• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Should we shut the hypothetical street corner porn booth

  • Total voters
    10
theprestige said:
I guess what I want to know is, what on earth does your personal taste in porn have to do with the question of how we should address porn in public policy?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. I never said it did. Someone mentioned that the average time spent on Pornhub was ten minutes. I responded to that.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
........................blah blah blah..............................
Click to expand...
Do pornographers allow infestations of CSAM and rape videos? Videos that can make them money? Do their business models encourage such - as in allow as much content as possible in order that they increase their chances of a conversion?
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Do pornographers allow infestations of CSAM and rape videos? Videos that can make them money? Do their business models encourage such - as in allow as much content as possible in order that they increase their chances of a conversion?
Click to expand...
Is it worth the risk of being caught and prosecuted, and potentially spending years in jail?
 
Poem said:
Are you denying that there is a high demand for risky material?
Click to expand...
I am, actually. Most people know that CSAM and NC material are illegal to possess. While there is certainly an active illegal underground market for such material, that does not mean "high demand". The vast majority of porn consumers are interested only in legal porn, except when it is barred to them, which falls into the following scenario:

I'm looking for this mild and safe illegal thing.
Oh I can give you that. Here, do you also want some extreme and stupidly unsafe illegal things?
 
theprestige said:
I think this is a dead end argument. We already have adequate definitions to regulate pornography.
Click to expand...
I don't think we do. We have definitions of obscene material (though they are rather problematic). We have definitions of sexually explicit material. But I don't think we really have good legal definitions of pornography. For example, is Eyes Wide Shut a pornographic film? It's sexually explicit, but I don't think most people would categorize it as pornography. So it matters quite a lot whether we're talking about pornography as commonly understood (but what's the legal definition?), or basically any sexually explicit material. What does Poem want to ban? Does he want to ban Eyes Wide Shut? That question isn't an argument at all, but it's rather important in order to clarify what the argument is.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think we do. We have definitions of obscene material (though they are rather problematic). We have definitions of sexually explicit material. But I don't think we really have good legal definitions of pornography. For example, is Eyes Wide Shut a pornographic film? It's sexually explicit, but I don't think most people would categorize it as pornography. So it matters quite a lot whether we're talking about pornography as commonly understood (but what's the legal definition?), or basically any sexually explicit material. What does Poem want to ban? Does he want to ban Eyes Wide Shut? That question isn't an argument at all, but it's rather important in order to clarify what the argument is.
Click to expand...
We have laws that regulate certain material as for over-18 audiences, and the like. You don't have to change any definitions, to change "don't sell this magazine to minors" to "don't sell this magazine to anyone."
 
theprestige said:
We have laws that regulate certain material as for over-18 audiences, and the like. You don't have to change any definitions, to change "don't sell this magazine to minors" to "don't sell this magazine to anyone."
Click to expand...
Sure, but is that even what Poem is talking about? Does Poem want to ban Eyes Wide Shut? I honestly don't know, which is why having Poem define what HE means by pornography is important. It's one thing to say that it's possible to define pornography, but if we end up arguing about something other than what's being proposed, we're just chasing our tails. So it is in fact rather important for Poem to define exactly what he wants to ban.
 
Poem said:
Do pornographers allow infestations of CSAM and rape videos?
Click to expand...
Legal pornographers? Not really. Neither the producers nor the distributors. That's why the internet isn't actually 'awash' with such content, and you have to look for it in cleverly-obfuscated places far outside lawful porn sites.

Poem said:
Videos that can make them money? Do their business models encourage such - as in allow as much content as possible in order that they increase their chances of a conversion?
Click to expand...
You have yet to demonstrate any money-making link between lawful pornographers and banned CSAM and rape material.

Anyway, CSAM and rape material continues to be a red herring. Those things are already banned. Banning what is currently lawful porn won't stop the creation and dissemination of CSAM via digital and physical black markets.

So stop trying to distract us with these CSAM tangents. Explain why pornography - a human right of free expression - needs to be banned. What good will it serve, that compensates for the harm of restraining a human right in this way?
 
theprestige said:
And I'm saying we can just assume the current regulatory definitions as our working definitions for a ban, and move on.
Click to expand...
No, we cannot. There's more than one regulatory definition, we have no idea which one Poem wants to talk about. Again, this isn't a question of whether or not a definition is possible. We need to know what definition we're actually going to be using. And even if you pick one, there's no reason to assume Poem will agree with your choice. If Poem doesn't actually tell us what he wants to ban, we cannot really talk about what that even means, let alone conclude whether it's good or bad, possible or not.
 
theprestige said:
Legal pornographers? Not really. Neither the producers nor the distributors. That's why the internet isn't actually 'awash' with such content, and you have to look for it in cleverly-obfuscated places far outside lawful porn sites.
Click to expand...

i would concede it’s on the user generated content lawful sites, particularly since anyone can upload any video to them similar to youtube. but, it’s often hidden by obscure tags that only certain people can find, you’d never see such content featured by the site itself, and they delete and moderate it and take action when it’s found.

but you’ll find such content for similar reasons on any user generated content site or file sharing site. which is why poem brings up x so often, anyone can upload anything to it. sometimes they upload illegal stuff to share with other creeps.
 
theprestige said:
And I'm saying we can just assume the current regulatory definitions as our working definitions for a ban, and move on.
Click to expand...
The current regulatory definitions refer specifically (to take one example) to depictions of people under the age of 18. You can't use that definition to regulate content that only includes depictions of people over the age of 18.
 
arthwollipot said:
The current regulatory definitions refer specifically (to take one example) to depictions of people under the age of 18. You can't use that definition to regulate content that only includes depictions of people over the age of 18.
Click to expand...
Already addressed. There are also definitions that are used to regulate content that only includes depictions of people over the age of 18.
 
theprestige said:
Already addressed. There are also definitions that are used to regulate content that only includes depictions of people over the age of 18.
Click to expand...
Sure, but again, which definition are we using? That's not a trivial question.

The live action TV show The Tick (2016, not 2001) is rated TV-MA. Why? Because there's a shot where you can see a guy's naked ass. There is absolutely nothing sexual (or sexy) about it at all, but still, nudity, so TV-MA. Are we going to call that porn? Is that what Poem wants to ban? I would guess no, but it's only a guess until Poem chimes in. We can't speak for him. And even if you want to put forward your own proposal for consideration, you still need to specify what exactly that standard/definition is. It doesn't suffice to say there are definitions out there, because there are multiple definitions out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom