Seriously, what's the argument for porn being speech and expression? What is the message it's trying to convey?
Edit: Guys, I'm asking if it's speech/expression and, if so, how. Most of the comments in support of it aren't answering the question, just showing their support for free speech and expression, in general. Only one guy has made a case for it, comparing it to car shows and art. And, even though I have reservations about labeling it as art, I appreciate that he's making a case for it and not just side-stepping the issue.
I'll do you one better. In 2002 Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition ruled by the Supreme Court that simulated child pornography is protected free speech. As in, drawings and clearly fake images.
One of their main arguments, which will answer your own question, is that Romeo and Juliet is an undeniable classic of artistic expression for all of history. Yet because it is between teens a slight amount of too much skin (remember, most of America did and still uses the Miller Test which is basically "does a regular person find it obscene? WELL ITS NOT FREE SPEECH ANYMORE GET FUCKED") could instantly get it labelled pornographic and therefore due for extreme consequences.
So the question then becomes what is the difference between porn and artistic work featuring nudity/sexuality/etc. Which is incredibly hard to do because of that aforementioned Miller Test and its intentional vagueness for abuse. The difference between Titantic's sex scene and something out of porn is production value, name recognition, and a story built around it. The only of which that isn't just "only the rich can make it" is the story, which then means only the quality of the story is the seperator and means that "is this well written" becomes a defining factor of if something is obscene or not. I think it goes without saying that letting that be a factor is a recipe for bad.
The question shouldn't be if it is speech/expression, that's worthlessly subjective. The question is if it isn't, what would you do to restrict it that isn't ripe for abuse, moral crusading, and undefinable wankery?
A production Romeo and Juliet doesnt need to show tits or even kissing to work. Its basically a morality play whose lesson is allowing teenagers to follow their arbitrary hormonal whims leads to disaster.
It doesn't, but it can and will. The point isn't that it needs to. Its that it can and what constitutes "inappropriate" is incredibly subjective.
You've actually made the point even better. Because "well it doesn't need to do that" is the exact argument people would make for censoring anything. Bioshock Infinite didn't need to use the word nigger once in its super racist city, but it also should have been allowed to (and really it stands out that it didn't).
Its not that any of this is necessary. Its that the moment you try to restrict it, you open a massive door for abuse and censorship well beyond any and all things you think it will be used for.
Unless you are wiling to proclaim your support for showing child porn in public broadcasts then you also want some speech rules according to your subjective rationalizations.
All rules, laws, limits, traditions, conventions etc are subjective. That isn't a "gotcha" and doesn't mean they don't usefully serve a good purpose. It just means we may need to scrutinize particular instances of limits to determine if they are serving the intended objectives and maybe adjust them as necessary.
I wouldn't because these are videos in which a victim is being assaulted and a major crime committed. This also isn't a "gotcha" either.
Yes, and we should also always be aware of the worst application of any limit we apply and how it will be used by people who we disagree with entirely. That's why, for instance, the Bill of Rights uses phrases like "shall not be infringed" instead of "reasonable and common sense measures."
The reason I use the "subjective" phrase isn't because of some philosophical cop out. Its because that's the law in the US. The Miller Test is the law in most areas and its an entirely subjective test that involves things like "a normal person" and "would deem it lacking in artistic merit." Which means you can get in legal trouble based on the whims and moods of random people depending on the day.
You can create your society on pure utopian "it'll work great as we adjust them exactly as need be whenever needed" or you can recognize that those in power and those with nefarious deeds will abuse whatever censoring you push for their own goals while only the regular man gets the consequence. You know, like how we know gun control will turn out.
What percentage of Titanic’s run time is dedicated to nudity and sex? 1-2%?
Now look at a porno. That percentage is almost inverted.
It’s not impossible to distinguish porn from art. People just don’t want to do it.
So now its arbitrary numbers that random people deem is the line. Alright, that's totally not abusable in the slightest. We don't have race quotas using that same logic across the nation.
So is Rance Quest porn? You've easily got 95+% gameplay and very little porn by comparison. Your test is lacking.