Show of Hands

First amendment

What about it?

You’re talking about people expressing their first amendment right. You want to kill them. Is that correct?

Just the execs. Last time I checked, sex trafficking wasn’t covered under the 1st amendment

Nope that’s not. I’m specifically referring to porn. Sex trafficking is a crime and should be punished with the fullest extent of the law.

Porn propagates sex trafficking lmfao

So no porn stars enter into porn willing.

Doesn’t matter. The lack of age verification on most major sites coupled with anomynity creates a HUGE market for sex trafficking. Not to mention there are problems with porn as a whole

I don’t disagree. Banning it will create a black market where trafficking will be increased tenfold. So what’s the answer?

Hang the execs

Can’t do that.

The billion dollar porn industry creates huge demand for human trafficking, we need to treat the problem at the source if we want to alleviate its symptoms.

I don’t see why taking and selling pictures of naked people necessarily leads to human trafficking. I also don’t see such pictures being available as inherently being a problem.

You don’t see how the prospect of huge financial gain incentives the use on unwilling human-trafficking victims in the attempted attainment of that profit? Okay. @skinner mentioned a specific case of this on this very poll.

The same could be said about lots of other perfectly legal activities. For instance it is legal to build houses out of wood. Because of that there is a large financial incentive to cut down trees on land without buying it or getting any sort of permit first. Should we ban houses to prevent illegal logging?

The two examples aren’t actually equivalent, considering that homes are a necessity and pornography is not, and that human trafficking is a much more egregious crime than illegal logging. Taking the legal principal of proportionality into account, it’s difficult to justify not regulating pornography if it can save even just one innocent child from being pressed into sexual slavery.

When people think about what a government should do, stopping human trafficking is a pretty easy place to start. That’s not a big government, that’s a basic government.

Increased regulation ≠ a ban, that’s not what this poll question is asking.

Also, every Republican who’s voted so far has taken the opposite position as you.

It is the idea that you can’t stop the demand. By banning the creation, you only push it into more perverse and illicit methods. There would even be a greater amount of revenue created because more people would pay for it.

So is cigarettes and alcohol. Without contest that breaks up more families and even ends more lives. That shit is poison too. Why not tax that to the point of no profit?
Because now you have a thriving black market on your hands.

👍👆👆

“The last solution is fairly aggressive and touches on a familiar issue. There has been much discussion among conservatives about rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: the immunity carve-out for Big Tech companies that allows them to avoid civil liability for content posted by users on their platforms.

Congress could rewrite the CDA so as to strip Section 230 immunity from sites that publish obscene and indecent material, thus opening these sites to civil liability for the content posted on their platforms. This would present a problem for many of these sites, especially the aggregation sites, which often host pornography featuring individuals who did not consent to having their likeness distributed to the public. In the distribution of such content, people are sexually exploited by a billion-dollar industry while receiving no compensation for the physical, professional, and emotional damages caused to them. They deserve their day in court.”

- QM