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.
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.
So are depictions of murder and battery and shoplifting and vandalism. Yet its only a crime to possess pictures of one specific crime and not every crime, why is that?
They will do it anyway. Do you think the neomarxists have any empathy for us? We are standing in the way of their utopia, their heaven on earth that is "just around the corner" once they get rid of us. Anything harm hey commit against us has been per-justified by their delusional belief system.
I can't because I don't produce porn. You can cry about edge cases all you want but the existence of edge cases doesn't change the general case. If few "mostly harmless" perverts being occasionally scooped up is the price to keep degeneracy out of the public sphere then to me that is a very reasonable trade.
Because sexual crimes are considered more heinous than others. If you want that idea to change, or us to ban holding onto criminal evidence in general I'd be willing to listen to either argument. But that wasn't yours, its just you moving the goalpost because I didn't give you the gotcha.
Then don't make it easier for them by playing right into their hands. Because this won't make actual difference, as we know very obviously they, the government and those in power won't be effected by these changes in the slightest. So you aren't saving anyone, just letting those you hate have more control of you.
It says a lot that you are so blinded by your own little moral superiority you think the only people who can get scooped up are "still perverts" and not regular people who accidentally went afoul of laws written intentionally to catch them.
Ironic, because the previous paragraph you were complaining about them being willing to do any harm possible to us but now you think this new system will only catch bad people.