Pornography and Free Speech | Nadine Strossen and Holly Lawford-Smith

[@garyweglarz]

It is difficult to see how anyone can reduce "pornography" to essentially a "free speech" issue without at least acknowledging how the changing technological landscape children live within has created new issues worth serious consideration. As a retired clinical social worker I quite agree with the concerns expressed by Jonathan Haidt regarding how the unfettered access to hardcore pornography is likely quite negatively impacting both female and male children. Gen-Z now has smart-phone access to unlimited hardcore pornography, without age-restrictions enforced - and many 10 and 11 years old male & female children have now watched adult male sexual fantasies being acted out for an adult audience - and of course assuming they are watching "normal sexual behavior" and a preview of what to expect when they become sexually active. Is it any wonder that ever increasing numbers of young girls are coming to the conclusion that they must have been - "born in the wrong body" - perhaps because it terrifies them to have seen graphic video depictions of what their body will be expected to be subjected to as they become women? I am curious as to whether Ms. Strossen acknowledges the validity of such concerns, or if she sees this as simply a "free speech" issue and fails acknowledge and support efforts to enact safeguards preventing minors from so easily accessing hard core pornography?

[@Koustav_04]

Then control children, not adults.

[@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220]

Nadine Strossen says she knows little about pornography, maybe she should read Pornland by Gale Dines.. she also said the fact that porn is so popular means it must be a good.. hope I'm not misrepresenting her... well as we know a great manh things are popular but very harmful..

[@Aleknatha]

Can you provide science-based evidence that pornography causes medical harm to humans?

[@Aleknatha]

Nice to hear every once in a while from someone who has not dedicated their whole life to banning pornography. On the other hand, kind of exhausting to keep hearing the claims that pornography (i.e. recorded sex) causes some sort of mystical, impalpable harm. Is harm caused by pornography in the room with us right now? The mentioned "empirical evidence" is most likely some correlational study (e.g. men who assaulted women had porn on their phones) that doesn't prove the necessary causation element. In general, it is difficult for me to regard conservative-minded people as philosophers. If all you want to do is ban / censor / reduce freedom, how can you consider yourself a deep, intellectual thinker? What else do you bring to the table? What universal principles do you defend? To find out the person's true motivation, I ask myself the chicken-or-egg question: was the person neutral towards pornography in the beginning, but once the scientific evidence emerged they began feeling a responsibility to defend the victimized groups; or was the person always hostile towards the idea of pornography, desperately misciting studies, inventing "social harm" arguments just to ban something they detest? I also find it fascinating how at 12:03 Holly tries to imply that Mark is an old school patriarchal male chauvinist, who's only making excuses for Joe Gow because they're both men. Genuine question, apologies if rude: are conservative-minded people able to see the larger principle in question? Or is there some sort of a comprehension limit? Do they sincerely, honestly believe that people like Mark are secretly implementing a male supremacy agenda under the pretense of "freedom"? If they do actually think so from their hearts, debates might be fruitless. Either way, great show as always, thanks everyone. May I suggest you guys invite Judith Levine sometime in the future? She's the author of "Harmful to Minors", and speaks about the topics of pornography and sexuality from a traditional feminist's perspective. Could be an interesting debate if you challenge her on her views.