Firstly, porn is one of the most devastating things to hit the modern world. It is destroying relationships, marriages, families, and harming both men and women who are addicted (which is now a majority). But There are major hurdles to try and fix this problem from both a psychological and legal definition approach.
Porn is not covered by "free speech"
Really and strongly depends on what definition of "Free speech" you're using.
If you mean the general sense that any Lockean subscriber would use, it means unfettered, unlimited, genuine free speech. 0 restrictions in every sense of the word (as it applies to the government).
If you mean limited but libertarian speech, which is what the US has, then that STILL includes "free speech." That's how the US defines it and we have a shitload of legal precedence for it.
If you mean restricted speech, meaning speech that must fall within clearly defined and limited categories, only the do you land on a proper definiton where speech can exclude things such as porn.
But then you must define porn. Do smut novels, were are porn for some, count as porn? Or is it only the nude bodies of others who may or may no be engaged in sexual acts? Does it ONLY include sexual acts in photo or video format? What about people who turn regular every day things into porn? Meaning, they use it for sexual gratification such as tall women conservative clothing but wearing stockings, feet pics, etc.?
What about any athletic attire? What about anything Ballet or Dance? What about super hero stuff (all of this stuff is porn for geeks and losers)?
So how are you going to define pornography, how are you going to define "free speech" and THEN how are you going to enforce your definition of "free speech" (i.e., not free speech, but censorship but only censoring the things that violate your provision for "pornography" in your "disallowed" speech section of your speech law)?
And THEN, most of all, what about homemade porn between a heterosexual married couple where such pornography is ONLY made with those 2 married people (not public consumption) and ONLY used for sexual gratification within that marriage? Some couples are into that. Are they allowed to continue to do that under your definition? I'm mixed on this one. I would need to see some research on this to see if it is still damaging to the mind like real porn or if this can be part of a healthy sexual relationship among MARRIED heterosexuals.
Really and strongly depends on what definition of "Free speech" you're using.
Let's go with the one in the 1st amendment. Where (((porn))) is not protected but (((SCOTUS))) says it is. Obscene would like a word.
If you mean limited but libertarian speech...
(((lolberg)))
No.
But then you must define porn. Do smut novels, were are porn for some, count as porn? Or is it only the nude bodies of others who may or may no be engaged in sexual acts? Does it ONLY include sexual acts in photo or video format? What about people who turn regular every day things into porn? Meaning, they use it for sexual gratification such as tall women conservative clothing but wearing stockings, feet pics, etc.?
The same way child porn is defined,
We'll know it when we see it.
And THEN, most of all, what about homemade porn between a heterosexual married couple where such pornography is ONLY made with those 2 married people (not public consumption) and ONLY used for sexual gratification within that marriage? Some couples are into that. Are they allowed to continue to do that under your definition? I'm mixed on this one. I would need to see some research on this to see if it is still damaging to the mind like real porn or if this can be part of a healthy sexual relationship among MARRIED heterosexuals.
Then who cares? Good luck getting a search warrant for something that even you said is only ever seen or known by those two. I understand your examples, but they're all stupid as fuck. Porn is already illegal by the 1st. This was undone by (((SCOTUS))). I seriously wish I had the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States Has to do with that case.
The Hicklin Test;
material tending "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit. (en.wikipedia.org)
Let's go with the one in the 1st amendment. Where (((porn))) is not protected but (((SCOTUS))) says it is. Obscene would like a word.
That doesn't even come close to being a proper response nor is it even within the same universe of legally satisfying the question I've posed. Hence my problem with how to approach this topic.
No.
I know. You do not mean "free speech", you mean "limited speech."
The same way child porn is defined
That does not work at all. That's specific to children and it doesn't include ALL the other types of porn I mentioned with DEFINITELY constitutes porn in the damaging/harmful sense. "Nude" is not the only type of porn. Also, because of how that is defined, children are getting sexually exploited in pornographic ways under the disguise of "art" and "protected speech" because the "artist" does not intend to portray the children sexually. So you KNOW what you just submitted does not even come close to remotely satisfying my question.
