I had a similar response at first, but I believe Zen is responding to Zahill’s comparison to America. In America, yes. Their first amendment is very, very broad. Over time, various cases have held that “obscene” material can be banned, but they have increasingly narrowed the definition of obscene to the point that most of what we would call porn is now legally protected. Cases like Roth and Miller, earlier on. Leading up to, more recently, Ashcroft v ACLU which prohibited bans of online porn pretty much entirely.
(Disclaimer: this comment comes from some vaguely remembered YouTube videos from Legal Eagle, plus skimming the Wikipedia articles of the cases mentioned. I’m probably being overly broad…or overly narrow, in some way here.)
A bigger reason is that nobody should trust the government to define porn for the purpose of classifying porn as restricted speech, just because there are too many important edge cases, especially regarding health information.
There is not right to view porn. Maybe making it, yes. Although SCOTUS has notably never defined obscenity in terms of porn. And that is as drastic oversimplification of the Ashcroft case.
I had a similar response at first, but I believe Zen is responding to Zahill’s comparison to America. In America, yes. Their first amendment is very, very broad. Over time, various cases have held that “obscene” material can be banned, but they have increasingly narrowed the definition of obscene to the point that most of what we would call porn is now legally protected. Cases like Roth and Miller, earlier on. Leading up to, more recently, Ashcroft v ACLU which prohibited bans of online porn pretty much entirely.
(Disclaimer: this comment comes from some vaguely remembered YouTube videos from Legal Eagle, plus skimming the Wikipedia articles of the cases mentioned. I’m probably being overly broad…or overly narrow, in some way here.)
A bigger reason is that nobody should trust the government to define porn for the purpose of classifying porn as restricted speech, just because there are too many important edge cases, especially regarding health information.
There is not right to view porn. Maybe making it, yes. Although SCOTUS has notably never defined obscenity in terms of porn. And that is as drastic oversimplification of the Ashcroft case.