Eroding rule of law is worse: You’re enabling corruption, you’re enabling a conduit for people to breaking other laws that are poorly enforced, you’re enabling worse practices which won’t be controlled by regulation.
You’re trying to prevent one bad thing, and in doing so, you set off multiple others. Not worth it.
You can’t hold pornography up in isolation; the total effect of this enforcement must be accounted for. And we know for one thing, you’d have to violate internet privacy rules just to attempt it.
Drinking got better. We drink far less today than we did in the 1930s.
Murder rate spiked, corruption increased dramatically, drinking, after initially falling, was increasing year after year.
I don’t say this anecdotally, I have the actual figures that were used by people living in the era to end Prohibition.
There’s also the fact that Prohibition was a progressive policy, predicated on progressive understanding of human nature.
When exactly has that ever been accurate?
Apples to oranges: murder can be enforced because there’s a consensus in the population that murder should be stopped.
There is no consensus on pornography. People will ignore it, and enable it, because they wil perceive the men & women involved in it as not being victims.
And if there is no consensus, you’re not going to manufacture one by passing a law. This is why gun laws trying to replicate European gun violence rates here are impossible.
Sorry, but this is where efficacy of law ends. This is a limitation of the reality we live in.
If you’re saying each measure of porn created is universally exploitation, then yes.
You are saying that you are reading the women’s thoughts, even veterans who have been involved in the industry for decades.
That is the only way you’d know they were victims, and not willful collaborators.
Keep in mind, they’re not children, and do have the capability to make up their own minds on this matter.
Nope; not in today’s world. Sorry.
You haven’t looked at all. I did.
Yeah, zealotry; you ignore broader conditions, hold it up in isolation to everything else, and don’t care about the defects or collateral damage you set off.
You ignore the fact that people can consent to this, and pretend to read their minds to assume “all” are victims.
You pretend that law can “fix” moral quandaries in society. Even if there’s no consensus for it to do so.
But not drunkenness itself, that’s the point.
You can use laws to set limits on where pornography is done, not that it’s done.