Just an open question since we keep getting situations like this where the industry effectively admits it is incapable and unwilling to act to stop the worst elements of the industry (child exploitation, human trafficking, forced involvement, rape etc) that it's probably best to just ban the industry together.
Notice though I said using real people, with AI slowly getting better and CGI improving, why do we need real people to make porn? Just have something animated to be realistic enough as I don't give a fuck about pixels or a drawing. Have whatever kink you want, have entire porn snuff films whatever as no REAL people are getting harmed in the making if it. The worst that can happen is stressed artists trying to meet deadlines.
This might also affect adult streamers which is just a bonus as it'll be like a re-run of Projekt Melody when she became more popular since she did more than just strip and stare blankly at the camera till donations came in. A lot of porn or porn in all but name streaming (which I include Twitch on that) get money off just simply being pretty and that's it, denying that as an easy route will probably cause a shift in a lot of media.
I wouldn't advocate a FULL ban as no matter your feeling on it generally, it is a release so going full puritan invites a backlash and probably just forces more men to deal with insufferable feminist women. But just making that release fully fictional based than support an industry that sweeps horrific practices under the rug for money is probably for the best.
Is child porn free speech?
This is a very weak argument. No, child porn is not free speech, much like how killing your neighbor is not free speech either.
Children cannot consent to sexual activities. With all the bullshit about 20 year olds changing their mind about consent after the fact, grown women talking about being "groomed," etc., we must not lose fact of this simple fact. Children. Cannot. Consent.
Free speech is only free if it is free. Compelled speech is not free speech.
The thing is it's not even about children or abuse, but that CP itself is a very harmful thing to a society and we don't want it.
Back in the 80s or whenever there was a supreme court case about CP paintings, from imagination to canvas, which are objectively free speech yet they ruled it illegal. Nobody abused, no harm done to anybody.
And it's good to ban it because people copy what they see; the vast majority of these gay/trans aren't actually mentally ill in that way, it's just monkey see monkey do. Bans on social degeneracy should be expanded, regardless of the 1st. The 1st should protect information not immorality.
How about we ban monkeys and keep humans instead?
What about two 16 year Olds having sex? Can they consent?
See my other comment. They can't consent to certain business or sign certain contracts. They are not legally adults, it's irrelevant if they can consent to sex with each other, as other restrictions are still in place.
So child porn isn't free speech because they can't legally sign contracts. This is where your logic comes from? Do children not have 1st amendment rights?
You're basically a libertarian, aka someone who hides behind laws and semantics in order to avoid taking a stand on immoral and harmful behavior. If porn is free speech, then me broadcasting someone eating shit is free speech too right? They consented since I paid them. How about chopping their nuts off on camera?
Porn is evil and you've had your mind warped by a bunch of jews in the industry into protecting them and their business.
I can head this gotcha off at the pass easily. Child abuse is illegal, so of course filming an illegal act is also illegal. Child porn is not legal free speech because it goes beyond speech. Likewise, individual pornographic material that is from nonconsensual adults is also illegal. The speech itself isn't the issue, the violation of rights is.
It's like asking if snuff films are illegal. It's not illegal to make something portraying fictional violence, but murder is, you know, a bit illegal. Child porn is and should be illegal, not for speech reasons, but because you can't make it without harming people. Simple.
Can two 16 year Olds consent to sex with each other?
Ah, yes, the other reason I dislike this discussion so much. People are so keen to prove their point and they come in with silly one liners and try to derail, instead of talking the issues.
Yes, two sixteen year olds can consent to sex with each other but, having not reached the age of majority, there are other things they can't consent to, like engaging in certain types of business or contracts; or buying alcohol, tabaco, or firearms. As an aside, I think eighteen year olds, being legal adults, should be able to buy alcohol, and the only reason they can't is because the federal funding via Department of Transportation comes with massive stipulations, so each state is forced to comply with certain things that aren't even federal law. But, again, that's an aside.
Point is, it's not as simple as 'can they consent,' there are other restrictions that can be placed on minors. That's why the phrase "consenting adult" is significant. Sixteen year olds are allowed to consent in specific scenarios, but are not adults and can't consent to some contracts and the like.
This is pretty simple, and none of your one liners take away from my view that porn is protected speech.
So it's not free speech cause rhe law won't let them sign a business contract to make porn despite them being old enough to have sex together?
It just breaks down. Laws are not arbiters of morality. Why is one thing legal and the other not? You don't like this question because you've been ingrained to think lewd footage is some 1st amendment protected right.
Once their 18 this magically changes the nature of porn? Nah
If this is about how some states decided to allow the age of consent to be 16 and other states have it at 17 or 18 while the age to be able to produce porn is federally set at 18, it’s so that universally, someone who makes porn is legal in every state.