Arguments for and against making porn illegal

[Bumperlicious]

I have been listening to a few things recently on this opt in filtering system for internet activity, and when people have been arguing for the filter I have often heard them insist "we're not trying to make porn illegal" and I think "why the hell not?".

I think I am probably being naive here, but why wouldn't we want to make illegal the fetishising of systematic abuse of women? Is is simply the right to free speech? I wanted to write a post on my blog about it, but I need to understand the arguments a bit more.

Wouldn't it be tricky to define what exactly you were making illegal? When would it cross from being "titillation" to outright porn? What about people choosing to make photos/videos for themselves and then distributing them, without any pay being involved, would that be illegal too? And in what country would it be illegal, if the website was in another country would you make it illegal to view it here?

I'm not saying there isn't an argument against porn, just that making anything illegal requires very careful definitions of what that includes, and when things are on a sliding scale of seriousness, you have a lot of argument over where exactly to draw the line.

If we can't even get people to agree that making it less easy for children to access porn is a reasonable aim and worth restricting our activities just a tiny bit, then I doubt we'd get anywhere with that yet.

4.1 and 4.2 look relevant

Surely there are various types of media where there is no clear dividing line between what is and is not legal. Where it is not clear, there are people who will make that decision - courts, film classification bodies, the ASA and so on.

There are cases of material which may or may not be indecent images of children, misleading adverts, music videos which have too much sexualised content to be shown before the watershed, are too violent to get a 15 certificate and so on. Often there isn't a very detailed description of what is and is not acceptable, and context has to be taken into account.

So I don't think definition difficulties are a reason for not making porn illegal. As far as I understand it, some porn that is legal in the US is not legal here, so these definition issues must already be workable in law.

All right then, page 3 of The Sun. Is or isn't pornographic, should or shouldn't be legal?

It depends what society wants to make illegal. Julie Bindel was talking about images that centre on violence against women for entertainment purposes. That would not include things like page 3.

Other people might want to change the law on images that objectify women. That might mean that page 3 would be illegal in the context of a newspaper but would be acceptable in a magazine sold in public places but that was within a sealed wrapper.

If teh people in the porn (regardless of how 'fetishing' it is) are consenting and enjoying it, what business is it of ours to ban it?

I think school plays objectify the children in them... shall we ban school plays?

Why do people think they have a right to banning other peoples activities because they are different to their own?

I can't believe that you are truly comparing school plays objectifying children to porn objectifying women. People in porn are not always consenting to it and enjoying it. Have you ever read anything about the porn industry?

Porn sounds so harmless in theory- getting your jollies watching 2 consenting adults shag on screen- but it goes so badly wrong in practice. Is there a porn equivalent of the BBFC? Can they be stricter about what is illegal and what isn't as a compromise to an outright ban?

I think the easy availiabilty of page three and the like, normalises the idea of looking at topless, naked women for titalation, so as a first step, redifining the context in which these kind of images are sold, would stop it being so normalised.

EauRouge, I wasn't cmparing school plays with porno.

I don't like School Plays so i have decided that they should be banned. Simples. I will come up with a list of other things that should be banned on the grounds of my dislike to them shortly.

This, apprently, is how we roll in the UK now.

I am aware some people in porn are not consenting, but the vast majority of those, even in th emore hard core kinds, are. We are not all the same. If some one wnats to dress as a horse and pull around chariot let them, if people like playing naughty school boys let them.

Where there is a break down in the consenting participation, then allow the full force of the law to come down upon those at fault.

I know you weren't comparing school plays to porno. There are lots of reasons to object to porn and many people do- people are not calling for it to be banned simply because they don't like it. That is not 'how we roll' in the UK.

Oh FFS. If censorship's the answer it's a fucking stupid question. You can't make 'porn' illegal without making it impossible to have free and open communication about sexuality and the human body because you can't frame a law against'porn' that cannot be used by people who want to restrict sexual behaviour and put women back under the control of men.

It's a tricky one. I would support the idea of making porn less accessible particularly to children. If ISPs required customers to "opt in," this might help achieve this. But, it's never going to be the magic pill.

As fridakahlo says, images and messages from porn, including very hard core and violent porn, are reflected in many facets of our society from advertising to fashion, from music videos to social networking. Filters won't stop that.

Also, even if one family have a filter on their internet, there will be friends whose parents aren't so vigilant. Kids are more tech savvy than most of their parents, so they could find ways round it. And, what about mobile phones and tablets that use 3G or wireless technology?

I think the Daily Mail have backed this campaign because it gives them a chance to get on their moral high horses, present the problem and solution as simple and get all enraged when anyone disagrees with their campaign. It all sells papers, or more importantly, advertising because it generates higher circulation.

The solution, however, is much more complex than this and the problem is now so inextricably interwoven with our society, popular culture and values that it's going to take one helluva mult-pronged approach to reduce the damage (if that's even possible.)

I think there should be a lot more legal constraints around porn rather than an outright ban [because it would require endless definition of what porn actually is]- eg - robust health and safety at work legislation around the production of it, [which would in effect make it impossible to produce], robust laws around the distribution such as the participants having copyright/control of the images involving them [which would end the majority of the free stuff and make it less lucrative to be a director], perhaps needing a licence to distribute subject to equality law to challenge the violent misogynist/racist imagery and limit the spheres in which porn is shown/exposed, etc. I also like this thing of needing to 'opt in' to end the accidental exposure to porn...

I'm just throwing ideas around -

I agree with Foodunit, I think there needs to be more transparency in the porn industry, that it needs to have specific working legislation in order to protect the workers within the industry. Not that it needs to be banned.

