Should Porn be Banned

[abijah`]

ive heard people talking about this lately. im honestly not sure where i would fall here. on one hand it is obscene and is a scourge to families and individuals everywhere. on the other hand i have a hard time because i dont like the idea of government and legislation reaching their claws into that aspect of social life. it would be nice for there not to be any porn, but im not sure how practical or particularly liberty-minded it is for the govt to outright ban it.

what are your thoughts?

[Elizabeth]

Of course it should be banned.

[The East Wind]

No question it should be banned. And it should be treated the same way as child porn. Its just as bad for both groups involved.

[Durzan]

Honestly, Porn has always existed in one form or another.

Yes, its bad, no question about it. Yes it does exasperate the situation in some instances, and it easily warps and clouds the mind of many who consumes it. Yes it can destroy families and compounds with other sins to magnify their severity. BUT... so does alcohol. So does pride. So does ANY sexual sin. None of these issues are unique to pornography. Sin is sin. Pornography is arguably the most insidious of sexual sins because of its subtly, but it is ALSO arguably the least severe when its isolated (at least in the short term) ...and it is far easier to deal with and mitigate the immediate consequences lets say, adultery.ts a small fishhook in comparison to many other sins. Hard to remove, but less damaging by itself.It can compound with other sins to make them fester and become infected if left untreated. Its a versatile sin that cannot be underestimated. It can fuel other sins and draw the person into those other sins, it can also mitigate and restrain them to some extent as well. It also has some rather unique properties that I can't get into here. It may be one of Lucifer's greatest tools to tempt and damn men and women, but it leaves him exposed.

Now, should it be banned? Many here would argue in favor of it being banned. But... I would argue that such a ban would prove just as ineffective if not more as prohibition was almost 100 years ago.

[Allison]

I once would have thought it very unLibertarian to ban porn. But the E. Michael Jones interview clip (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=53320) describes it being used as a literal weapon against a people.

I don’t see how the Constitution would authorize banning it, but according to John Taylor Gatto, there is nothing wrong with individual states and communities being more and less lenient. That way, if we chaffed at any infringement on the right to embrace debauchery, we could move to a more liberal location.

These are new thoughts and I cannot answer the poll yet. Still trying to work through this. But I think I could support a local ban. The way Israel used it against the Palestinians should be a crime.

[Allison]

Honestly, Porn has always existed in one form or another.

Yes, its bad, no question about it. Yes it does exasperate the situation in some instances, and it easily warps and clouds the mind of many who consumes it. Yes it can destroy families and compounds with other sins to magnify their severity. BUT... so does alcohol. So does pride. So does ANY sexual sin. None of these issues are unique to pornography. Sin is sin. Pornography is arguably the most insidious of sexual sins because of its subtly, but it is ALSO arguably the least severe when its isolated (at least in the short term) ...and it is far easier to deal with and mitigate the immediate consequences lets say, adultery.ts a small fishhook in comparison to many other sins. Hard to remove, but less damaging by itself.It can compound with other sins to make them fester and become infected if left untreated. Its a versatile sin that cannot be underestimated. It can fuel other sins and draw the person into those other sins, it can also mitigate and restrain them to some extent as well. It also has some rather unique properties that I can't get into here.

Now, should it be banned? Many here would argue in favor of it being banned. But... I would argue that such a ban would prove just as ineffective if not more as prohibition was almost 100 years ago.

Would it be undesirable on those grounds to ban child porn?

[abijah`]

matt walsh argues that the reason why the question of banning porn isnt taken as serious as it should be, largely because conservatives have ceded to the leftist moral worldview - which is basically the lack of morality.

he likewise argues that all laws are more or less "legislated morality", so he considers that irrelevant.

[Alaris]

Porn is going to be banned here in the not too distant future.

[abijah`]

language warning, but very interesting points made here. contends banning porn is impossible and goes into detail exactly how. suspects the end goal of this campaign is not to ban porn, but to increase government control on the internet to censor. argues that the mo is identical to leftists seeking hate speech and gun control legislation, which would be the end fruit of opening this pandoras box. lots of other interesting points as well.

[Durzan]

Honestly, Porn has always existed in one form or another.

Yes, its bad, no question about it. Yes it does exasperate the situation in some instances, and it easily warps and clouds the mind of many who consumes it. Yes it can destroy families and compounds with other sins to magnify their severity. BUT... so does alcohol. So does pride. So does ANY sexual sin. None of these issues are unique to pornography. Sin is sin. Pornography is arguably the most insidious of sexual sins because of its subtly, but it is ALSO arguably the least severe when its isolated (at least in the short term) ...and it is far easier to deal with and mitigate the immediate consequences lets say, adultery.ts a small fishhook in comparison to many other sins. Hard to remove, but less damaging by itself.It can compound with other sins to make them fester and become infected if left untreated. Its a versatile sin that cannot be underestimated. It can fuel other sins and draw the person into those other sins, it can also mitigate and restrain them to some extent as well. It also has some rather unique properties that I can't get into here.

