isn’t dangerous. > [@](#): > > Now let us assume that the child says it’s not harmful at all to him/her. But what if the reason he or she thinks it’s not harmful is because the collective moral standing of the society has been lowered so much from what it could be otherwise that people are unable or unwilling to recognize the harm. Our society reserves the right to and exercises the right of saying to these children, “even if you think it’s not harmful for you, we as adults know from experience that it’s better if there’s a law prohibiting child pornography, and will enforce it.” And we should place that same standard upon ourselves as we do to children; otherwise, it would be hypocritical, no? No, of course it wouldn’t be hypocritical. What are you even thinking? Are we being hypocritical because we don’t let toddlers drive cars? Are we being hypocritical when we don’t let them vote? Or drink? Or enter into legal contracts? Or make them go to bed when they don’t want to? Or force them to eat their vegetables? There are thousands of ways that we treat children, that we would not tolerate if applied to ourselves. That’s because children are not adults, and things that are safe for adults to indulge in are often not safe for children to indulge in. > [@](#): > > I claim that the government, which represents the people, similarly reserves the right to legislate morality to even adults. For if adults cannot enforce upon themselves standards of decency and morality, and live by them, why should we reserve the right to teach children these same standards, and to protect them from the base and profane? Okay, fine. The government can legislate morality. I don’t see anything immoral about pornography, so the government has no reason to legislate against it. > [@](#): > > This is not to say that sensual pleasure is by any means bad or sinful. But I cite Aristotle in saying that moderation is the ultimate virtue, and that the porn that’s on the Internet these days has far passed moderation, and it’s getting to the point where society is unable to critique and moderate itself… How much internet pornography is an acceptably moderate amount? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/62 "2012-06-23T19:33:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The fact that they have to pick _some_ date. “When you’re mature” won’t work as a legal definition because there’s no such thing as a maturo-meter that can tell when you qualify; so they have to pick a date, and by nature the date will be somewhat arbitrary. And if they don’t enforce the law, the law will have no effect. Again, as devil’s counsel, they don’t “have” to pick anything. They could leave the responsibility of underage alcohol consumption on parents, the community, or even the sellers. They could decide that consumption itself isn’t the problem, but the resulting bad behavior and beef up public intoxication or DUI penalties. Many European countries do this. I feel that my point still stands. I (hypothetically) have a criminal record when the government admits that I did nothing to harm society anymore than had I done the same thing a day later. To get really ridiculous, what if I got a citation at 11:59pm the day before, and the government admits that at midnight I would have been fine. ONE MINUTE! This gets even more absurd with statutory rape laws (back to the thread) as the arbitrary nature is more pronounced as the penalty increases. Sure, arbitrary numbers make for easier enforcement, but does it comply with substantive due process? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/63 "2012-06-23T19:43:44Z")
Many of the posters here are sure that _of course_ pornography is covered by freedom of speech. But…in a country where prostitution is (basically) illegal it’s ok to effectively do prostitution, as long as you broadcast it, because it’s implicit in a law that talks about religion and petitioning government… It doesn’t make a lot of sense. My own personal view is that pornography and prostitution should both be legal, and that neither has much to do with freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/64 "2012-06-23T19:45:54Z")
[![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dILeb1sEHZM) If you don’t like porn, please move to Saudi Arabia. Edited for better link. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/65 "2012-06-23T19:46:03Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But…in a country where prostitution is (basically) illegal it’s ok to effectively do prostitution, as long as you broadcast it, because it’s implicit in a law that talks about religion and petitioning government… > It doesn’t make a lot of sense. _Is_ it actually illegal to pay two other people to have sex if it’s not being filmed? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/66 "2012-06-23T19:59:30Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > However, Congress can’t, in fact, make a law criminalizing slander, if I remember my education correctly. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Criminal no. Civil penalties yes. I think both of you are mistaken. First Amendment jurisprudence says, among other things: 1. You can’t be liable for defamation if the allegedly defamatory statement is true. 2. You can’t be liable for defaming a public figure unless there is a showing that you acted with actual malice. 3. You can’t be subject to strict liability for defamation; in other words, there has to be a showing of intent. 