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.
"You can't legislate morality" is an old libertarian saw, but despite its origins I think it's a truthful statement. AI would have to effectively supplant live action porn, then a ban would actually work at that point, as the normie discussion becomes about disposing of an obsolete thing rather than "congress trying to stop us from jacking it."
But it's not a totally true statement. You can enforce morality from the top down - that's what the left has done for a decade now, just not through legislation. If a right wing corporate cartel or similar entity was able to capture Twitch and purge titty streamers, then run any site that hosted Pokimane or Amouranth out of business, normies would move on. Most people are stupid cows at some level who just want to work and eat.
This might even work against regular porn. It gets brought up constantly that Tumblr fell on its sword by banning NSFW (because people like to think of free porn as a law of nature), but that wouldn't matter to a top down scheme. Tumblr isn't profitable now, so what? Anybody looking to fill that niche gets banned off the app stores. Anyone flirting with making porn gets exiled from Mastercard and Visa. The market will not be able to respond. This would never happen obviously because our elites have a vested interest in breaking down the country, not helping it, but if they were magically replaced by the Aladdin genie then I think it's a realistic scenario.
Believe it or not, this country existed without hardcore porn before 1950, when it was invented by Jews.
No, it's not.
The role of government is to enact legislation in accordance with it's constitution. Both the legislation and the constitution come from people (even in cases where it's just one person).
A government is a system and cannot be moral or immoral any more than a hammer can.
Every single nation on earth, or group of people regardless of size, enforces their views upon the nation/group(s) they're in. Some people are happy to not do so, leaving the rules decided upon by those that are willing to do so, often to the detriment of the group.
There's nothing inherently wrong with enforcing your views upon the groups you're in, only with what's enforced, and if you prevent people from leaving if they don't approve.
A point can often be made more clear by taking it to the extreme. Murder, rape, and pedophilia are made illegal according to current morality, passed by a people who view them as repugnant and wrong. Granted, such laws have logical justifications, but so too does varying views on morality. Even people who are wholly evil have justifications for their beliefs and actions, even if they're wrong. What about moral laws less severe? Do they all get thrown out? Why?
There is a huge expanse of varying political, religious, and moral philosophies, all with varying justifications for their views. Everyone else on earth is fine with enforcing their views upon society. From what I've seen, it's mostly only been White people that have been brainwashed into thinking it's wrong for them to do so. Libertarianism, while justified in many areas, fails to consider the collective interests of the people. What else has been a self destructive philosophy pushed upon the White West, especially among right leaning groups? Rampant individualism, which robs people of collective mutual interests, that we're a part of groups, for good reasons.
You're also forgetting that not every single thing has to be decided on the federal and global level. The United States was set up to where local and state governments held the most power, and the federal government the least. If people don't like specific laws of their home city or state, they can easily move to another more to their liking. If such things are decided on the federal and global scale, it's much more difficult, or impossible, to move away from it.
Lets look at non-white countries which do enforce their views, harshly, like the Islamic Middle East, or Africa, or China. What will they be in the future? They'll remain how they are now. You may disagree with what they're doing, but the end result is far better than the alternative. What's happening to Western countries not enforcing their views? We're being replaced, atomized, and intentionally diversified because the host population, White people, are too afraid to enforce their views. White Western civilization will cease to exist if the current trends hold, and war doesn't break out.