Porn Free Speech Vs. The Greater Good

[seeker83]

I know the forum has been through a lot due to takedowns, and this post is NOT, I repeat, NOT a criticism of the moderators nor the actions they have taken to keep our forum running.  It is rather to explore the general topic of Censorship.

The ongoing forum suspensions got me thinking about the nature of sexual free speech/expression and the greater good of society at large.  I think we all have a different idea of where this line is or should be.  Some people here have the legal experience to bear on the question.

I guess for me, the question comes down to, what causes real harm vs. what people are just offended by.

To me, a text story does not cause real harm to someone with the mental and emotional capacity to handle it.  Pornography between consenting adults in general, does not cause real harm (unless those performing were coerced in some way).  Animated erotic imagery such as Hentai or drawn/CG comics do not, to me consitiute the ability to cause real harm.  I may personally not care for lolicon content, but it does not mean I think it should be heavily censored.

They key in my text above is "someone with the mental and emotional capacity to handle it".  Parents have the duty and responsibility to protect their children from certain content and to have healthy and open conversations about it once children approach ages where they begin to transition to a more adult mentality.  Individuals must learn to take personal responsibility for what they themselves can and cannot handle and instead of calling to "ban all the things I don't like" just don't go out and view it.  It is pretty simple, if you don't like something, then don't go there, right? 

I do not think it is wise to have governments step into fictional content situations or consensual porn unless ACTUAL underage, rape, incest (not between consenting adults) or non-consensual content is found.  Obviously, the state does have the right and duty to protect the well-being of its citizens.

That said, I think AI-image generation and easier access to 3D animation are going to cause a weird zone in the near future.  At what point would say, hyper-realistic but artificially generated images of underage persons or adult/child sexual encounters cause problems?  Would such imagery constitute real harm for persons coming across it?  The same goes for truly violent AI-generated depictions of simulated real rape.  Where does that fall into line?  I'm not sure.

Again, these are my opinions, and they are just that, opinions.  I do not claim to be a scholar or legal expert and know that yes, it is dumbing down a much bigger and more difficult topic.  I would love to hear where everyone else stands as well.

[Guy Fawkes]

I know the forum has been through a lot due to takedowns, and this post is NOT, I repeat, NOT a criticism of the moderators nor the actions they have taken to keep our forum running.  It is rather to explore the general topic of Censorship.

The ongoing forum suspensions got me thinking about the nature of sexual free speech/expression and the greater good of society at large.  I think we all have a different idea of where this line is or should be.  Some people here have the legal experience to bear on the question.

I guess for me, the question comes down to, what causes real harm vs. what people are just offended by.

I appreciate the way you're looking at it rationally, as opposed to emotionally. I just wish the politicians in my country had done so.

To me, a text story does not cause real harm to someone with the mental and emotional capacity to handle it.  Pornography between consenting adults in general, does not cause real harm (unless those performing were coerced in some way).  Animated erotic imagery such as Hentai or drawn/CG comics do not, to me consitiute the ability to cause real harm.  I may personally not care for lolicon content, but it does not mean I think it should be heavily censored.

Where I live (Great White North) such materials are classified as child pornography, and are punished as such.

They key in my text above is "someone with the mental and emotional capacity to handle it".  Parents have the duty and responsibility to protect their children from certain content and to have healthy and open conversations about it once children approach ages where they begin to transition to a more adult mentality.  Individuals must learn to take personal responsibility for what they themselves can and cannot handle and instead of calling to "ban all the things I don't like" just don't go out and view it.  It is pretty simple, if you don't like something, then don't go there, right? 

That is a reasonable approach; unfortunately, history has shown that the authorities are keen to ban anything they don't like. You have the cases of Frank McCoy and Thomas Arthur, most recently, and perhaps 33 years back, the case of Mike Diana, the Florida native who was the first comic book/zine artist to be prosecuted and convicted for obscenity.

I do not think it is wise to have governments step into fictional content situations or consensual porn unless ACTUAL underage, rape, incest (not between consenting adults) or non-consensual content is found.  Obviously, the state does have the right and duty to protect the well-being of its citizens.

Politicans are almost always going to fail to restrain themselves. If they don't like something, ban-it!

That said, I think AI-image generation and easier access to 3D animation are going to cause a weird zone in the near future.  At what point would say, hyper-realistic but artificially generated images of underage persons or adult/child sexual encounters cause problems?  Would such imagery constitute real harm for persons coming across it?  The same goes for truly violent AI-generated depictions of simulated real rape.  Where does that fall into line?  I'm not sure.

As long as the Comstock Laws (i.e. 18 USC 1462) are on the books, such materials will be prosecuted as obscene -- they went after plain text in the McCoy and Arthur cases -- in the case of something more realistic, they'll be all over it.

Again, these are my opinions, and they are just that, opinions.  I do not claim to be a scholar or legal expert and know that yes, it is dumbing down a much bigger and more difficult topic.  I would love to hear where everyone else stands as well.

I don't realistically see this debate ever ending, unless the Religious Reich gets into power, and bans virtually everything to do with sex.