I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already.

My personal experience when debating people on this subject, reading what people think and what their views are, generally, for many, many years, and from all of the studies on porn use show that most men consume porn, and many (most?) are addicted to it. I've seen what addicts say when you try to take away their dopamine source. I've been to AA meetings for family members. I know how addiction works. I struggle with my own addictions. Addicts lash out and attack you, using the exact same arguments and justifications that people in this thread use to justify their addiction, even if what you're doing will help them.

You're right, though, my assertion is pure conjecture, but it's in good faith, and supported by a lot of evidence.

Porn isn't speech. That has always been a weak Appeal To Authority argument that always annoyed me because it becomes a thought terminator argument and makes it hard to ever debate the issue

I haven't heard that before. How is advocating porn as speech an appeal to authority? Do you mean relying on what other bad faith actors have said about porn being speech? If so, I agree. Everyone, even many people on the right, just seem to accept that porn is somehow speech, without every questioning it. I unequivocally disagree that porn is speech. It doesn't fulfill any of the reasons for speech. At the most, porn is "bad" speech, in that it's objectively harmful. For more clarification, check out my longer reply to dagthegnome where I dissect porn point by point.

It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over

Currently, I wouldn't want the federal government to have this power either. This is all just academic right now. Western civilization is headed toward collapse, and one of the primary reasons is uncontrolled hedonism. Governments shouldn't be concentrated at the top. I believe the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had it right, that local and state governments should hold the most power and the federal government the least. In this regard, I absolutely understand people's hesitance to ban porn. It's because most people have been gaslit into believing everything needs to be decided on the federal and global level. That's not how people work. People are supposed to form communities around like minded people, who hold very similar views, views which become less common the larger the populace becomes and the greater the distances, which is one of the reasons why large centralized governments should hold the least power, because of decreasing commonality among the citizenry.

However, I absolutely think local and state governments should have the power to ban porn. If people don't like it, they're free to leave. I'd even trust some state governments with doing this currently.

and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse.

Eh, maybe. This is all academic for me, currently. I'm pretty much certain that civilizational collapse is headed our way, and it's accelerating. Every vector is pointing in one direction. Mass violence and misery is going to happen, whether we want it or not. How it plays out, I don't know. All I know is that current Western civilization can't maintain itself. This conversation is more useful for after the collapse and reformation. But, that's a big tangent.

pro-porn people (and I lean more strongly towards that camp) need to come up with better arguments than free speech. Not only is it a weak argument, but even mixing platitudes like "freedom of expression" and making the first amendment about art or entertainment dilutes its actual purpose - which is to protect all our other rights through the public dissemination of anti-government political speech and controversial ideas. So we don't become like the bugmen.

I find this somewhat fascinating, as I've drifted to the "extremes" of this debate. I actually believe that free speech goes far beyond mere criticism of government. It's the idea that people should be free to express their opinions, free from punishment. When you look at it, all a freedom/right/liberty is, is the ability to do something without being punished. People are free to dissassociate from people they disagree with, but that's not really a punishment, even though corporate woke culture is weaponizing it (deplatforming) against people who say any form of wrongthink. Free speech isn't for talking about the weather, it's the idea that people are free to say things other people don't want them to. We've seen what powerful corporations can do under the guise of the "free market". Censorship abounds under "hate speech" rules, and people (mostly leftists) actively defend it, because "technically, the government isn't censoring you", when in reality they only agree with it because it's censoring their political opponents. Concentration of power by itself is dangerous, whether through corporations or governments. I freely admit that. However, natural rights (like free speech) go far beyond what's entailed in the Constitution. Granted, the federal government was meant to protect our liberties, which they're now infringing on.

