Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Myriad]

I think this is a dead end argument. We already have adequate definitions to regulate pornography. Poem can apply those to banning it, without having to re-litigate the legal framework we already accept.

In the US, the Supreme Court has developed and applied the Miller Test to determine whether something is obscene given the circumstances of any particular case. If a work is not obscene in the context in which it appears, whether or not it's "porn" by someone's definition, then it's protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned. Poem is not satisfied with the Miller Test and claims it needs "tweaking." Until he specifies exactly how, he has zero workable definitions to apply as far as US law is concerned. If he wants to limit discussion to non US countries, that won't be an issue (though good luck getting e.g. Japan to fall in line), but so far his wishes haven't been less than global.

 

[Lithrael]

(though good luck getting e.g. Japan to fall in line)

Ooh! We could put a teeny tiny little censor bar on all the porn! (I don't know if it's still true but back in the day you couldn't get uncensored porn there, but they'd remove the censoring for the western market versions. And IIRC, tentacles largely became a thing because the rules for depicting/censoring peen were more prohibitive.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Ooh! We could put a teeny tiny little censor bar on all the porn! (I don't know if it's still true but back in the day you couldn't get uncensored porn there, but they'd remove the censoring for the western market versions. And IIRC, tentacles largely became a thing because the rules for depicting/censoring peen were more prohibitive.)

Tentacles predate censorship.

Look up Kinoe no Komatsu by Hokusai (yes, he of the famous Great Wave), 1815, and the most famous print from that three-volume work, The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. No I'm not going to link to it.

 

[Poem]

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.

Rhetorical tactics you fail to cite...how ironic.

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.

Apologies - wrong link. I meant this:

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...

www.legislation.gov.uk

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.

Me? How about UK law...as already mentioned. Put that content on DVD / Blu-ray and you are breaking the law.

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.

Blurring the lines between consensual and non-consensual is pretty disgraceful; it just makes it more difficult to distinguish the two.

And all for what? Aren't you pandering to kink?

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.

We are going round in circles. I will lead you back again to the MSA and:
"...you have one government body finding that a young person has been trafficked, while another insists that they are a perpetrator who should face the full force of the law."

Yes, there will be free speech casualties if we ban porn...but allowing things to carry on as they are is unconscionable.

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.

See above.

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.

I doubt any law would survive under such scrutiny.

 

[theprestige]

In the US, the Supreme Court has developed and applied the Miller Test to determine whether something is obscene given the circumstances of any particular case. If a work is not obscene in the context in which it appears, whether or not it's "porn" by someone's definition, then it's protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned. Poem is not satisfied with the Miller Test and claims it needs "tweaking." Until he specifies exactly how, he has zero workable definitions to apply as far as US law is concerned. If he wants to limit discussion to non US countries, that won't be an issue (though good luck getting e.g. Japan to fall in line), but so far his wishes haven't been less than global.

This is a red herring. The question of willingness to implement a ban is not the question of what to ban. I contend that the what is already adequately defined in current laws regulating pornography, and that Poem doesn't need to come up with another definition.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is a red herring. The question of willingness to implement a ban is not the question of what to ban. I contend that the what is already adequately defined in current laws regulating pornography, and that Poem doesn't need to come up with another definition.

And as I said, the current laws regulating pornography refer to a couple of specific categories of porn, and Poem wants to extend those laws to refer to all porn.

 

[theprestige]

And as I said, the current laws regulating pornography refer to a couple of specific categories of porn, and Poem wants to extend those laws to refer to all porn.

I think you are incorrect. Non-obscene porn is also defined and regulated by law.

 

[Poem]

And as I said, the current laws regulating pornography refer to a couple of specific categories of porn, and Poem wants to extend those laws to refer to all porn.

Please clarify.

 

[Lithrael]

Tentacles predate censorship.

Look up Kinoe no Komatsu by Hokusai (yes, he of the famous Great Wave), 1815, and the most famous print from that three-volume work, The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. No I'm not going to link to it.

I KNEW somebody was gonna say that. (it's why I added the qualifier 'largely.') But come on. That kind of art comes from the exact same place of skirting trouble. It's the same idea. I can't have a block print of THAT but I can have one of this! Hee hee!

 

[theprestige]

Tentacles predate censorship.

