Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

hoover.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#11

Post by byrneseyeview »

russell wrote: post #9
teilo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not. Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes: "It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Porno…

> Unlike tobacco, which was traditionally defended by a coalition of libertarians and politicians from conservative tobacco-growing Southern states, pornography’s most prominent defenders in the public sphere — including its industry spokesmen — associate themselves with the progressive wing of Democratic Party politics. It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in…

It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama.

Whoa, really? If the Supreme Court said "Porn is obscenity; it is not protected speech," you think Obama would demand that RedTube be shut down? Can you imagine anything like "We must stop these purveyors of sexually debased materials" ever emerging from Obama's mouth?

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#13

Post by teilo »

Dilpil wrote: post #12

The article succeeds at drawing interesting, often poetic parallels between two unrelated concepts. It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.

It's rather hard to fail at something that you were not trying to do in the first place.

Why so many HNers assume she has a vendetta against porn? I read the whole article and did not detect a bias either way.

I know nothing about this writer, nor about Policy Review, nor about the Hoover Institution, so perhaps I speak from ignorance.

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#14

Post by teilo »

gort wrote: post #7

There's a fictional character called Jennifer in the piece, who finds smoking morally wrong. Is this really a common view? Surely few people object to it if it's done in a way which minimises or eliminates passive smoking...

Aside from the bible belt you mean? Oh heck yeah, there are. Why do you think there are so many attempts to ban smoking, not only in public places where non-smokers go, but also in tobacco shops where all the hired help smokes, in cigar bars, and even in your own car?

I follow an RSS feed for smoking ban news because I am a casual cigar smoker and a libertarian. It is happening all over the country.

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#15

Post by motherwell »

teilo wrote: post #13
Dilpil wrote: post #12

The article succeeds at drawing interesting, often poetic parallels between two unrelated concepts. It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.

It's rather hard to fail at something that you were not trying to do in the first place. Why so many HNers assume she has a vendetta against porn? I read the whole article and did not detect a bias either way. I know nothing about this writer, nor about Policy Review, nor about the Hoover Institution, so perhaps I speak from ignorance.

Then why write it? That is a new, interesting angle no one else has offerred, and it must have been inventd by someone for some reason.

It ws interesing in many ways that are unintentional: e.g. because it shows how to fight this sort of plan: don't allow harm to enter the debate.

That killed cigarettes, so if porn wants to survive, prove it causes no more harm than, say, over-exercising or any other "addiction" to what is otherwise a non-addictive thing.

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#16

Post by dmoney »

motherwell wrote: post #15
teilo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rather hard to fail at something that you were not trying to do in the first place. Why so many HNers assume she has a vendetta against porn? I read the whole article and did not detect a bias either way. I know nothing about this writer, nor about Policy Review, nor about the Hoover Institution, so perhaps I speak from ignorance.

Then why write it? That is a new, interesting angle no one else has offerred, and it must have been inventd by someone for some reason. It ws interesing in many ways that are unintentional: e.g. because it shows how to fight this sort of plan: don't allow harm to enter the debate. That killed cigarettes, so if porn wants to survive, prove it causes no more harm than, say, over-exercising or any other "addiction" to w…

That is a new, interesting angle no one else has offerred, and it must have been inventd by someone for some reason.

Isn't that reason enough?

Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

#17

Post by manticor »

The author makes the assumption that tobacco was stigmatized by a moral crusade-- a key mistake. Even if it was correct, anything rebellious is cool, so this argument holds no water.

The real reason smoking is out is obvious! Have you ever smelled a smoker's breath? Their clothes? Ever had smoke blown in your face? Ever sat down on a couch covered months of acquired ash? Ever had an ashtray spilled on or near you? Stepped on a cigarette butt? Ever seen a woman who's been chain-smoking for 10 years?

It's gross.

Porn, however, is always in excellent taste. ;)

Post reply on HN