I'll give a short example. The 2nd Amendment isn't about gun ownership. It's about people being able to protect themselves. The 1st natural right of all life is that it has a right to live. The 2nd natural right of all life, therefore, is the ability for life to protect itself, so it can continue living. The 2nd Amendment is a roundabout way of ensconcing the 2nd natural right of life, by enabling people to carry the most advanced and compact force equalizer, a means of protecting themselves from aggressors, no matter who they may be. If someone advocates for the banning of guns, it means they don't believe people have the right to defend themselves, and ultimately (whether by incompetence or maliciousness) means they don't think people have the right to live, or more accurately, wish to decide when people live or die. The malicious won't admit this, of course, and the incompetent (useful idiots) have never thought about it. Even most avid gun "nuts" haven't even thought of this, because the current arguments are often a distraction, to keep people from the core, foundational reasons, which easily cuts through the bullshit and lies.

In any case, I'm closer to a free speech absolutist. However, the one exception I have is porn. Porn isn't speech, and even if it was, it shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Porn is actively harmful to people. It's a control mechanism used by the people in power to keep men lonely, without a wife and children, weak, addicted to degeneracy and hedonistic pursuits, and unmotivated.

But he's not going to link to any of them

Here ya go:

Point 1 (the purpose of speech):

Why did humans invent spoken languages? It was initially to communicate dangers (watch out for that snake/spider/lion/poisonous plant), and to convey helpful information (that plant is edible, that plant treats this ailment, it's better to build here, it's better to plant this now, it's better to hunt like this, it's better to make your spear point like this). Why did humans invent written languages? It was to teach our children this same information. The foremost priority of speech is to convey useful information. What useful information does porn convey? Nothing. People have been procreating long before porn.

What's the purpose of written languages, of teaching our children, and education in general? Is it not to improve over time? Is it not to enable our children to be better than we were, to know more than we knew, to reach farther than we did? Does porn help our children? No.

Point 2 (marriage, civilization, and porn):

What's the basis for civilization? It's the family, not the individual. While a strong individual is necessary for strong civilization, strong individuals almost universally come from strong families. Just look at the modern studies comparing intact households to single parent households. Every conceivable metric for success for the children is greater with the father present, with a 2 parent household.

To go back to the foundation: humans are sexually dimorphic. Men evolved to be bigger, stronger, more logical, and to do the laborious and dangerous tasks far from home/tribe. Men evolved physically and mentally to fulfill their role as protector and provider. Women evolved to be smaller, weaker, more empathetic and emotional, to bear and feed children, and to do the easier and less dangerous tasks within the safety of the home/tribe. Women evolved physically and mentally to fulfill their role as mother and homemaker. It's division of labor and specialization of the sexes, to increase species efficiency, to increase our likelihood of survival and success. That's why when one man and one woman come together to form a complete human that only then can they continue the species. That's why traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, has always been a staple of stable and successful civilization. It works within our evolution/creation to the very advantage it was designed to give, for everyone involved: men, women, children, and civilization.

Men's traditional role is protector and provider, and in marriage he gives exclusive protection and provision to his wife and future children. Women's traditional role is mother and homemaker, and in marriage she gives exclusive breeding rights to her man, takes care of the home, and rears the children. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement between a man and woman. The children are given the most efficient environment for staying healthy, reaching adulthood, and becoming strong members of society. Civilization gains by getting more and strong members, enabling it to continue in stability and success. It's the most basic bargain of civilization, and the species itself, and all parties gain from it.

Does porn damage this bargain? Yes. However, it goes further than porn. All sex outside of the bargain of marriage is destructive. It short circuits the brains of men to pursue images of women (porn), rather than women themselves, or pursue women that aren't his (prostitution), when none gain in the exchange beyond the sex act itself. It's tantamount to eating when you gain no nutrition from it. Eventually you starve to death. It's why prostitution is regarded as "the oldest profession". It's probably why porn will always exist in some fashion or another, because our sex drive is so strong, as it must be to continue the species. It's why "simps" exist, who pay and defend women online for nothing in return. It's why website like OnlyFans exists. On the other side of the coin, it's also why women have largely used their new found powers granted via feminism to give government and corporate globalism greater power, power expressed in terms of protection and provision, the very role men traditionally provide. Government provides protection and welfare, and what women can't attain from government they work a job to provision themselves, replacing their need of men. This is why women have become so ridiculously picky in the Western dating market. However, the illusion of protection and provision provided by government and globalism is blind, fickle, callous, and corrupt. In the end, women will suffer just as much as men under tyranny.

