Recently there has been controversy among the free speech website gab.com, regarding the prohibition of pornography. This is a tough argument to discuss, Gab believes it is unethical and the other side believes its free speech. Indeed porn is immoral and taboo, but the question is it free speech?
Art from @therealDiscoSB@gab.com
Movies, books, and art have used nudity and sexuality in the arts for artistically since the time of ancient Greeks, but is "porn" itself an artform? Is it an expression? Is it a complete unnecessary taboo?
In my opinion, Porn is not free speech, it has no purpose in speech. It is a form of degeneracy and degrading causing depressing. It's okay for adults to see porn but not children. If people want to see porn they can freely set up their own Gab instance server and allow porn on it, go to a porn website or wank with someone. Indeed this is a controversial topic, regarding "porn" is considered free speech. If it's not free speech, it can be considered free expression and then Gab wins the argument.
I do consider porn as free expression, not speech.
Human beings can wank each other in their consent but not for public viewing.
People can use sexuality and nudity for artistic purposes with a meaningful purpose instead of unnecessarily being there. (Lolis is a different controversial but related subject matter)
Art from @therealDiscoSB@gab.com
One user British user said, "The freedom to engage in “degeneracy” isn’t a moral good but banning something for the adult population is morally wrong and anti-freedom."
Another user said, "Don't ban anything. But, making people aware of the dangers of porn addiction makes sense. It's like with anything else. You gonna ban KFC cause some people go over board and get diabetes?"
Sargon of Akkad has also made an opinion statement of the subject.
https://youtu.be/T0HrokJQi58
@EdwardKyle made an opinion.
"I would say that it is not what the Founders meant by free speech. But . . .
Do you have the right to produce and disseminate it?
I would say that to restrict its production (between consenting adults) is to violate the freedom of association that all people enjoy as a natural right. Fundamentally, functionally it is no different that sexual relations between any given man and woman (man and man; woman and woman). That does not make it moral or good. Morally any sex outside of marriage (for Christians) is immoral and ought to be refrained from. But to restrict it by law is to create too great a violation of freedom to justify its prohibition.
As for dissemination? Of course any business can decline to facilitate its distribution. Newsstands can decline to carry the magazines; broadcasters can decline to broadcast; etc. However: like its production it is to great a violation of privacy and natural rights (not to mention the Constitution) to justify prohibition.
Can it be show or broadcast or disseminated in public without restriction. The answer is yes. Since all public "property" is in fact appropriated and controlled (illegitimately) by the govt. and since you have no real unrestricted access and free use of this "property" (this of course is bullshit; all property ought to be privately owned; but I digress) you cannot just set up a projector and play any kind of movie you want whenever you want no matter the theme or subject."
I wonder why young men would watch porn rather than date women? I wonder what has changed? Can't think of a single reason
Couldn't be the $&@%ty dating landscape and overall negative views towards men. nor the ease at which a wife could ripe a guy to shreds during his prime years in a divorce. no no-no. not at all. (Sarcasm)
So far I have 1 solution for Gab (can't think of another solution as of now)
- Allow nudity and sexuality as an art form with the NSFW tag. (Not safe for Work)
Art from @therealDiscoSB@gab.com
Movies, books, and art have used nudity and sexuality in the arts for artistically since the time of ancient Greeks, but is "porn" itself an artform? Is it an expression? Is it a complete unnecessary taboo?
In my opinion, Porn is not free speech, it has no purpose in speech. It is a form of degeneracy and degrading causing depressing. It's okay for adults to see porn but not children. If people want to see porn they can freely set up their own Gab instance server and allow porn on it, go to a porn website or wank with someone. Indeed this is a controversial topic, regarding "porn" is considered free speech. If it's not free speech, it can be considered free expression and then Gab wins the argument.
I do consider porn as free expression, not speech.
Human beings can wank each other in their consent but not for public viewing.
People can use sexuality and nudity for artistic purposes with a meaningful purpose instead of unnecessarily being there. (Lolis is a different controversial but related subject matter)
Art from @therealDiscoSB@gab.com
One user British user said, "The freedom to engage in “degeneracy” isn’t a moral good but banning something for the adult population is morally wrong and anti-freedom."
Another user said, "Don't ban anything. But, making people aware of the dangers of porn addiction makes sense. It's like with anything else. You gonna ban KFC cause some people go over board and get diabetes?"
Sargon of Akkad has also made an opinion statement of the subject.
https://youtu.be/T0HrokJQi58
@EdwardKyle made an opinion.
"I would say that it is not what the Founders meant by free speech. But . . .
Do you have the right to produce and disseminate it?
I would say that to restrict its production (between consenting adults) is to violate the freedom of association that all people enjoy as a natural right. Fundamentally, functionally it is no different that sexual relations between any given man and woman (man and man; woman and woman). That does not make it moral or good. Morally any sex outside of marriage (for Christians) is immoral and ought to be refrained from. But to restrict it by law is to create too great a violation of freedom to justify its prohibition.
As for dissemination? Of course any business can decline to facilitate its distribution. Newsstands can decline to carry the magazines; broadcasters can decline to broadcast; etc. However: like its production it is to great a violation of privacy and natural rights (not to mention the Constitution) to justify prohibition.
Can it be show or broadcast or disseminated in public without restriction. The answer is yes. Since all public "property" is in fact appropriated and controlled (illegitimately) by the govt. and since you have no real unrestricted access and free use of this "property" (this of course is bullshit; all property ought to be privately owned; but I digress) you cannot just set up a projector and play any kind of movie you want whenever you want no matter the theme or subject."
I wonder why young men would watch porn rather than date women? I wonder what has changed? Can't think of a single reason
Couldn't be the $&@%ty dating landscape and overall negative views towards men. nor the ease at which a wife could ripe a guy to shreds during his prime years in a divorce. no no-no. not at all. (Sarcasm)
So far I have 1 solution for Gab (can't think of another solution as of now)
- Allow nudity and sexuality as an art form with the NSFW tag. (Not safe for Work)
Comments