My interpretation of what constitutes porn is vastly different from another and you cannot base laws on morality, you see how well that works for the rights of women when based around behaviors and reproductive rights...

Although antsypants I think health and safety would mean production would stop if it were in line with other employment:

1. Infection: No contact with bodily fluids or openings without protective gloves, safety goggles, aprons, full-body suits, etc.

2. Mental health: No humiliating, bullying, verbal abuse. No acts like bodily penetration that can lead to PTSD.

3. Protection from injury: No acts that cause bruising, tearing or more serious injury.

You see where I'm heading with this? With proper health and safety in place you could not actually produce porn. You would have actors in full-body plastic suits and goggles, unable to penetrate the body or call someone "whore".... In other words no one would want to watch porn that doesn't hurt women.

Foodunit: You also wouldn't be able to produce any drama apart from stuff thats suitable for Cbeebies (No more CSI, Game of Thrones, no more Shakespeare, no more Eastenders...People get verbally abused in all these. THey also sometimes kiss each other or get each other's tears on them). Nor would anyone be able to televise any kind of sport (it generally leads to bruising and sometimes serious injury and death).

And why this insistence that people only want to watch porn that involves the deliberate infliction of pain and verbal abuse? A lot of porn viewers prefer the stuff that depicts people having fun and actively dislike the rougher stuff.

Now I am in favour of decent workers' rights for porn performers: the right to be paid what was agreed and not be expected to perform any acts or tasks that were not in the original agreement - and the right to complain and pursue justice if you are assaulted or coerced or your pay is unreasonably withheld.
But the trouble is with trying to 'ban porn' is that it's not possible to come up with a proper definition of 'porn' that distinguishes it from all other kinds of artistic media and which isn't just a matter of some or other nut trying to ban everything s/he doesn't like looking at.

antsypants wrote - "you cannot base laws on morality".

Aren't most, if not all, laws based on morality? Based on the powerful people's opinion of what is right or wrong? Aren't Politics and Religion points on a morality spectrum?

Some morality-based laws are effective, some not.

Ironically, some pro-porn people like to make their own moral judgement that anti-porn people are morally wrong to object to porn.

If porn producers and users were not allowed to make and use pornography, they would undoubtedly be less free, but they are already living in a non-free world. There is no such thing as free speech.

Having a penis shoved done one's throat during porn production could be said to restrict rather than enhance so-called "free speech".

If the act shown is legal, it would be censorship.

solidgoldbrass "People get verbally abused in all these. THey also sometimes kiss each other or get each other's tears on them). Nor would anyone be able to televise any kind of sport (it generally leads to bruising and sometimes serious injury and death)."

I think there is a case for not having to exchange bodily fluid with another actor in eastenders for example - you can pretend to kiss and don't risk hepatitis or herpes. In sexual discrimination law it is up to the complainant to define what she feels is harassing - so instead of banning gender-based bullying words like 'whore' the individual can say if she felt harassed by them. I believe directors should have employer's responsibilities towards the actors they use. As for sport, protective gear is worn and I believe boxing should be banned.

The danger to your physical well being playing sport with the right gear is insignificant to the risk to having your body penetrated in positions that satisfy the viewer, rather than your own comfort or pleasure, by objects or potentially infectious penises, or hands with sharp nails. It is a completely different league. It is criminal to put people at risk like this as a matter of routine.

"A lot of porn viewers prefer the stuff that depicts people having fun and actively dislike the rougher stuff."

I just googled the word porn, clicked on the first link. trigger warning and the following are a few of the titles on the first page:

Jynx Maze is a nasty ANAL FANATIC
Little Caprice gets her tight teen pussy stretched
Hot Natural Blonde Cutie Gets Pounded
Horny Big-tit blonde office-slut Pornstar Abbey
Extreme hardcore gangbang
penthouse cumshot compilation
FakeAgent Innocent Teen takes first time

So if its true that a lot of people prefer the other stuff - then why the f*ck is this violent, misogynist stuff so popular?

A lot of people are vegetarian, so why the hell is meat so popular?

TeiTetua that is out of context

• a more fitting meat analogy would be if someone said there was no need to ban meat because a lot of people are vegetarian. Clearly that isn't good enough to someone who believes all meat eating should be banned.

With the 'meat' of the sex industry: violent, misogynist, harmful porn, there are many arguments as to why the people who believe they only like the non-harmful (vegetarian) stuff are probably deluding themselves about the apparent 'fun' that the participants are having (since it too is probably also violent, misogynist and harmful - just not overtly so).

On Saturday I asked about how Page 3 of the Sun should be treated, as being just about the mildest form of pornography there is--but as we all know, it's offensive and damaging by being so ubiquitous in the way it's distributed. It seems to me that claims that porn is harmful to the participants fails here. The women pictured in that paper are volunteers who think it's fun, though maybe some of them regret it later.

I think it's a demonstration that there's a range of harm done to the people who are shown in pornography, just as there is a range of images produced, and (most likely) a range of preferences for the consumers. If some of it should be illegal, we have to lay down a threshold where we say "beyond this point it's too harmful to be allowed". The trouble is there's no consensus on what that point should be. It just seems guaranteed that there will be some frontier which will be fought over from both sides.

Foodunit: porn performers are just as capable of other actors of understanding that a nasty word said during a performance is acting, not personal abuse. Are you really trying to suggest that no actor should ever have to hear abusive language from another actor in the course of a performance?
Or is this the usual pro-censorship idiocy of 'Oh well, art is all right, it's just that nasty stuff we want banned' when it is not possible to draw up a proper objective procensorship law, and most of the people in favour of censorship have intentions far more harmfull than someone calling someone else a cunt at some point.