Now, if you want to fight this through an argument based around a State's power that'd probably be easier. The lists and things required to prohibit users from accessing xxx material as the UK was talking about, for a basic example off the top of my head.
A fascist state could simply define the industry and shackle it directly without trying to turn citizen rights into one-size-fits-all legislation for corporations and narratively duck-taping that to the concept of individual rights
It's not, kids accessing porn is infamous for being unavoidable and the only thing we can do is ban kids from using porn accounts and participating in fetish communities.
Anything else such as advanced age verification is a massive security/privacy risk that cannot be tolerated.
On the most basic level yeah it's "censorship" but free speech absolutism is retarded and no sane person believes in it.
If the gov was bringing in regulations to require age verification for porn sites I'd support it, just like I support banning alcohol ads to children. If porn or liquor ads were banned for adults I'd oppose it, like I oppose the banning of cigarette ads- if they're so terrible why are they legal and you're collecting massive taxes on them?
The idea of giving parents a harder time protecting their children is a politically easy solution, but it’s not conducive to a good, successful society.
The laws of the state should reflect the morals of the society. The power of the people collectivized in the state is often more efficient at achieving widespread results than individual effort. Propagators of obscene material in public are offenders who can easily do harm to large numbers of people but cannot be easily stopped without state authority.
To fight against govt censorship I must support the purveyance of the obscene to the innocent??
Yes, that is literally how every fight against government censorship starts. They take the targets you feel gross being with because it sets precedent and foundation, and then they use that foot in the door to kick it open.
Nothing about the concept of free speech implies that you have to let perverts show hardcore porn to children. It's a 105-115 IQ libertarian take, much like the idea that it would somehow be bad to arrest and silence every communist in the US or that urban black people should have the same access to guns that non-black people do. No principle worth following obligates you to let yourself be destroyed to follow it.
Only if you've bought into the insane and wrong idea that porn is speech.
Speech conveys information. Porn does not. Speech is constructive to a healthy society. Porn is wholly destructive upon society, at every magnitude of scale.
The people who pushed the erroneous idea that porn is speech, are the same people pushing porn and other Weimar degeneracy. You've fallen victim to their false choice trap, through rebranding/redefining of words, to mean what they never meant, to obfuscate topics and confuse people.
It's perfectly justifiable and logical to allow free speech, but to ban porn.
I made a lengthy comment about this a while ago that I can dig up if you like. It goes into more detail about why porn isn't speech.
Porn: people having sex acts and/or nude degeneracy on camera for the purpose of masturbation/arousal of the viewer. It's also a form of control (ponder why Israel pushes free porn through TV airwaves in Palestine).
Obscenity (in this context): Degeneracy being pushed on the people for the sole purpose of corrupting them.
Porn, degeneracy, and "obscenity" in your reply are identical in their purpose, to weaken, corrupt, and control the populace, so the people in power can attain more power over the people and implement their plans.
There's art that depicts nudity that wouldn't be banned under free speech laws, because the purpose is clearly different from porn. One is creative and adds beauty. The other is destructive. Most rational people can discern the difference, even if not told, that there's a distinct difference just in the content and purpose. As example, look at the ancient Greek and Roman statues.
To be fair to the point that I'm assuming you're trying to make, there are obviously variations in views about where the line is between porn and speech, but that doesn't negate that there's a distinction and that the line exists, that the purposes are different.
If someone is unwilling to differentiate between porn and speech under the false assumption that infringing on porn will infringe on speech, especially under the current conditions of the world, in both degeneracy and open censorship of speech already, then they're deluding themselves, to the point of idiotic self destruction, and opening up their people to be permanently controlled, idiotic mass suicide.
The point is that the line isn't as cut and dry. There have always been media that toe the line between porn and art.
Is The Witcher porn? GoT, the old GoW, or some shit like Shimoneta, Redo of a healer, hell. Even the Skull girls panty shots can be considered too gratuitous, that's the excuse labzero used to remove them
I'm forced to defend their ability to communicate with minors because I want complete liberty in the exchange of information.
To fight against govt censorship I must support the purveyance of the obscene to the innocent??
Fuck. Everything.
Why must stopping "the purveyance of the obscene to the innocent" be considered censorship?
