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 never said it was, only that the line exists, and is apparent to anyone willing to reasonably self reflect, especially those who defend degeneracy in media, like the examples you provided, because they "like" the show/movie/media it's in, which compels them to defend everything within it, for some reason. I don't agree with everything in every show I watch or book I read, even my favorite ones.
Is the Witcher porn? It has needless nudity and sex scenes to sell the product and push degeneracy. It's softcore porn, but it is porn. The same with Game of Thrones.
I'm not sure what other shows or media you're referring to.
In any case, this kind of "entertainment" wasn't common or needed until recently. It's a new phenomenon, pushed by the people in power to control us. Are you suggesting that we need nudity and sex in our entertainment for it to be entertaining?
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
I never said it was, only that the line exists, and is apparent to anyone willing to reasonably self reflect, especially those who defend degeneracy in media, like the examples you provided, because they "like" the show/movie/media it's in, which compels them to defend everything within it, for some reason. I don't agree with everything in every show I watch or book I read, even my favorite ones.
Is the Witcher porn? It has needless nudity and sex scenes to sell the product and push degeneracy. It's softcore porn, but it is porn. The same with Game of Thrones.
I'm not sure what other shows or media you're referring to.
In any case, this kind of "entertainment" wasn't common or needed until recently. It's a new phenomenon, pushed by the people in power to control us. Are you suggesting that we need nudity and sex in our entertainment for it to be entertaining?