Since you concede that all laws 'have interpretational issues', then your objection to a porn ban for the same reasons isn't tenable. I am not a legal expert - so asking me to draft what would take a panel of such experts a lengthy period of time and consultation isn't reasonable. If we can bring a law in to deal with modern slavery issues (as the UK did with MSA), then we can do the same with porn.
Panels of experts are available. If you want support for a proposed law, you have to specify what the law will actually say. Describing a law by its intention, so as to garner support, only to pass a law based on a different covert intention (or that is so poorly worded that it has unintended bad consequences and/or fails in its claimed intention), is the oldest trick of authoritarians, fanatics, and people with axes to grind. Based on your rhetorical tactics in this thread, I would be a fool to trust you to enact a law now, figure out what it actually says later, even if that were possible. (In reality, no law can be voted on, either by referendum or by legislature, without its exact language.
That doesn't list any category called "extreme."
The category called "obscene" might be what you have in mind, but the test there is based on the viewer's subjective reaction of finding something "patently offensive."
There are any number of people who find depictions of fully consensual non-violent group sex, gay sex, anal sex, or sex between people of different races "patently offensive." But those are categories of ordinary porn and are in no way extreme.
Not nude then.
I assume that if it isn't nude then it's not nude.
By the same token, "not underage" means not underage regardless of how a performer might be abstractly represented via costume, makeup, digital modification, or the surrounding narrative (e.g. "look at me, I'm fifteen!"). But you regard such clearly "not underage" cases as problematic for being equivalent to underage. So, again, I have no reason to trust you to maintain clear and consistent distinctions in such judgments.
Also by the same token, "consensual" means acts that the performers have consented to perform, regardless of how the acts might be represented narratively (e.g. the scripted dialog saying "No! Stop!"). But you regard such clearly consensual cases as problematic for being equivalent to non-consensual, just because they
depict non-consensual acts. So, again, I have no reason to trust you to maintain clear and consistent distinctions in such judgments.
Also, by that definition, no character in a novel can be nude (as there are no genitals visible regardless of what the words on the page say) nor can sex acts occur in a novel (as no visible sex takes place regardless of what the words on the page say). Yet you included books in your list of media subject to your definition of porn. So yet again, I have no reason to trust you to maintain clear and consistent distinctions in such judgments.
Lacks clarity.
As already made clear, there will never be a definition that isn't nebulous to some degree. Existing laws have the same or similar problems - and I cited the MSA to make that point.
Now that the issue's been pointed out, you're just making excuses for laziness. Unless the laziness has a purpose, such as disguising the actual intent of the changes in law you're advocating, in which case you're trying and failing to deceive.
Mere assertion. You are trivialising the serious nature of the porn problem.
How is asking for proposed legislation to be clear and well-crafted trivializing anything?
All countries (except the USA) are legally bound to make the internet a safe place for children (a result of signing and ratifying the UNCRC):
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.
Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,
Go ahead and make the Internet safe then. I'm not stopping you. I'm objecting to your vaguely worded wish to ban all porn.
If we are talking about banning porn, then obviously it would include paid or free content.
That provision would force me to delete the private nude photographs of my wife from years ago when we were younger, or risk prosecution. I would resist such tyranny by all available means including violence if needed.
Tell me again how the details of what should and should not be banned aren't worth the bother of specifying beforehand.
Those grey areas are a reality for the MSA but we still passed the law.
If the MSA had been as poorly thought out as your porn ban, I'd have to set my dog free.
Are you seriously suggesting that modern society needs porn?
Modern society includes many things that make it modern, including porn.
You could have a society without porn, and also without paved highways, passenger airlines, tall buildings, democracy, land ownership by non-nobility, refrigeration, antibiotics, telecommunications, anesthesia, computers, or electricity. Such societies not only existed, they were the norm until recently. Of course, they weren't and wouldn't be "modern" societies. More like medieval societies. But at least the children would be safe. Oh, wait, no they wouldn't be, they'd die in droves like they used to.
You think you don't support any laws that imprison the innocent or those that fall between the cracks?
There are no laws that imprison the innocent. There are unjust laws that unjustly declare people guilty who have caused no real offense, and there are unjust prosecutors who prosecute the innocent (sometimes based on subjective interpretation of poorly written laws). I don't support either variety of injustice.