But isn't harm minimization a thing? That's something we practice in other domains, like providing clean needles to drug addicts. After all, if drug use is harmful to the people doing drugs, then it should be illegal. So; making things illegal often doesn't solve the problem. Making it harder to consume porn reduces consumption which reduces the amount of money being funneled into the industry, which might be beneficial to those harmed by it (both producers and consumers). Versus, making it illegal might have a prohibition-style impact, and is, of course, legally tenuous anyway.
I agree but, then they can go after people producing porn, not people that watch it.
This is the same as going after the drug addicts.
This feels like going after the people on the more vulnerable side because it is easy. Which signals it is more about forcing people to not do something instead of trying to genuinely help them.
But going after people producing porn is a no no because they have money and they are organised.
Also imo the intention of people trying implement things like this is just about surveillance and has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the families, children, addicts etc. etc.
There's no evidence that porn addiction is nearly as harmful as drug addiction other than making some religious people feel more shame about it than usual. If the argument is that the people who produce porn are doing something illegal or harmful, then prosecute them. If they're filming consenting adults in compliance with regulations that are already in place then I don't really understand the problem here.
You're essentially saying that you'd like to ban it long term, but since you can't make it happen right away, laws like these can serve as a first step to normalize censorship leading to such a ban.
Thank you for being honest about it and illustrating why the slippery slope is very real.
