Porn is not covered by "free speech", the general idea or the amendment. Neither is propaganda meant to destroy. I keep arguing this point and getting insane amount of cuck-pushback.
It is deeply ingrained in people. Most dudes start consuming it at ages as earlier than 12 these days. Fucks with your mental development.
It is hard for people to grapple with, because to admit that it is poison and causes brain damage, is to admit that they have destroyed themselves. It is easier to cling to a belief that it is somehow "sacred" and must be protected because "muh free speech".
When I was a young adult my Mom said "real life isn't like that" (meaning porn) only for me to find out, a few short years later how wrong she was.
It feeds a very primal hunger that men have. Men will do insane things to see boobs, we are war machines fueled by the need to procreate, in order to cuck a nation you just need to feed them porn, as they no longer need to do amazing things to see boobs, they just need a click. It's natural to want to consume porn, it's like the prize at the end of the finish line, what is not natural is the acceptance and availability of it. It's at the point 'family friendly' advertisements are effectively softcore porn.
When testosterone builds up and men feel a drive to action porn is there to sap that masculine energy away and consume that drive.
Honestly seeing sexual stimulus is something of an assault on a person's mind and soul. It's something that can affect you deeper than violence without ever touching you. Looking at a picture of someone smoking crack which is illegal is nothing close to watching a woman expose herself.
It cannot be classified as soeech
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.
Well, free speech doesn't matter. Its his website and he can ban what he likes
Didn’t the Larry flynt court case say it was?
(post is archived)