If pornography was to be made illegal what would the penalties involved be?

I agree with everything written by springchickengoldbrass

Just in the 14 messages that this thread had when I started typing, it's clear how hopeless this is. It starts out "If pornography was to be made illegal" and then it becomes clear that people envision all kinds of pornography, produced in all kinds of ways, from the solo to the industrial. And there are also all kinds of definitions of what pornography actually is.

We might just possibly get some sort of safety-at-work rules to apply to actors in videos, but that could only cover a small part of the business. We might also get a consensus on "extreme pornography" and regulate that somewhat. But once people begin arguing, we either have to let one faction impose itself on others, or we'd just have to drop it (which means going with the free-for-all faction).

SpringchickenGoldBrass

I must say I find the idea of official inspectors enforcing minimum standards in the porn industry pretty mind-boggling. Would they turn up with their clipboards to watch the filming?

If you ban pornography it means you criminalise the producers (and maybe customers) rather than the performers, who could be helped into alternative employment. This would work in the same way as the anti-prostitution laws in Sweden for example.

I'm not sayng a ban on pornography would be easy to enforce but I don't find your arguments against it very convincing.

If these ridiculous ideas were implemented, the working conditions of porn performers would worsen. There would be a thriving industry in forged assessments, additional pressure on unwilling performers to comply with employees' demands, and performers would feel unable to seek help because they would perceive themselves as already criminalized.
Once again, porn is a Good Thing if made by willing performers, and the answer to the problems within the industry is to empower from the workforce upwards, not try and formulate new laws which are only going to get hijacked by superstitious, sexually-dysfunctional fuckwits anyway.

I wouldn't support psychological tests on porn performers, because if someone did have mental health problems, they would be deterred from seeking help because of the job consequences.

Another problem with mandatory testing of employees would be - like all the things that are heavily regulated - that it is harder and more relatively expensive for small businesses to comply. So it would work in favour of big producers rather than small groups of individuals who want to get together and do it, and this would, I imagine, tend to disempower performers still further.

My first thought is that one kind of pornography - the kind that involves children - is already illegal so if you wanted to ban all of it you might want to use that as a model.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the section on 'arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography' states that:

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable?.
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;.
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Also, would you want to tackle the demand side by making purchase of pornography illegal? That of course is the case with child porn, and also to some extent with adult prostitution.

Your proposals are extremely invasive and indicate a wierd attitude towards sex and entertainment. People who do jobs which are recognised as hard and dangerous, or which involve risking the lives of other people do not have to put up with intrusive psychiatric, financial and health assessments against their wishes.
The problems with pornography that need addressing are the poor working conditions and exploitation of performers, which would be better solved by less stigmatizing of porn performers as desperate drug addled victims in the first place and more support for better working conditions within the industry.

Also, AGAIN, there is NOTHING WRONG with depicting human breasts and genitals, or stimulation of the same, for sexual gratification as long as performers (and viewers) are consenting adults.

I would like there to be more focus on evidence that the people involved in the making of the material were not being exploited, rather than just make a judgement based on what visual images were contained in the material.

Would that no be decided upon on a case by case basis, rather like advertising regulations are, or tv programmes shown before the watershed are? After test cases, distributors would know whether what they were attempting to distribute was likely to be illegal, likely to be legal, or fall somewhere in the middle and therefore likely to be accepted after some changes had been agreed upon and made.

It is extremely unlikely that all sexually explicit material would become illegal.

It would be like the Equality Act, and many other Acts. Exactly what is and is not illegal in terms of homophobia or racism has been established by test cases, not by being clearly defined in the original act.

Why not start with a proper legal definition of what constitutes pornography that won't inadvertently target sex education material, art, any kind of film that features naked bodies...
There is nothing wrong with producing sexually explicit entertainment material as long as all performers are willing to perform and are properly treated.

I don't think anyone (apart from perhaps some extremely religious people) are asking for all pornography not to be produced. If some people want to photograph or film themselves having sex, it is nobody else's business. The exception to that would be where a person was exploited, or that person was either unwilling or unable to properly consent. In that case, the law would be similar to other cases of non-filmed non-consent and coercion in sexual acts.

It is the distribution of pornography which would be targeted by law, and I suspect there would be different levels of punishment based on where and how the pornography was distributed, who was likely to see it, and what kind of sex was being recorded.