Should viewing or possessing pornography be charged as a sex offense?

[Unification]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

Of course not, this isn't China. Unless it's illegal and creep pedo stuff which is an entirely different situation obviously. Otherwise, why would anyone viewing consenting adults be considered a criminal?

Are you trolling us?

My argument is that:

1. A stranger on the internet cannot consent to anonymous viewing, so while this is legally recognized as consentual via contracts, it is rather abusrd stretch of law.

2. There is precedence under Common Law for banning behaviors by adults even if said adults consent - in some cases the state can override consent on the basis of other concerns such as preserving public health or morality - I think that banning or regulating porn and degnerate forms of entertainment under state obscentity laws might be a worthy venture - I see "democratic" nations such as Iceland getting wind of the such evils and attempting to crack down on them, and it does not seem to have much bad side effect.

 

[SweetSue92]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly) that the First Amendment protects any communication, however repulsive, except that which actively promotes violence or mayhem (defamation aside). Viewing porn cannot be punished.

Child porn is the noteworthy exception, because it has been determined by our Government Nannies that viewing such is, in effect, supporting it. Viewing child porn is a serious, serious felony, and viewers are treated much the same as child molesters.

And so they should be, absolutely. If you are consuming it or purchasing it, you are absolutely contributing to the trauma of a minor. No doubt about that.

Drug laws--meh. But the above, throw the book at them.

 

[SweetSue92]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly) that the First Amendment protects any communication, however repulsive, except that which actively promotes violence or mayhem (defamation aside). Viewing porn cannot be punished.

Child porn is the noteworthy exception, because it has been determined by our Government Nannies that viewing such is, in effect, supporting it. Viewing child porn is a serious, serious felony, and viewers are treated much the same as child molesters.

I agree, the first Amendment has been perverted in the name of vice and degeneracy, such as porn, modern television, popular music, and whatnot, under the false name of "art", when in civilized nations it would be burned rather than propagaded to masses.

I wonder if the first Amendment is reedemable, or if it will have to be axed in the future once consumer capitalism and its evils collapses like the fall of rome, and authoritarian government becomes status quo, do to materialistic rabble being unwilling to govern themselves, or live naught but as beasts begging to be controlled by superiors.

Okay it sounds like you want the gov't to ban a lot of stuff you don't like. I don't like porn either, but "modern television" and "popular music" can be neutral, or even good. It all depends.

I don't disagree with you that we are late-stage Rome, but handing MORE power to the oligarchs in DC won't solve that problem. See: prohibition. You can't compare the US to Iceland, for goodness sake. Iceland is an island that has 337K residents, most of them in one city. The USA has 330 million residents all spread out. Even if you could enact a law like "no porn" how would you enforce it? I mean we want MORE people with tickets and in jail?

We have a problem of godlessness, not of lack of government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

So, if someone who isn't your wife comes to your bedroom, takes off her clothes and dances for everyone, and you just look, is this a sex crime?

No, it's not.

So, if someone who isn't your wife, goes to a room that isn't your bedroom, takes off her clothes and someone takes a picture of this, is this a sex crime?

No, it's not.

It's about CONSENT.

If a woman consents to showing her titties or more, then what's the problem?

You're consenting to look, she's consenting to show, it's not different to doing it in the bedroom.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

I think you're conveniently skipping over stuff. The production has been qualified as "acting" and thereby legal, according to cases. And while some porn probably does have unwilling participants, I think the precedent is to convict the producers, not the (possibly unwitting) consumers.

 

[rightwinger]

We never would have had the Interweb without porn

And your point? We would never have had modern America without slavery, but that doesn't mean the demons of one's past shouldn't be eradicated.

Porn, whether "consensual" or not is merely a form of human trafficking and propagation of materialistic behavior, and has no place in any civil society, I'd argue - it is but the refuge of the weak and sexually repressed males.

Midget porn is educational

 

[Lysistrata]

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

No. Absolutely not. Just who would be qualified to determine which behaviors are "socially harmful" or "immoral"? None among us.

So long as porn does not involve children, participants have given informed consent, and no one is hurt, it's none of anybody else's business.

So I'd argue that "consent" is potentially irrelevant, and that the state might have a vested interest in legislating it to enforce morality and ethics, as opposed merely to protect the notion of "consent".

The "state" does not have any "vested interest" in enforcing "morality and ethics." The "state" consists only of a group of people at any one time.

 

[DGS49]

The First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government, and not be punished for it. Period. It has nothing to do with pornography, lewdness, or bad taste.

The people who drafted the First Amendment were aware of countless obscenity laws in existence at the time, and saw no conflict whatsoever between saying, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," and laws punishing obscenity in various forms.

 

[Unification]

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

No. Absolutely not. Just who would be qualified to determine which behaviors are "socially harmful" or "immoral"? None among us.

So long as porn does not involve children, participants have given informed consent, and no one is hurt, it's none of anybody else's business.

So I'd argue that "consent" is potentially irrelevant, and that the state might have a vested interest in legislating it to enforce morality and ethics, as opposed merely to protect the notion of "consent".

The "state" does not have any "vested interest" in enforcing "morality and ethics." The "state" consists only of a group of people at any one time.

That is not true, all states are in existence for the enforcement of public morality and health - when a state prohibits murder and rape, or cites traffic violaters, it is enforcing morality on people who would otherwise do these things, so all state and laws are "moral legislations", since the state is declaring such and such a behavior "wrong conduct" and enforcing it via punishment.