The modern world is a corruption and upending of the natural order, which maintains civilization and the species itself. What's happened to the marriage rates, divorce rates, and the number of children per capita with the wide availability of porn? It's dismal. We're not having enough kids to replace our dying population, much less expand. This means our civilization is dying. What happened to men's ability and willingness to fight? It's almost non existent. Apathy is everywhere. It's why we haven't yet revolted from the tyranny we live under. We have fewer things worth fighting for, and therefore we're less likely to fight. While it's not the only consideration, porn has a heavy hand in it, and it's that destructive.

Point 3 (Kant's categorical imperative):

Kant's categorical imperative states that we should act in such a way that we wish that act becomes universal law, meaning everyone acted that way. It provides a good indication if an action is logical and moral, and if the actor is a hypocrite or not. It shows why murder is wrong, and so too is rape, theft, lying, cowardice, greed, laziness, apathy, ignorance, gluttony, prostitution, LGBTQ, and porn. Through the direct effects of an action becoming universal law, we can determine if society would improve or degrade. If everyone murdered there could be no civilization. If everyone lied, no one could trust each other, and there could be no civilization. If everyone was LGBTQ, we wouldn't have enough kids, and civilization would collapse. If everyone watched porn, we wouldn't have the sex drive to pursue meaningful relationships, we wouldn't have enough children, and civilization would collapse. Kant's categorical imperative teaches us both what is sinful, wrong, evil, illogical, hurtful, and destructive, and what is good, righteous, virtuous, logical, helpful, and productive.

Point 4 (porn and art):

The purpose of art is to convey beauty, virtues, lessons, and betterment of humanity. This is so with everything man creates: drawings, paintings, sculptures, buildings, architecture, tools, furniture, homes, stories, games, even ideas. We build and create things that are beautiful, that add to civilization, to inspire people to better themselves and to protect not just the art itself, but ourselves, our family, our neighbors, civilization itself. This core intent of artistry builds on itself over time in good people, where the art becomes better and more beautiful, and so too does man and civilization improve. This is an extension of the role of men in society. Not only do we protect and provide for our women in the bargain of the sexes, we often extend that role to society itself, to build a better and more beautiful world for our children.

Ugly art demoralizes and destroys. If everything around you is ugly, you will be demoralized, unwilling to better yourself, or anything around you, or be willing to fight and defend things worthwhile and good. That's why the Soviet's invented brutalist architecture. It's ugly and menacing. It's a way to weaken people, as a means to control us. Notice also that brutalist architecture is repeated in Western cityscapes, and the intent of brutalist architecture is repeated elsewhere in all other modern "art". That's why modern "art" is so degenerate and ugly. It's a perversion of the reason for art in the first place. It's why globalists have infiltrated almost all spheres of art creation. It's why globalists are the main purveyors of porn. All of it is meant to weaken and control us.

How can porn be considered art? While some may be more artful, the intent behind it is evil. We can see the intent by who makes the porn, who disseminates it, who defends it, and what the effects of it are, on individuals and society. This is why things like old Greek and Roman statues that show nudity can be considered art, while modern porn isn't. The intent is different, the purpose is different, and the effects are different. The ancient sculptures are beautiful, convey virtues, a pursuit of perfection and betterment of man, something worth defending. Porn is the antithesis of that.

