

Is Pornography the New Tobacco? - cpr
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/41599902.html

======
russell
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.

~~~
teilo
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.

~~~
russell
> 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.

~~~
byrneseyeview
_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?

------
philwelch
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.

~~~
erlanger
Isn't chafing harmful?

------
CraigBuchek
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.

------
gort
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...

~~~
teilo
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.

------
manticor
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. ;)

------
jemmons
No.

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

It does not succeed at giving reasons to ban pornography.

~~~
teilo
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.

~~~
motherwell
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.

~~~
dmoney
_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?