Now, should it be banned? Many here would argue in favor of it being banned. But... I would argue that such a ban would prove just as ineffective if not more as prohibition was almost 100 years ago.

Would it be undesirable on those grounds to ban child porn?

The thing with child porn is that

A) its not nearly as widespread in modern day, and is far more specific in nature. These two factors make it easier to regulate and stamp out.
B) The community who likes child porn is relatively small.
C) It DIRECTLY hurts children, while porn mainly INDIRECTLY harms those beyond the person he consumes it.
D) In general, children are far more vulnerable than adults. They easier to manipulate, control, and exploit than adults are by at least 1 order of magnitude. This is due to the fact that they are less physically and mentally developed than a fully grown adult. While there are many cases of porn stars being taken advantage of, were trafficked/enslaved/tricked/etc, I am willing to bet that a larger portion of them willingly do it. On the other hand, 100% of children involved in child porn are abused or manipulated.
E) He who harms these little ones is better drowned in the sea with a millstone hung around their neck, and all that.
F) Supporting porn does indirectly support human trafficking (Somewhat, at least). Child porn directly supports it. Heck, its directly tied to it. Regular porn on the other hand is a bit more nebulous in its connection to illegal activities.

So no. Its not undesirable to ban CHILD porn. With regular porn, its not worth banning as the effort required to do so wouldn't be worth the results, unless you have alternative motives at play like many others have already said. If you regulate porn however, you can potentially stem the tide and make things more safe for both the workers and the consumers, at least up to a point. Heck, the porn industry already is regulated in the US to some extent.

[Durzan]

Porn is going to be banned here in the not too distant future.

Its quite possible. But that is a two edged sword.

[onandagus]

At the very least porn should be relegated to a .xxx tld ghetto. Making it trivial to filter. Any other tld depicting sex acts should be siezed after transition. The problem is nudity. Is a picture of Venus de Milo, Virtruvian Man, or educational pictures on Wikipedia porn.
Bring back the Hays codes for TV and movies.

[Alaris]

Porn is going to be banned here in the not too distant future.

Its quite possible. But that is a two edged sword.

Nothing below a Terrestrial law will persist into the millennium. Taking a stroll down the Las Vegas strip, it's not hard to imagine why the world must needs be cleansed by fire.

[James Paul]

ive heard people talking about this lately. im honestly not sure where i would fall here. on one hand it is obscene and is a scourge to families and individuals everywhere. on the other hand i have a hard time because i dont like the idea of government and legislation reaching their claws into that aspect of social life. it would be nice for there not to be any porn, but im not sure how practical or particularly liberty-minded it is for the govt to outright ban it.

what are your thoughts?

Perhaps CUTTING OFF the offending
hand could help.

[James Paul]

Obviously we still have the tellestial among us.

[gkearney]

If you’re ready to have your speech here, or in church, or in general conference banned then sure, go ahead and “ban porn”.

[Allison]

If you’re ready to have your speech here, or in church, or in general conference banned then sure, go ahead and “ban porn”.

Couldn’t the same be said of child porn?

And, is porn speech? Is it a victimless crime?

Sweden has almost entirely ended prostitution. They quit prosecuting the prostitutes and instead started prosecuting the customers. They also offered free counseling to the prostitutes.

Very few people realize that many/most (I think nearly all) adult sex workers are molestation survivors. (Molestation is a deceptively mild word, btw.). Crossing the age-18 threshold does not magically confer upon them the psychological ability to protect themselves. Maybe we should look at the consumers of porn more harshly, like Sweden did with prostitution.

[drtanner]

God bans it.

[captainfearnot]

I once would have thought it very unLibertarian to ban porn. But the E. Michael Jones interview clip (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=53320) describes it being used as a literal weapon against a people.

Your point being that literal weapons should be banned?

Should "walking porn" be banned?

[gkearney]

If you’re ready to have your speech here, or in church, or in general conference banned then sure, go ahead and “ban porn”.

Couldn’t the same be said of child porn?

Not at all the same thing. Child porn by its very nature involves the exploration of persons who, due to their age, are unable to enter into a consensual relationship to engage in sexual conduct or to give consent for such to be photographed. So the crime here is not so much the images as it is the exploration and abuse of children. This is a crime in almost every nation on earth.