4. You can’t be subject to liability for defamation when the allegedly defamatory statement is so transparently ridiculous that no reasonable person would believe it. But I can’t recall any principles of defamation or free speech law that says either of the things I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/67 "2012-06-23T20:07:11Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > My own personal view is that pornography and prostitution should both be legal, and that neither has much to do with freedom of speech. I share this view as well. They should both be legal, but if neither are, there is no constitutional right being violated for anyone. It’s a matter for legislatures to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/68 "2012-06-23T21:19:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To play devil’s advocate, what about the argument from the other side? Say I am aged 20 years 364 days and I get a citation for underage drinking. The government admits that there is zero effect on society from my drinking on that day versus the next day. What is their rational basis for putting a criminal charge on my record and extracting money from me in the way of a fine? That is also a stupid law. In Australia, _selling_ alcohol to a minor gets you in trouble, but buying it - or allowing your child to try it in a safe environment - does not. > [@Confused dart cum](#): > > Perhaps the OP is right that images of 16 year olds fucking are not inherently exploitative or immoral or whatever. But seriously - who cares? I care, to the extent that such laws are used to persecute teenagers who are not doing anything wrong. The reason I am in favour of child pornography being illegal is because it requires the commission of a crime to produce. If no crime is involved in its manufacture - because it’s just a 16 year old sending a photo to their boyfriend or girlfriend - it should not be a crime. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/69 "2012-06-23T21:30:51Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > On average, an American child sees a million murders a year depicted graphically on US mainstream television. Error is mine. It seems the average American child has seen a million murders by the age of 10. Not per year. Argument still stands! ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/70 "2012-06-23T21:39:50Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > Error is mine. It seems the average American child has seen a million murders by the age of 10. Not per year. > Argument still stands! A million murders by age ten? Meaning, on average, 100,000 per year? Let’s think about that number for a second. How often does that mean the average child sees a murder on TV? How many minutes are there in a year? Okay, now that we’ve all got that song from Rent in our heads, we can remember that there are 525,600 minutes in a year. That means the average child sees a murder on TV every five-and-a-quarter minutes, day or night. Or, assuming they don’t watch TV for 24 hours a day but a more typical four hours a day, that’s a murder more than once per minute of TV viewing. I don’t think the death count was that high even on _24_ or _The Sopranos_. Unless _Sesame Street_ has gotten a _hell_ of a lot darker, I’m finding this statistic slightly improbable. “Elmo wants to taste your blood! Elmo wants to see your insides!” ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/71 "2012-06-23T21:43:13Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > A million murders by age ten? Meaning, on average, 100,000 per year? I suppose it’s possible if you for example count the destruction of a city as a depiction of the murder of everyone in it. _Star Wars episode IV_ would then count as the depiction of billions of murders with the destruction of Alderaan. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/72 "2012-06-23T21:51:02Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > A million murders by age ten? Meaning, on average, 100,000 per year? > > Let’s think about that number for a second. How often does that mean the average child sees a murder on TV? How many minutes are there in a year? Okay, now that we’ve all got that song from Rent in our heads, we can remember that there are 525,600 minutes in a year. That means the average child sees a murder on TV every five-and-a-quarter minutes, day or night. Or, assuming they don’t watch TV for 24 hours a day but a more typical four hours a day, that’s a murder more than once per minute of TV viewing. I don’t think the death count was that high even on _24_ or _The Sopranos_. Unless _Sesame Street_ has gotten a _hell_ of a lot darker, I’m finding this statistic slightly improbable. > > “Elmo wants to taste your blood! Elmo wants to see your insides!” > [@AndrewL](#): > > I suppose it’s possible if you for example count the destruction of a city as a depiction of the murder of everyone in it. _Star Wars episode IV_ would then count as the depiction of billions of murders with the destruction of Alderaan. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it’s only 100,000 murders for an average 10 year old. I wish I could remember where I had seen the number. It was years ago. Fine! Make it 100,000. Actually, you could just make it 10,000 or even 1,000. I think my argument still stands ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/73 "2012-06-23T22:47:38Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > Error is mine. It seems the average American child has seen a million murders by the age of 10. Not per year. > Argument still stands! You should not trust suspiciously round numbers. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/74 "2012-06-23T23:25:43Z")