Then who cares? Good luck getting a search warrant for something that even you said is only ever seen or known by those two.
If they ever tell anyone - which would be perfectly normal for them to do when talking to friends who are curious about how they keep their relationship spicy - it will get out. Or the spying that your suggestion would require (how to censor? You're going to have to spy which forces a change to the 4th Amendment if you wish to broadly censor porn across the board) would catch them even if private.
Then who cares? Good luck getting a search warrant for something that even you said is only ever seen or known by those two.
I literally listed examples of porn. They are not stupid. You have not submitted even a single definition of porn and you have not addressed a single point I brought up that need to be legally satisfied to submit an idea like yours (a government forced censoring of porn).
Porn is already illegal by the 1st. This was undone by (((SCOTUS))). I seriously wish I had the case.
Knock yourself out with this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html
And this: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography
But you're probably referring to https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/
Roth v. United States
That's when the Hicklin Test was struck down as unconstitutional because it violated the very plain and loose First Amendment.
If you are wondering where all of these questions are coming from, it's because NO one has been able to solve the problem of porn. There is no good solution yet.
That doesn't even come close to being a proper response nor is it even within the same universe of legally satisfying the question I've posed. Hence my problem with how to approach this topic.
Except it does because as I cited in the links below the history of how jews got (((porn))) to be accepted by broadening what "obscene" meant. Just like (((you're))) doing.
I know. You do not mean "free speech", you mean "limited speech."
No. I mean Free Speech which does not include (((porn))) (((propaganda))) or government pushed lies of control. "Free Speech" also only applies in a homogeneous population. The moment there is disunion in the population "Free Speech" already doesn't exist.
That does not work at all. That's specific to children and it doesn't include ALL the other types of porn I mentioned with DEFINITELY constitutes porn in the damaging/harmful sense. "Nude" is not the only type of porn. Also, because of how that is defined, children are getting sexually exploited in pornographic ways under the disguise of "art" and "protected speech" because the "artist" does not intend to portray the children sexually. So you KNOW what you just submitted does not even come close to remotely satisfying my question.
Except it does because it's already legal precedent in the US. To claim that "we'll know it when we'll see it" can't be expanded to include all (((porn))) is just wrong. You're lying now, and your'e doing so to appear correct while pushing (((porn))). I also NEVER ONCE said a thing about what porn is, that "nude" equates to porn or doesn't equate to porn. Never once. But here you are strawmanning me to make a jewish argument. Some of the best works of art on Earth include nudity, they aren't porn or pornographic in nature. Intent matters and (((porn))) has (((intent))).
If they ever tell anyone - which would be perfectly normal for them to do when talking to friends who are curious about how they keep their relationship spicy - it will get out. Or the spying that your suggestion would require (how to censor? You're going to have to spy which forces a change to the 4th Amendment if you wish to broadly censor porn across the board) would catch them even if private.
Cool. So you're moving the goalposts, thanks for doing it in the first few words so I can ignore your push of (((porn))).
I literally listed examples of porn. They are not stupid. You have not submitted even a single definition of porn and you have not addressed a single point I brought up that need to be legally satisfied to submit an idea like yours (a government forced censoring of porn).
"we'll" know it when we see it. That's porn. I don't care if you think that doesn't fit because it fit for many many many decades prior t now and before jewish subversion. Something doesn't have to have a specific and limited definition to have legal standing. That's wrong, not how the law works, and a jewish claim.
Knock yourself out with this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html
And this: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography
But you're probably referring to https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/
I had already linked the case(s) I meant. Of note;
...the court upheld the constitutionality of using "community standards" to determine what sexually explicit material is harmful to minors.
ALL PORNOGRAPHY is extremely harmful to minors. Why you're trying to push the idea that it's not while pushing the idea that the current undefined standard of "We'll know it when we see it" with regards to the sexualization of children, as being bad is fucking atrocious.
But I would not expect more from a jew user who goes around, follows me, and randomly downvotes posts for literally no reason at all.
(post is archived)