For the purpose of this discussion on this platform, it could be argued that all nudity could be banned, as a safety measure. Beautiful art that shows nudity can be seen elsewhere, so it doesn't necessarily have to be allowed here. However, as others have pointed out, degeneracy and ugliness can be conveyed even when there is no nudity. A pedophile could just as easily post a picture of a lone fully clothed child, and it would be just as degenerate and wrong. The intent, purpose, and effects matter. One could question the difficulty in ascertaining such things. However, it's usually quite easy to see and determine once properly educated and experienced on the differences.

Point 5 (porn as a means of control):

How is porn used in modern society? Who pushes porn? Globalists use porn as a controlling device. It weakens men, and thus weakens society as a whole. It gives a worthless (destructive) outlet for men to "pursue" images of women, rather than pursuing women themselves through logical, natural, productive endeavors. It lets men give into lust, abandoning wisdom.

As a prime example, look at when Israel took control of Palestinian television. The Israeli government immediately began blasting porn on the channels they controlled, aimed directly at the Palestinians. Whatever your views on the politics of Israel and Palestine, ask yourself: why would they do this? It's to control men, to weaken them, to make them less likely to fight back. Is this not the reason why globalists use porn in the West? Bread and circuses, all of it. Everything the globalists do is meant to empower themselves, or to weaken and control us, in every avenue they control, in every media outlet, in every school, in every curriculum, in every social media platform, with everything censored and curated, in every website, in sports, in TV, in ads, in movies, in comics, in "art", in architecture, in government, in large corporations, in our diet, everything under their control they use to weaken and control us, including porn.

It's their intent, their purpose, and their effects. It makes globalists, and their machinations, incredibly easy to spot.

Conclusion

Porn should not be allowed. It's not speech, it doesn't convey useful information, it doesn't teach, it doesn't help men, women, or children, it doesn't help us improve, it destroys the institution and purpose of marriage, the very foundation of civilization and the species itself, it distracts men, it inhibits us from good and productive pursuits, it robs men of their labors since they get nothing in return, it reduces the number of children, it reduces the number of marriages, leading more women into the arms of government and globalism, it makes men more apathetic and less likely to fight back against tyranny and evil, it's not art, it doesn't convey beauty, virtues, morals, lessons, or betterment, it demoralizes and weakens men and society itself, and it's used as a control mechanism by globalists and evil people. In every conceivable way, porn is destructive and wrong.

Wherein the commenter reveals he is a dirty pinko commie.

The only man made rule that has no exceptions is the rule that states: there are exceptions to the rules. This is because we're finite, imperfect, mortal creatures, with a limited understanding of truth. A rule of logic we don't yet know can alter our conclusions of what we do know, even if everything we know is correct and the logic is sound. Reality itself is where all of these different rules of logic meet, sometimes resulting in exceptions to widely held rules. A wise person understands this, and can see that reality isn't black and white. Logic is, but reality isn't. Manmade rules have exceptions. Free speech is one of them. Not even far left "dirty pinko commie" people believe in absolute free speech. Ad hominems don't disprove anything I've said.

You may not argue one of these positions without arguing the other.

Fine, go ahead. Argue whatever you wish. Stop trying to deflect, and answer the question. Why do you believe porn is speech and should be allowed under free speech?

Obviously if you oppose banning porn, it can only mean you are a consumer of it. There can be no other reason.

I admittedly struggle with it just like every other guy on the planet. Our sex drive is strong for a reason. This is one of the reasons why pornography is so dangerous and destructive. It short circuits men's brains into meaningless, hollow pursuits. Porn addiction is real, and many men struggle with it. Do you say the same thing about people espousing for the banning of drugs being drug addicts, or people advocating for bans on abortion being addicted to abortion, or people advocating for the banning of pedophilia being addicted to sex with children? Your argument doesn't make logical sense.

Yes, having constructed all of the above strawmen as conditions for engaging with him, the philosopher is now going to accuse the rest of you of gaslighting.

The irony of your comment isn't lost on me. You literally did what I said people do in your position. You used logically fallacious arguments and gaslit me. Typical.