The article succeeds at drawing interesting, often poetic parallels between two unrelated concepts.
It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.
It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.
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.
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.
Isn't that reason enough?