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.
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.
You can't just make up meanings of words. Also, some immoral or harmful behavior should be protected. Free speech in general is to protect fringe speech. You don't need special protections to talk about the weather or something. Basically, there should be some things where we go 'that's not great,' but leave it at that. Free speech includes abhorrent speech. Nazi speech being protected is a great example. They'd love to ban that. But they can't.
You're basically sounding like a leftist between this, not engaging on any actual issues, and defining words however you like. You're essentially making the 'hate speech' argument. It's bad, so it's not protected. Let's carve out an exception.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
This is pointless. I already said I don't like porn. Doesn't change that the line between porn and movies isn't that large, and can get very blurry. That leans toward the idea that it is protected speech. Where is the line, otherwise? Nudity in general, banned? Drawn images?
How would that stuff not trickle down to other speech. In other contexts we're all absolutely against banning "lawful but awful" speech, but for some reason people lose their minds on a few issues and cheer on draconian nonsense.
"Freedom of the press" refers to the technology, the printing press. I think that translates to technology that wasn't around at the time either. Otherwise we have no free speech for anything on the internet. If people have freedom to make movies, they have freedom to make porn. Because if you're policing content you're policing speech.
My examples outline other banned "speech". Nothing immoral should be protected. That's why we are here. Because men must be ruled by laws. Not stooping to protect lewd, salacious, and harmful content.
Muh 1st amendment right to pour garbage into the public forum.