General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Either someone cares about workers rights or he doesn't. If someone pretends to care about workers rights but suddenly evokes the "choice" argument about porn work, there is an ideological disconnect.
It appears to me your continual use of "suppression" is evading the issues people are concerned about. The poster who mentioned the First Amendment didn't argue for suppression. She asked how people could justify it.
As I have repeated many times, some porn is made with slave labor. It is not a trivial matter or an insignificant amount of porn. Continually evoking the First Amendment and ignoring the other rights at stake, such as workers rights or the right to be free from bondage, is to focus exclusively on the rights of consumers--overwhelmingly male--over the rights of porn workers, free or coerced--overwhelmingly female.
No right is absolute. The exist in relation to each other. To posit an imaginary porn universe where workers are treated well as a justification for all extreme porn is an unsound argument.
Now if someone made a point of consuming porn only from licensed and regulated companies, that would be a step forward. When I have made that suggestion, however, it has been rebuked. The focus for most remains entirely on the wants and liberty of the porn consumer.