Hacker News Reader

They specifically were trying to illustrate how overly broad the law was, and

> the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863)

It wasn't a bad attempt to "illustrate what pornography is", but an example of what most would agree is NOT porn, but would be effected.

View on HN

What techdirt definitely doesn't want to illustrate is the typical reality of what internet pornography is.

Correct, they wanted to illustrate how an overly broad law, supposedly designed to target pornography, would instead target art.

What's the matter with pornography? All the porn I find on the internet arouses sexual interest, which is a good thing. No one's getting choked, stabbed, shat on, or anything vile, but a lot of people are either getting laid or getting ready to get laid. So what?

Some will say that if it's not vile and degrading it's not porn. I think there's a question of defining terms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com