Another pitfall of freespeech absolutism.
Now, if you want to fight this through an argument based around a State's power that'd probably be easier. The lists and things required to prohibit users from accessing xxx material as the UK was talking about, for a basic example off the top of my head.
A fascist state could simply define the industry and shackle it directly without trying to turn citizen rights into one-size-fits-all legislation for corporations and narratively duck-taping that to the concept of individual rights
The biggest pitfall of free speech absolutism is how completely retarded it is.
It's not, kids accessing porn is infamous for being unavoidable and the only thing we can do is ban kids from using porn accounts and participating in fetish communities.
Anything else such as advanced age verification is a massive security/privacy risk that cannot be tolerated.
On the most basic level yeah it's "censorship" but free speech absolutism is retarded and no sane person believes in it.
If the gov was bringing in regulations to require age verification for porn sites I'd support it, just like I support banning alcohol ads to children. If porn or liquor ads were banned for adults I'd oppose it, like I oppose the banning of cigarette ads- if they're so terrible why are they legal and you're collecting massive taxes on them?
I mean, there are these things called "parents"
The idea of giving parents a harder time protecting their children is a politically easy solution, but it’s not conducive to a good, successful society.
The idea of turning the state into a nanny yadda yadda
The laws of the state should reflect the morals of the society. The power of the people collectivized in the state is often more efficient at achieving widespread results than individual effort. Propagators of obscene material in public are offenders who can easily do harm to large numbers of people but cannot be easily stopped without state authority.
Yes, that is literally how every fight against government censorship starts. They take the targets you feel gross being with because it sets precedent and foundation, and then they use that foot in the door to kick it open.
Nothing about the concept of free speech implies that you have to let perverts show hardcore porn to children. It's a 105-115 IQ libertarian take, much like the idea that it would somehow be bad to arrest and silence every communist in the US or that urban black people should have the same access to guns that non-black people do. No principle worth following obligates you to let yourself be destroyed to follow it.
Only if you've bought into the insane and wrong idea that porn is speech.
Speech conveys information. Porn does not. Speech is constructive to a healthy society. Porn is wholly destructive upon society, at every magnitude of scale.
The people who pushed the erroneous idea that porn is speech, are the same people pushing porn and other Weimar degeneracy. You've fallen victim to their false choice trap, through rebranding/redefining of words, to mean what they never meant, to obfuscate topics and confuse people.
It's perfectly justifiable and logical to allow free speech, but to ban porn.
I made a lengthy comment about this a while ago that I can dig up if you like. It goes into more detail about why porn isn't speech.
Now let's define porn and obscenity
Porn: people having sex acts and/or nude degeneracy on camera for the purpose of masturbation/arousal of the viewer. It's also a form of control (ponder why Israel pushes free porn through TV airwaves in Palestine).
Obscenity (in this context): Degeneracy being pushed on the people for the sole purpose of corrupting them.
Porn, degeneracy, and "obscenity" in your reply are identical in their purpose, to weaken, corrupt, and control the populace, so the people in power can attain more power over the people and implement their plans.
There's art that depicts nudity that wouldn't be banned under free speech laws, because the purpose is clearly different from porn. One is creative and adds beauty. The other is destructive. Most rational people can discern the difference, even if not told, that there's a distinct difference just in the content and purpose. As example, look at the ancient Greek and Roman statues.
To be fair to the point that I'm assuming you're trying to make, there are obviously variations in views about where the line is between porn and speech, but that doesn't negate that there's a distinction and that the line exists, that the purposes are different.
If someone is unwilling to differentiate between porn and speech under the false assumption that infringing on porn will infringe on speech, especially under the current conditions of the world, in both degeneracy and open censorship of speech already, then they're deluding themselves, to the point of idiotic self destruction, and opening up their people to be permanently controlled, idiotic mass suicide.
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story-sin-censorship-catholic-church
The point is that the line isn't as cut and dry. There have always been media that toe the line between porn and art.
Is The Witcher porn? GoT, the old GoW, or some shit like Shimoneta, Redo of a healer, hell. Even the Skull girls panty shots can be considered too gratuitous, that's the excuse labzero used to remove them