> [@Confused dart cum](#): > > Perhaps the OP is right that images of 16 year olds fucking are not inherently exploitative or immoral or whatever. But seriously - who cares? Pedobears! > [@Confused dart cum](#): > > This is fairly obviously a sneak attempt to advocate for legalisation of child pornography. So I’m not the only one who got that tendentious, disturbed vibe. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/75 "2012-06-24T04:57:39Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > I claim that the government, which represents the people, similarly reserves the right to legislate morality to even adults. For if adults cannot enforce upon themselves standards of decency and morality, and live by them, why should we reserve the right to teach children these same standards, and to protect them from the base and profane? Slow day on the Dope, so here I find myself not only reading but posting in a porn thread. Anyhoo, as it happens, the Supreme Court has addressed this very question, specifically in the context of regulating porn on the internet, and decided no. > [@](#): > > It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. As we have explained, the Government may not “reduc[e] the adult population … to … only what is fit for children.” [citations omitted, ellipses in original] From [Reno v. ACLU](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union) (1997) (link to Wiki, which summarizes and gives the context of the case; the full opinion can be found [here](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=case&vol=521&invol=844)). ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/76 "2012-06-24T13:37:18Z")
You can pry my pornography from my cold, dead hand. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/77 "2012-06-24T13:44:26Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > When I said banning porn from the Internet, I didn’t actually mean banning people from watching it. The sex offender registration, if I were ‘in charge,’ would only apply to the people who make the stuff in the first place (the ‘producers’ and not the ‘actresses’), or if it is of the ‘amateur’ or ‘homemade’ variant, would only apply to the people who maintain and host the material. (And it certainly wouldn’t be for life). I want our nation to be exceptional, and _not_ for being the porn capital of the world. Japan and Germany are known for pretty strange porn too. The US isn’t the only depraved nation out there. And thank god for that. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/78 "2012-06-24T14:00:44Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > I want our nation to be exceptional, and _not_ for being the porn capital of the world. Okay, how about we give the San Fernando Valley back to Mexico? Although if “porno capital” was the worst thing we were known for I could probably take the Canadian flag patch off my backpack. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/79 "2012-06-24T18:43:35Z")
The negative effects would be astounding. If you intend to enforce the porn ban, you would need to create a massive bureaucracy. An American Taliban. Not only would it be expensive, we would have to demolish all privacy in our electronic communications. Every website world-wide would have to be monitored. Every single image and video file shared on the internet would have to be inspected. And what about encrypted files? There would have to be a shared key for the government for each one. What about private networks? They couldn’t exist, or corporations would have to allow government monitoring of all inernal communications as well. Existing law-enforcement couldn’t handle the load. A new division would have to be created and funded. The Bureau of Titties, Cocks and Butts would have a daunting task. After hiring a couple hundred thousand blue-nosed snitches to control the internet, you would need a vast army of BTCB agents to combat conventional distribution of domestic and imported (uh oh, we’re gonna need more border agents) depictions of people illegally engaging in sucky-fucky. The very technology the OP cites as making pornography accesible will make it simple to contraband. USB thumb drives and DVDs would be available for purchase pretty much everywhere. So we’ve created an insanely expensive Federal bureaucracy (hello higher taxes) and we’ve destroyed any notion of a right to privacy, but now we’ve also created a massive criminal enterprise. People want porn, so there will be suppliers, and since it is now illegal, kiddie-porn will proliferate. Why? Because currently pornographers are required to keep records proving that the participants are over 18 years of age. Now the actors will be anonymous and the producers won’t be as concerned about age. They’re criminals now, after all. Organized crime will be ecstatic. This will be the best thing since prohibition. The ban on pornography will create a new class of thug millionaires. What will we do with all the “sex-offenders” that refuse to repent? Build yet more privately run prisons? Stone and/or behead them in sports stadiums before terrified crowds? If you really think that pornography is unhealthy, do the saner yet more difficult thing: try to educate people about your point of view and convince them to change their ways. Organize and recruit. Create media that espouses your philosophy. Don’t ask the government to do it for you. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/80 "2012-06-24T19:02:59Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Maybe would-be rapists are too busy playing MMORPG? 😉 Second Life Gor! FTW! the following link is not safe for work, or really, anything … [How to Commit Sexual Roleplay in Second Life Gor](http://www.bondagerotica.com/articles/second-life-gor/sexual-roleplay-in-SL-Gor.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013.md?page=5)