Why is prostitution not OK, but porn is OK?

[GhostWriter16]

First of all, in this context "OK" is really talking about legally being OK, NOT necessarily morally. I know a lot of CFCers would legalize both, and I do know some people who would like to ban both (I don't talk about this issue IRL though, mostly because my legal position is 100% opposed to my moral one, and its not an issue I'm going to debate because even if I don't necessarily think the act in question should be banned, I am 100% morally opposed and agree with the people who condemn it (Both) as a grave moral evil)

But porn is legal in all 50 US states. Yet prostitution is allowed in exactly one.

Personally, I think porn is actually worse. Two people are having sex for money either way but prostitution, in spite of its moral problems, still keeps sex a personal thing. There are two people doing it, and two people sinning. In porn, they're actually doing it in front of camera for people to watch. So not only are they corrupting themselves, but others as well. So from a social conservative aspect, porn should actually be worse, but a lot more social conservatives complain about porn than prostitution.

Keep in mind this is a LEGAL thread and I am thus limiting the options to legal beliefs, whether or not you think each activity should be allowed. I'm not asking in the poll what your moral reasoning is, although that is part of the topic being discussed in the thread body.

Personally, while I do not believe porn should be banned (Although I don't have a problem with keeping it "Hidden" in socially conservative communities, and not being available for those who aren't of legal age from buying) I can see those arguments. I don't see the arguments, however, for allowing porn but not prostitution. It just makes no sense to me.

Poll coming...

Also note that I put "At least for adults" to avoid any debate as to age of consent or correct age for being allowed to view porn or whatever. This thread doesn't address those questions, and I don't really want it to, so much as its to discuss why porn should somehow be protected while prostitution isn't (Or why it shouldn't.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Porn entertains people who would otherwise be seeking prostitutes, thus lowering the number of illicit couplings.

 

[Zelig]

I don't like your assumptions.

 

[Berzerker]

porn and prostitution aint immoral

the politicians giving prostitution a bad name are

 

[GhostWriter16]

Porn entertains people who would otherwise be seeking prostitutes, thus lowering the number of illicit couplings.

this is actually pretty funny actually, although I think inaccurate. When porn gets put on video or on the internet, people get tempted that would actually rather not view the stuff. Now, that alone isn't a reason for its illegality (Although unwanted ads showing the stuff certainly should be) but its not 100% completely "Victimless" as far as it goes.

Prostitution on the other hand, by an unmarried person, doesn't really have a victim other than the prostitute herself potentially, which may or may not be the case depending on circumstances I suppose, whether she can in any meaningful sense be a "Victim" or merely a co-sinner.

 

[LucyDuke]

Because porn is "speech".

And yeah neither should be illegal, though both should be regulated for the safety of the workers.

 

[JollyRoger]

Porn is also generally produced by entities such as corporations and LLCs, while most prostitutes are not incorporated. Recent American jurisprudence gives greater freedom and protections to collective commercial entities than to individuals.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because porn is "speech".

Really?

The First was intended for matters of political or religious controversy. Participating in a pornographic film is not speech, its an action, and not even really to convey any kind of point anymore than "Killing" is.

I believe porn should be legal because there's no direct victim and banning it wouldn't really work anyway, not becase its "Speech" because its not.

 

[JollyRoger]

Really?

The First was intended for matters of political or religious controversy. Participating in a pornographic film is not speech, its an action, and not even really to convey any kind of point anymore than "Killing" is.

I believe porn should be legal because there's no direct victim and banning it wouldn't really work anyway, not becase its "Speech" because its not.

You do not think porn is politically or religiously controversial?

 

[Ajidica]

not becase its "Speech" because its not.

The SC ruled (can't remember which case) that actions count as speach. Texas v. Johnson comes to mind, flag burning was declared protected speach by the court. (But burning draft cards wasn't as technically draft cards are US government property and records.)

You do not think porn is politically or religiously controversial?

Well, I'm pretty sure if Sarah Palin got dressed up as a nun and started spanking Obama that might qualify then.

 

[Crezth]

Well, I'm pretty sure if Sarah Palin got dressed up as a nun and started spanking Obama that might qualify then.

More like, you know, it's a controversy because here we are arguing about it as such. QED.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You do not think porn is politically or religiously controversial?

Yeah, so is terrorism. You're point?

The point of freedom of speech is to allow the political minority to speak. Its what allows people like me to share my Evangelical Christian, politcally conservative positions, in spite of the majority of Americans being to my left.


And on the inverse, its what allows political anarchists, socialists, Libertarians, whatever, you name it, to speak out. Or non-violent fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, the WBC, the KKK, name a group.

Flag-burning is a unique example because, while technically an action, it is done to convey a strong political statement. While I would question whether or not its "Speech" I lean towards yes because of the clear political implications, being done against an inanimate object. But even if its not, in the literal sense (Ignoring the emotions involved) its simply burning a piece of paper that you own. Now, I think of the flag as much more than this, but there is no good reason for it to LEGALLY be more than this. I believe it should absolutely be legal.

Porn is definitely not speech as its entertainment, not geared as a political or religious message. It should still be legal, however, because like flag burning, there's not a victim. Make sense?

 

[FriendlyFire]

But porn is legal in all 50 US states. Yet prostitution is allowed in exactly one.

Washington ? (legal prostitution)

 

[Ajidica]

Porn is definitely not speech as its entertainment, not geared as a political or religious message.

How dare you imply buxom damsels being ravished by a handsom pool cleaner is not sending a religious or political message!

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, so is terrorism. You're point?

The point of freedom of speech is to allow the political minority to speak. Its what allows people like me to share my Evangelical Christian, politcally conservative positions, in spite of the majority of Americans being to my left.


And on the inverse, its what allows political anarchists, socialists, Libertarians, whatever, you name it, to speak out. Or non-violent fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, the WBC, the KKK, name a group.

Flag-burning is a unique example because, while technically an action, it is done to convey a strong political statement. While I would question whether or not its "Speech" I lean towards yes because of the clear political implications, being done against an inanimate object. But even if its not, in the literal sense (Ignoring the emotions involved) its simply burning a piece of paper that you own. Now, I think of the flag as much more than this, but there is no good reason for it to LEGALLY be more than this. I believe it should absolutely be legal.

Porn is definitely not speech as its entertainment, not geared as a political or religious message. It should still be legal, however, because like flag burning, there's not a victim. Make sense?

Can you point me to the text in the Constitution that backs all of this?

 

[Save_Ferris]

Porn can't give you AIDS, so yeah...

 

[Arwon]

I think the position that "entertainment" isn't political and is therefore not political speech, is a political claim you actually need to back up.

I think there are plenty of people in pornography, particularly those in the less "mainstream" and more self-run, activist and norm-challenging areas, who would certainly disagree with the claim.

 

[GoodGame]

Porn never made illegitimate heirs to the throne?

 

[Antilogic]

I say porn and prostitution should be legally okay because I'm a neolibrul who wants to get the evil regulating gubbamint out of our lives.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Washington ? (legal prostitution)

I was thinking Nevada, but that may be out of date info (Washington MIGHT allow it nowk, but didn't a few years ago.)

It doesn't change the point though, that I don't see it as logical to allow porn but not prostitution.