Is Pornography the New Tobacco? | Hacker News Reader

Is Pornography the New Tobacco?

hoover.org

14 pointscpr16 comments

Open articleView on HN

This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances."

I'm not moved. Tobacco kills and injures people even innocent bystanders. There may be a case for psychological damage, but the author herself admits that the damage may be a learned reaction. At the end she looks at the political aspects and says the the political supporters (by innuendo) are left wing liberals like Obama and Henry Waxman.

Whoa there Nellie! Then I see "Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and consulting editor to Policy Review." Says it all.

I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not.

Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes:

"It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist."

Do you disagree? Do you think that Waxman and Obama ARE likely to go after "Big Pornography" or start pushing for the enforcement of obscenity laws?

And if you would look more closely, you would realize that this IS the website for Policy Review, Hoover Institution, Stanford.

> Unlike tobacco, which was traditionally defended by a coalition of libertarians and politicians from conservative tobacco-growing Southern states, pornography’s most prominent defenders in the public sphere — including its industry spokesmen — associate themselves with the progressive wing of Democratic Party politics. It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist. The recent ascension to the No. 2 slot in the Justice Department of a lawyer who in private practice had numerous times defended Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of pornographic videos, and other pornographers just emphasizes the point.

is the paragraph that I based my innuendo comment on. Fundamentally, most porn is protected as artistic expression, child porn excepted. It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama.

I admit that I read the article quickly, but more than skimming. I thought the analogy was stretched, even she seemed to think so at times. But at the end linking liberals, Democrats, feminists, and porn political contributors was just a bit silly. Given that nothing can be done about it legally, the article was just political theater disguised as argument.

It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama.

Whoa, really? If the Supreme Court said "Porn is obscenity; it is not protected speech," you think Obama would demand that RedTube be shut down? Can you imagine anything like "We must stop these purveyors of sexually debased materials" ever emerging from Obama's mouth?

The only "harm" she shows pornography as causing can be summarized as follows: sometimes people get fired for watching porn at work, and sometimes people get divorced over it.

Neither of those are endemic to porn itself. Divorce can be blamed just as much on prudishness on the part of the non-porn-watching spouse as addiction on the part of the porn-watching spouse.

Isn't chafing harmful?

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the author. Sure there are a lot of similarities. But the article seems to be pushing her all-too-apparent agenda of taking down the porn industry the same way the tobacco industry was taken down. But she doesn't make the distinction between thoughts that may be harmful and something that causes actual physical harm.

There's a fictional character called Jennifer in the piece, who finds smoking morally wrong. Is this really a common view? Surely few people object to it if it's done in a way which minimises or eliminates passive smoking...

Whether you agree with them or not, you'll find many people who feel any drug dependence is a "wrong" based on their own values, or more practically, from considering societal costs.

Aside from the bible belt you mean? Oh heck yeah, there are. Why do you think there are so many attempts to ban smoking, not only in public places where non-smokers go, but also in tobacco shops where all the hired help smokes, in cigar bars, and even in your own car?

I follow an RSS feed for smoking ban news because I am a casual cigar smoker and a libertarian. It is happening all over the country.

The author makes the assumption that tobacco was stigmatized by a moral crusade-- a key mistake. Even if it was correct, anything rebellious is cool, so this argument holds no water.

The real reason smoking is out is obvious! Have you ever smelled a smoker's breath? Their clothes? Ever had smoke blown in your face? Ever sat down on a couch covered months of acquired ash? Ever had an ashtray spilled on or near you? Stepped on a cigarette butt? Ever seen a woman who's been chain-smoking for 10 years?

It's gross.

Porn, however, is always in excellent taste. ;)

No.

The article succeeds at drawing interesting, often poetic parallels between two unrelated concepts.

It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.

It's rather hard to fail at something that you were not trying to do in the first place.

Why so many HNers assume she has a vendetta against porn? I read the whole article and did not detect a bias either way.

I know nothing about this writer, nor about Policy Review, nor about the Hoover Institution, so perhaps I speak from ignorance.

Then why write it? That is a new, interesting angle no one else has offerred, and it must have been inventd by someone for some reason.

It ws interesing in many ways that are unintentional: e.g. because it shows how to fight this sort of plan: don't allow harm to enter the debate.

That killed cigarettes, so if porn wants to survive, prove it causes no more harm than, say, over-exercising or any other "addiction" to what is otherwise a non-addictive thing.

That is a new, interesting angle no one else has offerred, and it must have been inventd by someone for some reason.

Isn't that reason enough?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com