15 Comments
User's avatar
Jillian Stirling's avatar

A no brainer! Of course it should be banned! What’s the use of all that child protection bureaucracy when there abuse goes online for all to see!?

Expand full comment
Crimson's avatar

CBC endorses Pornhub completely as harmless as does half the women on Substack. It’s an attack on MEN and the real cause of the boy crisis.

Expand full comment
Crimson's avatar

Google is evil. It took 25 years for people to speak up because then men charge were full of shame. And we were completely gaslit by the media and academia on this .

Expand full comment
Crimson's avatar

Porn is an attack on teen boys. So many women went along with it because it’s evidence of “the patriarchy” and they were giddy at the transgression of patriarchal norms around sex. They were hoodwinked by academics insisting it’s harmless. It’s literally terrorism.

Expand full comment
Emily Harrison's avatar

I believe Christian parents have a responsibility to stop allowing smartphones & tablets for children. The internet is not a playground for our children and the real world implications from access to pornography will claim so many more victims. https://open.substack.com/pub/dearchristianparent/p/dear-christian-mom-of-boys?r=3huc9s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

Expand full comment
AweDude's avatar

First things first: What do you consider to be porn?

Is a picture of a naked person porn? Is a video of someone stepping on something porn? Is a drawing porn? Can pure text (and not like ASCII art) be porn? Can an animation be porn?

If so, what is the criteria that makes something porn? Is it the intent behind the author, the viewer, the hoster, or someone else?

Expand full comment
Jonathon Van Maren's avatar

I'd start with mainstream porn sites, like Pornhub et al. "I know it when I see it" was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity, and I think that encapsulates it quite effectively.

Expand full comment
votecreatedequal's avatar

Unfortunately I know it when I see it is not objective or falsifiable.

Expand full comment
AweDude's avatar

The problem is that many non-porn things are found on porn websites. With Pornhub, famously the entirety of The Bee Movie was (it might even still be there, I haven't checked) posted. If all content on Pornhub is porn, then that would mean that The Bee Movie is porn.

If you know it when you see it, are you willing to view each and every piece of accused porn to determine if it is in fact porn? If not, are you willing to delegate that to other people? What if someone thinks something is porn that you don't, or doesn't think something is porn that you think is?

Expand full comment
Jonathon Van Maren's avatar

The idea that we could not come up with a standard that bans most of pornography but doesn't accidentally render The Bee Movie illegal is kind of ridiculous.

Expand full comment
AweDude's avatar

And yet, no standard has been made in over 60 years since that famous "I'll know it when I see it" ruling.

Expand full comment
Jonathon Van Maren's avatar

That's because there's been no attempt to ban pornography, and we had no idea where this experiment would take us. Over thirty countries (including the majority of Asian countries) ban porn. As I say, if we had the will to do it, we could.

Expand full comment
AweDude's avatar

So, what would your standard of pornography be? And how would you ensure that no false-positives (non-porn things that are mistakenly considered porn) or false-negatives (porn things that are mistakenly considered non-porn) happen?

Expand full comment
Crimson's avatar

It ruined men’s collective self respect.

Expand full comment