I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already. But I have to take a third path that will probably also be downvoted:

• No, you're right. 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. The people who support it can lean on that crutch and don't have to formulate pro-porn arguments. They can just say "FREE SPEECH!" and tell you to sit down. The people who literally wrote the first amendment would not have agreed. However...

• Depending on the specific context and nature of the material, porn still shouldn't be banned by the state. It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over, or spend resources on, and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse. I'm ok with the state regulating certain forms of interstate distribution though. Local governments should be able to regulate production. Making pornography is no different than prostitution. I just don't want to set the precedent of the government controlling the Internet. I don't even think they should have banned online gambling.

I'm summary I think the 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 don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already. But I have to take a third path that will probably also be downvoted:

• No, you're right. 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. The people who support it can lean on that crutch and don't have to formulate pro-porn arguments. They can just say "FREE SPEECH!" and tell you to sit down. The people who literally wrote the first amendment would not have agreed. However...

• Depending on the specific context and nature of the material, porn still shouldn't be banned by the state. It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over, or spend resources on, and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse. I'm ok with the state regulating certain forms of interstate distribution though. Local governments should be able to regulate production. Making pornography is no different than prostitution. I just don't want to set the precedent of the government controlling the Internet. I don't even think they should have banned online gambling.

I'm summary I think the 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.

I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already. But I have to take a third path that will probably also be downvoted:

• No, you're right. 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. The people who support it can lean on that crutch and don't have to formulate pro-porn arguments. They can just say "FREE SPEECH!" and tell you to sit down. The people who literally wrote the first amendment would not have agreed. However...

• Depending on the specific context and nature of the material, porn still shouldn't be banned by the state. It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over, or spend resources on, and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse. I'm ok with the state regulating certain forms of interstate distribution though. Local governments should be able to regulate production. Making pornography is no different than prostitution. I just don't want to set the precedent of the government controlling the Internet. I don't even think they should have banned online gambling.

I'm summary I think the 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.

I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already. But I have to take a third path that will probably also be downvoted:

• No, you're right. 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. The people who support it can lean on that crutch and don't have to formulate pro-porn arguments. They can just say "FREE SPEECH!" and tell you to sit down. The people who literally wrote the first amendment would not have agreed. However...

• Depending on the specific context and nature of the material, porn still shouldn't be banned by the state. It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over, or spend resources on, and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse. I'm ok with the state regulating certain forms of interstate distribution though. Local governments should be able to regulate production. Making pornography is no different than prostitution. I just don't want to set the precedent of the government controlling the Internet. I don't even think they should have banned online gambling.

I'm summary I think the 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 by through the public dissemination of anti-government political speech.

I don't agree with your strawmen at the end, and dagthegnome covered that already. But I have to take a third path that will probably also be downvoted:

• No, you're right. 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. The people who support it can lean on that crutch and don't have to formulate pro-porn arguments. They can just say "FREE SPEECH!" and tell you to sit down. The people who literally wrote the first amendment would not have agreed. However...

• Depending on the specific context and nature of the material, porn still shouldn't be banned by the state. It's not a First Amendment issue, but this just isn't something I want the government to have power over, or spend resources on, and people will get their rocks off in some other way which might be worse. I'm ok with the state regulating certain forms of interstate distribution though. Local governments should be able to regulate production. Making pornography is no different than prostitution. I just don't want to set the precedent of the government controlling the Internet. I don't even think they should have banned online gambling.