|
The problem with banning something on the basis that it's porn is that there isn't a single definition that fits what porn is. My favorite story of how broad the definition is concerns a booklet that a man sent via mail in either the late 19th or early 20th century. He was charged with sending obscene literature through the mail. What he'd done was have the Song of Songs by Solomon printed up and then mailed them out to others. One mans porn is often another man's art. So to say such and such is porn and this isn't porn seems very simplistic to me. Also even if porn is illegal in the U.S. you don't see it being enforced usually. The reason being (IMO) that it could be considered a violation of a given person's civil rights to do so. That is if the Gov. can tell me what I can and can't read what is next? Granted there are some gray areas in the argument as you would have a hard time proving that someone had the right to view actual child porn for example, but there is a difference I think between a drawn image and a photo. The photo would be of an actual real human being while a drawn pic isn't. And anyone who couldn't tell the difference between a drawing and a photo would have bigger problems than whether or not something is porn or not.
|