CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
7
Yes No
Debate Score:12
Arguments:7
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (4)

Debate Creator

Swashbuckler(62) pic



Should pornography be protected by the first Amendment?

I would personally say it should definitely not be protected "speech" for a variety of reasons:

1. The 1st Amendment was only intended to allow for free exchange of opinions and ideas, but not freedom of obscenity, which is something the states should regulate.

2. Pornography, especially internet pornography which is available to the entire public has issues when it comes to consent. Since porn actors or actresses have no way of giving direct consent to strangers on the internet to view their pictures or videos, so it could be argued that it's impossible to 'consent' to being viewed in pornography unless the person is someone you've directly interacted with face-to-face.

3. Internet pornography likely has negative social effects on society, as it discourages men from productive behavior and interacting with women in normal social situations, and developing an emotionally-stunted view of women as reductive "objects" (while the same could be said of men as well, most visual pornography is consumed by men).

Yes

Side Score: 5
VS.

No

Side Score: 7

Obscenity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Who wants some holy-roller, bible-thumping religious zealot telling you/us what to look at? Not me. Plus, if they can decide what's pornographic, what's to stop them from deciding what else you can't see. This is a slippery slope.

Consent is a non-issue; when being filmed "actors" know it will be viewed by untold numbers of people. The only consent needed is that from the actors when the film is made. That's like saying Meryl Streep needs consent from all who watch her movies- ridiculous!

Anything can have positive and negative effects on society; who wants a board of censors deciding what we should see. Go to China, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi et. al. and see what censorship does to them.

Side: Yes
Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

[b]Obscenity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.[/b]

Incorrect, obscenity is objective and universal and ties in with the formal laws of the universe, such as aesthetics which is linked to mathematics.

Some people simply have 20/20 vision, while others are blind.

Saying that reality is in the "eye" of the beholder is anti-science, since the theory of relativity proves that regardless of the perspective, the natural laws of existence are always the same.

So saying obscenity is in the eye of the beholder is as anti-intellectual as saying whether or not the earth is flat or round is "in the eye of the beholder".

[b]Who wants some holy-roller, bible-thumping religious zealot telling you/us what to look at? Not me.[b]

Who cares what you want? Who are you? In a civilized society the virtuous have a duty to govern the unvirtuous if they prove themselves unfit to govern themselves well.

[b]Plus, if they can decide what's pornographic, what's to stop them from deciding what else you can't see. This is a slippery slope.

[/b]

Right, so if we do not legalize child porn, who is to stop them from banning everything? Slippery slope, huh?

[b]Anything can have positive and negative effects on society; who wants a board of censors deciding what we should see. Go to China, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi et. al. and see what censorship does to them.

[/b]

Censorship is how society separates the wheat from the chaff. Frankly I don't care what "people want", because that presumes that all people's opinions are created equal, but in reality some are better than others. Much as a Rhodes' scholar's opinion on academic subjects is better than that of a GED dropout.

Those who have high standards don't have to worry about being censored to begin with.

[b]Consent is a non-issue; when being filmed "actors" know it will be viewed by untold numbers of people. The only consent needed is that from the actors when the film is made. That's like saying Meryl Streep needs consent from all who watch her movies- ridiculous!

[/b]

No in the event of obscenity I think that reasonable exceptions can be made.

Side: No
1 point

Swashbuckler, you censoring fool you; what kind of Orwellian thought control wouldn't you love.

Your screed is off the charts and your examples are extreme. No one is talking about child porn, only you. I'm referring to adults, those that are the age of consent.

Who cares what I want? I do; that's what the topic of this conversation about: my opinion.

As far as the rest of your rant, I will let your comments speak for themselves. Your stance is exactly what we DON"T need.

Side: Yes
2 points

This is a tough one. I like some porn but I also think it can get way out of hand in the public eye. I think it should be reserved somewhere behind one's privacy and fantasies are fun and healthy to have, as long as it ain't really hurting anyone. But I don't like to see it blatantly out there in the public eye, especially soft porn.

Side: No

I would personally say it should definitely not be protected "speech" for a variety of reasons:

1. The 1st Amendment was only intended to allow for free exchange of opinions and ideas, but not freedom of obscenity, which is something the states should regulate.

2. Pornography, especially internet pornography which is available to the entire public has issues when it comes to consent. Since porn actors or actresses have no way of giving direct consent to strangers on the internet to view their pictures or videos, so it could be argued that it's impossible to 'consent' to being viewed in pornography unless the person is someone you've directly interacted with face-to-face.

3. Internet pornography likely has negative social effects on society, as it discourages men from productive behavior and interacting with women in normal social situations, and developing an emotionally-stunted view of women as reductive "objects" (while the same could be said of men as well, most visual pornography is consumed by straight men).

4. Likewise internet pornography including more extreme or deviant types of pornography is much more easily available to children than it was before the advent of the web, and being overly exposed to sexualized media could have adverse effects on children, such as influencing them into sexually experimenting at younger ages.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
1 point

1) nowhere did the founding fathers ever make any mention of not wanting to protect obscenity.

2) they were paid to be in porn. They did consent.

3) all disputes on porn say the exact opposite.

4) I am sorry you don't know how to be a parent. The government is not responsible for raising your child.

Side: Yes
Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

1) nowhere did the founding fathers ever make any mention of not wanting to protect obscenity.

Incorrect, states had (and still have) their own obscenity laws, and obscenity was not protected speech until fairly recent judicial history.

[quote]

2) they were paid to be in porn. They did consent.

[/quote]

It doesn't matter if they sign a contract if they don't have a physical ability to consent with the viewers.

[quote]

3) all disputes on porn say the exact opposite.

[/quote]

Entirely incorrect.

[quote]

4) I am sorry you don't know how to be a parent. The government is not responsible for raising your child.

[/quote]

That's also incorrect, children are not entirely property of the parents, but part of society and natural law, so society and the state do have the right and obligation to intercede and make sure they are provided a positive environment.

Likewise there are many unqualified parents who society has a duty to protect children from.

So if pornographers interfere with the children's rights to a positive environment, then society has a right and duty to intercede.

Side: No