Look up Kinoe no Komatsu by Hokusai (yes, he of the famous Great Wave), 1815, and the most famous print from that three-volume work, The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. No I'm not going to link to it.

Both things can be true. What starts out as a rare or uncommon trope can become the dominant sub-genre, whether due to shifting tastes, new regulations, or whatever.

 

[Myriad]

This is a red herring. The question of willingness to implement a ban is not the question of what to ban. I contend that the what is already adequately defined in current laws regulating pornography, and that Poem doesn't need to come up with another definition.

Maybe in some purely hypothetical discussion, like what architecture might look like if we had anti-gravity pads. But in the real world, in the US, First Amendment protections and legal precedents relating to same exist, so how we might legislate if they didn't is only of abstract interest.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe in some purely hypothetical discussion, like what architecture might look like if we had anti-gravity pads. But in the real world, in the US, First Amendment protections and legal precedents relating to same exist, so how we might legislate if they didn't is only of abstract interest.

How we might legislate is separate from the question of how we might define. Porn is already well (or well-enough) defined. That's how we know what's prohibited to sell to minors, and what kinds of online sexual content require some attempt to screen out minors, and what kinds of sexual content probably shouldn't be in middle school libraries. It's not necessary to press Poem for a bespoke definition of pornography. We already have well-established definitions in law. Just use those.

 

[arthwollipot]

How we might legislate is separate from the question of how we might define. Porn is already well (or well-enough) defined. That's how we know what's prohibited to sell to minors, and what kinds of online sexual content require some attempt to screen out minors, and what kinds of sexual content probably shouldn't be in middle school libraries. It's not necessary to press Poem for a bespoke definition of pornography. We already have well-established definitions in law. Just use those.

That would ban all kinds of content that adults have the right to produce and distribute legally, not just porn. The current definitions are loose and big-tent inclusive for reasons.

Anyway, this is all moot because you'd have to implement laws in all countries. A substantial amount of porn today is produced in Russia and I honestly can't see Russia doing making any kind of laws banning it.

 

[dirtywick]

if it was even possible to ban porn in western countries, in others with more sensible free expression laws it will continue to be produced, hosted, and distributed on the internet. there's no realistic method of keeping parts of the internet completely seperate.

PORNOGRAPHY IN CHINA | Facts and Details

factsanddetails.com

china is basically a surveillance state that has banned porn. and yet, it remains available both physically and on dvd. still have issues with human trafficking and prostitution, child abuse and so on.

 

[arthwollipot]

china is basically a surveillance state that has banned porn. and yet, it remains available both physically and on dvd. still have issues with human trafficking and prostitution, child abuse and so on.

In fact, it's arguably worse because it's been forced underground into the hands of dishonest agents.

 

[dirtywick]

In fact, it's arguably worse because it's been forced underground into the hands of dishonest agents.

i agree. i think porn is in many ways an ugly business. certainly could be worse.

 

[Lithrael]

One of the things I like about reasonably regulated access to (thing) as opposed to banned (thing) is that it cuts way, way down on stuff like 'Hi I would like (illegal but mild thing)' 'sure. Would you btw like (illegal and terrible thing?)'

 

[arthwollipot]

i agree. i think porn is in many ways an ugly business. certainly could be worse.

There is, in fact, quite a large industry of consensual, above-board and fully legal porn in the form of live webcams. These are produced and streamed by the performers themselves. It's also easy enough to find self-shot amateur porn, also completely legal, on sites like OnlyFans and Fanvue. If the internet really is "awash" with porn, it's this kind - porn that is completely, fully, and unambiguously legal.

 

[Poem]

No child is "a couple of clicks" away from porn.

Google 'Pornhub', click on their website, click on 'over 18'?

You are saying that is not possible? Or perhaps you are pedantically focussing on the 'two' of 'two clicks'?

 

[arthwollipot]

Google 'Pornhub', click on their website, click on 'over 18'?

You are saying that is not possible? Or perhaps you are pedantically focussing on the 'two' of 'two clicks'?

Sure, if you're aware that Pornhub is a thing and you're aware of what it's for. Children - by which I mean pre-puberty - don't generally go looking for porn. By the way you were speaking it seemed as though you were of the opinion that porn was two random clicks away from any website that caters to children, that children would reasonably be expected to already be on.

As soon as a child becomes aware that porn exists and what it's for, that's when it's time to have The Talk.