# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/101 "2012-07-02T06:26:51Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > All violent crimes have declined since 1992. That is because of the increase in the prison population and because the Roe v. Wade decision has lead to the abortions of millions of potential violent criminals. I doubt internet pornography has reduced rape, but I would be interested in a study of the topic. Fair response. Has a study of porn been done that has controlled for confounding factors? As it happens there has: The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.” A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth. [http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday\_economics/2006/10/how\_the\_web\_prevents\_rape.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html) And from the .pdf file linked in the article: Moreover, if the internet facilitates more dating and other face-to-face interactions, as in Gaspar and Glaeser (1998), this could mean more opportunities for rape. Therefore, since the results below support a negative correlation between internet access and rape, these results may actually _underestimate_ the true substitutability of pornography and rape. Emphasis added. Internet access became available at differing rates by state. Rapes apparently declined at a differing rate that corresponded to the growth internet usage, despite the potentially enhanced risks posed by innovations such as Craigslist. And the relationship did not extend to homicides, indicating that it wasn’t a general crime trend that was being picked up. As results in the social sciences go, this appears to be fairly solid. ---
**Author:** ![MyFactCheckBounced](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MyFactCheckBounced](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFactCheckBounced)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/102 "2012-07-02T11:05:31Z")
I think the most direct negative effect of banning pornography is that there’d be less porn to look at. Grip strength in the male population would probably decline by half. What, huh? Rights? Theories of government? Oh fine, I’m sure that’s involved too. But pictures/videos of naked ladies would decline to a vanishing point. I didn’t turn 18 to have to look at the women’s underwear section of the Sear catalog to get my rocks off, consarnit. Without the desire to view porn without interruption how we will _ever_ get the current generation out of their parents’ basements? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/103 "2012-07-06T20:02:50Z")
Why is it that people keep treating freedom of speech like it means something it doesn’t? It’s a governmental policy specifically designed for the functioning of a democratic government. It is not some moral idea that doing whatever you want is okay. It’s not even a moral argument–it’s legal. And it’s good for what it does. But what it does is make sure you can’t be punished for having opinions that differ from that of people in power. If they could do that, they would be able to remain in power indefinitely, and democracy would be kaput. Freedom of speech is not about letting people say or do whatever they want. And if your argument for pornography rests on that, then it’s an very unconvincing argument. There’s a reason why freedom of speech in this vein is almost entirely an American phenomenon–an after-the-fact justification for the downsides of how the government can’t enforce a lot of things due to the law.’ Note: the other argument about it giving people an outlet has a lot more merit. ---
**Author:** ![MyFactCheckBounced](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MyFactCheckBounced](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFactCheckBounced)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/104 "2012-07-06T20:23:58Z")
Old lady judges watch people in pairs limited in sex they dare to push fake morals, insult and swear while money doesn’t talk, it swears Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony - Bob Dylan, _It’s Alright Ma_ Speaking of money: As soon as Corporations are not considered people (for purposes of speech, certainly,) and as soon as money is not considered speech, I’ll stop considering naked ladies to be speaking in various positions. Until then, it’s art. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/105 "2012-07-06T20:30:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Why is it that people keep treating freedom of speech like it means something it doesn’t? It’s a governmental policy specifically designed for the functioning of a democratic government. It is not some moral idea that doing whatever you want is okay. It’s not even a moral argument–it’s legal. And it’s good for what it does. > > But what it does is make sure you can’t be punished for having opinions that differ from that of people in power. If they could do that, they would be able to remain in power indefinitely, and democracy would be kaput. > > Freedom of speech is not about letting people say or do whatever they want. And if your argument for pornography rests on that, then it’s an very unconvincing argument. > > There’s a reason why freedom of speech in this vein is almost entirely an American phenomenon–an after-the-fact justification for the downsides of how the government can’t enforce a lot of things due to the law.’ > > Note: the other argument about it giving people an outlet has a lot more merit. So you are about to haul out that tired old argument that the sexual is not political. I gotta say, feminism beat the living shit out of that argument back in the 70s. Sexual expression of all kinds is political, and thus covered under the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/106 "2012-07-06T20:31:15Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Why is it that people keep treating freedom of speech like it means something it doesn’t? It’s a governmental policy specifically designed for the functioning of a democratic government. It is not some moral idea that doing whatever you want is okay. It’s not even a moral argument–it’s legal. And it’s good for what it does. > > But what it does is make sure you can’t be punished for having opinions that differ from that of people in power. If they could do that, they would be able to remain in power indefinitely, and democracy would be kaput. > > Freedom of speech is not about letting people say or do whatever they want. And if your argument for pornography rests on that, then it’s an very unconvincing argument. > > There’s a reason why freedom of speech in this vein is almost entirely an American phenomenon–an after-the-fact justification for the downsides of how the government can’t enforce a lot of things due to the law.’ > > Note: the other argument about it giving people an outlet has a lot more merit. I disagree about the legal meaning of the first ammendment. As I understand it- The government cannot censor speech except in some very narrow circumstances. The burden in those cases is on the government to prove that the speech is illegal, not on the speaker to prove that it isn’t. Pornography is speech. It is not fighting words, an incitement to break the law, or a danger to the public. It is therefore, protected speech. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/107 "2012-07-06T20:36:18Z")
Well, based on that old saw about guns, if pornography is outlawed, only outlaws will have pornography. In a sense, it’s going to create a lot of new “criminals” whose offense is looking at naughty pictures. There’s a couple of problems with this: 1. Pornography is notoriously hard to define formally. This is potentially going to lead to widely disparate arrest and prosecution practices (for example, conservative, religious rural communities might enforce a more restrictive interpretation of the definition of “pornography”, and arrest people for possessing romance novels or pinup calendars, while liberal, urban cops might consider only “hardcore” stuff to truly constitute unlawful pornography). Imagine driving from DC to Miami and getting pulled over for speeding in some rural Baptist town where the cop sees your impressive collection of bodice-ripper romance novels in the back seat, and hauls you before a jury of backwards, snake handling and Bible thumping prudes who think that short sleeves are indecent. Get ready to become a registered sex offender. 2. Will regular porn offenses be considered registrable sex offenses? Can you imagine what it would do if everyone who even looked at porn (let alone produced it or financed it) was put on the sex offender registry and forced to live more than 2000 feet from public schools and parks and required to attend weekly therapy for the rest of their life? ---
**Author:** ![MyFactCheckBounced](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MyFactCheckBounced](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFactCheckBounced)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/108 "2012-07-06T22:17:20Z")
What’s the compelling interest in stopping naughty pictures again? The same question could be asked about, say, flying kites. We know they can get tangled in power lines (which doesn’t happen with porn, to my knowledge, unless there are kinks out there I’m just not aware of.) But the occasional tangled kite doesn’t really compel the state to ban the practice of kite-flying. Why would it? The question’s terribly phrased. You’re supposed to be free to do things unless there’s a reason to criminalize them, not look at things as proving their value to the government for them to be permitted. The question isn’t “what’s the value of porn?” or “what would be the negative effect of banning porn?,” it’s “What reason can the state show that it **needs** to ban porn?” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/109 "2012-07-07T00:23:53Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 1. Pornography is notoriously hard to define formally. This is potentially going to lead to widely disparate arrest and prosecution practices (for example, conservative, religious rural communities might enforce a more restrictive interpretation of the definition of “pornography”, and arrest people for possessing romance novels or pinup calendars, while liberal, urban cops might consider only “hardcore” stuff to truly constitute unlawful pornography). Imagine driving from DC to Miami and getting pulled over for speeding in some rural Baptist town where the cop sees your impressive collection of bodice-ripper romance novels in the back seat, and hauls you before a jury of backwards, snake handling and Bible thumping prudes who think that short sleeves are indecent. Get ready to become a registered sex offender. Worse; imagine getting accused of distributing pornography over the internet by those same prudes for posting a picture of, say, your family at the beach where the women are wearing bikinis. Even now when someone posts something like BDSM porn in one state sometimes the authorities in another with more restrictive laws try to shut them down. