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.
It's an appeal to authority both in the sense that the written constitution itself is being used as a proxy for authority (if the paper said dogs are humans, that wouldn't make it so), and debates on this usually end up at "The courts have ruled it as such." In other words, because some judge somewhere said so.
I may be accused of doing the same thing by pointing out that the founders would not have considered porn to be free speech, but I actually don't care about their opinion. I'm only saying that they would know better than anyone what the amendment was intended for.
I should also clarify that I'm not saying our free speech rights may be limited to whatever the government says they are. That's how you get "hate speech isn't free speech!"
Yep, I agree. That's definitely an appeal to authority.
Also keep in mind that most, but not all, of the Founding Fathers were ardent Christians. They intended for the U.S. to be a White Christian ethnostate. They never, ever would've agreed that porn was protected under the 1st Amendment, nor would they have agreed that porn was speech. Most people back then were very traditional, even by today's traditionalist's standards.