...
The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to. It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise.
Which are?
... Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults.
Who's to base what sex should be? Religious institutions? The government? I don't see the need to see sex as purely an "expression of love" to be the only valid one.
Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience. Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation. They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone.
Implied in your wording is the idea there is harm due to that perception. What is it?
Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you?
What does it matter?
Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces. Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.
What
problem, specifically? Nations have nothing to do with it, biology does.