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/110 "2012-07-07T01:07:05Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > It certainly would. If porn sites can’t be viewed or accessed via the Internet, then they won’t be able to make a profit advertising, and hence won’t keep their site up because the cost of the domain name and server space won’t be worth it anymore. Very few people pay for porn nowadays (I think?) Very few people pay for porn? So it’s just a couple of guys that are paying the billions per year and the rest get it for free? There is a VAST amount of porn that people are paying for. It ain’t all just internet, and even that gets you to pay directly too. There are still magazines, books, DVDs, not to mention the lucrative sex toy industry (from which my GF earns her living). > [@](#): > > The top adult entertainment companies include Vivid Entertainment (US), Playboy (US), Frenesi Films (Brazil) and Erostream (Netherlands). Some of the major porn producing nations are Spain, Japan, Russia and Germany. According to [toptenreviews.com](http://toptenreviews.com), the countries with the largest revenue from the porn industry (in 2006) include China ($27.40 billion), South Korea ($25.73 billion), Japan ($19.98 billion) and the US ($13.33 billion). > [World, US, China, India Economy, Investment, Finance, Credit Cards - Economy Watch](http://www.economywatch.com/world-industries/porn-industry.html) So at least one negative impact will be financial in nature. There will be fewer tax dollars collected and more tax dollars spent (enforcement). Not to mention that a lot of folks will be out of gainful legal employment. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/111 "2012-07-07T01:44:01Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Pornography is speech. It is not fighting words, an incitement to break the law, or a danger to the public. It is therefore, protected speech. AFAIK, that is not an accurate representation of supreme court precedent, though it is a respected opinion within American thought. Obscene material has long been subject to regulation and I am aware of no court that has overturned that principle. “[…sexually explicit expression does not receive the same degree of protection afforded purely political speech.](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/52-sexually-explicit-and-indecent-expression.html)” For details see the wiki entry on [The Miller Test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test). Note also that “Nonobscene But Sexually Explicit and Indecent Expression”, appears to have stronger 1st amendment protections than obscene material, which is not protected by the 1st amendment. In today’s age, I suspect most commercial porn might fall under that category in most US jurisdictions. IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/112 "2012-07-08T18:39:36Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > Does anyone seriously think that a government ban on Internet porn would significantly affect the amount of porn available? The government can’t even keep drugs or illegal immigrants out, and those can’t be streamed over a broadband connection. Heh. Like Leo McGarry said in an episode of _The West Wing:_ “Greeaaat. Another criminal empire we can give birth to.” The law saying that porn actors and actresses must be at least 18 (as opposed to 17 or younger, 19 or higher) _may_ seem completely arbitrary, and perhaps it is. But you have to draw the line somewhere. At age 18, at least, most people graduate from high school. So that seems as good a line as anywhere. I’m not in favor of laws that would remove freedoms I already enjoy, and seeing as how this is a generally liberal board, I imagine I’m in the majority here on that front. Besides, your original post says you wanted to ban pornography in _all_ its forms. So, what do you propose? Mass book burnings? You have any idea how many women enjoy romance novels, and the graphic depictions of sex therein? (For some reason guys seem to be thought of as “weird” if they enjoy them also; go figure). You want to burn the Kama Sutra or The Joy of Sex? What about sex education in schools or in books? What about softcore pornography? Do you want to remove _all_ references to sex in _all_ fiction? If so, you’re gonna have a _lot_ of work on your hands. I second the comment made by an earlier poster: You can have my porn when you pry it from my warm, sticky fingers. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/113 "2012-07-08T18:44:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Why is it that people keep treating freedom of speech like it means something it doesn’t? It’s a governmental policy specifically designed for the functioning of a democratic government. It is not some moral idea that doing whatever you want is okay. It’s not even a moral argument–it’s legal. And it’s good for what it does… > > There’s a reason why freedom of speech in this vein is almost entirely an American phenomenon–an after-the-fact justification for the downsides of how the government can’t enforce a lot of things due to the law.’ Non Sequitur. There are all sorts of rules that obviously reflect basic morality (no holding other people as slaves, no taking other people’s stuff even if you have a fancy title and the other people don’t) that were routinely trampled until the rise of modern Enlightenment civilization. That historical fact doesn’t make the moral truths any less true; it just shows that a critical mass of humanity act like barbarians until something forces them to shape up. ---
**Author:** ![JMH125](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JMH125](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JMH125)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/114 "2012-07-09T15:28:56Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > 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…) Well, first off, i just want to say that this OP is sort of ridiculous. Merits or cons of pornography aside, there is no WAY it can ever, ever, ever be banned. Even if it WERE…as Prohibition showed us with alcohol…if the people want it they will make it. And you would just have a massive underground community of pornography. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013.md?page=5)