Now I will agree that traditional adult porn is exploitative to both the women and the men involved in it and indeed some may well be victims of human trafficking. If so there are laws that would apply in such cases that do not involve the banning of speech and which do not lead us down the sloppily slope of deciding which speech should or should not be permitted.

The only thing I am saying here is that banning speech even speech we find vulgar, repugnant, or even potentially dangerous can have all manner of unintended consequences. Sure now it's something nasty that is being banned but once you open the door to banning speech it's going to be very hard to close it again. What about so called "hate speech"? What about sermons you don't like? What about sermons others might find hateful? Where is this going to end. Some very ugly things have been written on these very forums do you really want to go down the path of banning speech based upon its content?

[Robin Hood]

Anything beyond a Playboy type publication was banned in the UK until the arrival of the internet.
People who wanted to view hard core porn (basically the sex act) had to join a private cinema club. These we licenced by local authorities and inspected on a regular basis to ensure that viewing porn was all that was going on.
These days the internet has destroyed all of this and made it impossible to restrict in any meaningful way.

[gkearney]

Anything beyond a Playboy type publication was banned in the UK until the arrival of the internet.
People who wanted to view hard core porn (basically the sex act) had to join a private cinema club. These we licenced by local authorities and inspected on a regular basis to ensure that viewing porn was all that was going on.
These days the internet has destroyed all of this and made it impossible to restrict in any meaningful way.

An this in a country where pictures of naked women are published daily in general circulation newspapers! :)

[PressingForward]

Ban? Ask yourself “what would Satan do”?

[Durzan]

If you’re ready to have your speech here, or in church, or in general conference banned then sure, go ahead and “ban porn”.

Couldn’t the same be said of child porn?

Not at all the same thing. Child porn by its very nature involves the exploration of persons who, due to their age, are unable to enter into a consensual relationship to engage in sexual conduct or to give consent for such to be photographed. So the crime here is not so much the images as it is the exploration and abuse of children. This is a crime in almost every nation on earth.

Now I will agree that traditional adult porn is exploitative to both the women and the men involved in it and indeed some may well be victims of human trafficking. If so there are laws that would apply in such cases that do not involve the banning of speech and which do not lead us down the sloppily slope of deciding which speech should or should not be permitted.

The only thing I am saying here is that banning speech even speech we find vulgar, repugnant, or even potentially dangerous can has all manner of unintended consequences. Sure now it's something nasty that is being banned but once you open the door to banning speech it's going to be very hard to close it again. What about so called "hate speech"? What about sermons you don't like? What about sermons others might find hateful? Where is this going to end. Some very ugly things have been written on these very forums do you really want to go down the path of banning speach based upon its content?

Bingo.

And thats not even considering the remote possibility that there is a greater purpose for God providing the method that caused the porn industry to boom in the first place. Perhaps Porn is actually part of a plan for the last days? Perhaps pornography has some hidden trait in it that makes it useful for God's purposes?

Pornography is a sin that is considered one of Satan's greatest weapons in modern times. But, it is like Callandor from the Wheel of Time series: It has an inherent flaw built into it that God can easily use to undermine Lucifer and turn the weapon he uses against him. One who is an instrument for this purpose and has been guided and shaped by the Lord for this purpose, in spite of his shortcomings, can become as a Thorn in the Adversary's Side and overcome that which many others cannot.

In our own pride, too many of us push and condemn men and women for their sins, when in reality, ALL mankind cannot live upon this Earth without sinning and being condemned. And that such sin disconnects us from the Holy Ghost, save it be we take upon us the blood of Christ and put our faith in Him to heal us. In our minds, certain sins carry far more weight and deserve to be ridiculed because of this, but that is not exactly true. When in reality, sin as a concept is somewhat hard to accurately define in the human mind. Some sins have greater consequences than others, and are harder to repent of than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are weighted differently in God's eyes.

Many men have been Godly men, and have been weighed down with major sins and/or flaws. And yet God still works with them, and uplifts them. God is more concerned with the mindset of those who would be his servants than with the sins themselves. The problem is that the sins can influence the mindset to a great degree, and THAT is what disconnects us from the powers of heaven.

There will come a time when sin itself is turned against the adversary. There will come a time when the very concept of sin will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. And both those times are not far off.

[Juliet]

Every human has a right to be treated with dignity and respect whether there is a law for it or not. The moral authority to govern is tyranny in the hands of man. So long as money is equal with the right to life, porn will not be stopped. The right to life must hold more value than money in order to stop porn. People have to have a right to property and earth's resources to provide for themselves. No one owns the earth. Because we can't understand that we monetize life itself, degrading our own dignity.

So, as we see, porn is tied to money. Take away money and porn will also disappear. And a society that preys on women instead of provides for them doesn't have much life left.