Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[MasterJedi]

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.
Spon: Sen. Marokai Blue

[Marokai Backbeat]

I bring forward the following amendment on Franzl's behalf, with my full support of course:


1. All individuals, regardless of age, shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting persons of 18 years of age or older.

[Rowan]

No way.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry, but this is victimless. Porn is harmless, and since most teenagers consume it illegally, it makes no sense to keep something like this on the books.

Legalize a victimless crime, and you have freed up law enforcement resources and encouraged the sale of legal material instead of illegal downloads or unlawful copying of material. There's no reason to stigmatize sex, or make it a "forbidden fruit" because this ends up with worse consequences down the road than anything like this could lead to.

[Meeker]

I support this, FWIW. I've never understood why pornography purchase has an age restriction.

[Rowan]

It might do something to help kids from turning gay. That might be the only positive out of it.

[Psychic Octopus]

I like the initial bill; The amendment not so much.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I'm sorry, but this is victimless. Porn is harmless, and since most teenagers consume it illegally, it makes no sense to keep something like this on the books.

Legalize a victimless crime, and you have freed up law enforcement resources and encouraged the sale of legal material instead of illegal downloads or unlawful copying of material. There's no reason to stigmatize sex, or make it a "forbidden fruit" because this ends up with worse consequences down the road than anything like this could lead to.

There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

[Sewer]

There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

WEED

[Lief 🗽]

Strongly support.

[Fritz]

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

[Alexander Hamilton]

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

I always knew you to be more reasonable then most of the Democratic posters. I agree with this premise. Not everything is appropriate for all ages, pornography is one of those things. If anything, legalizing it for this age groups leaves the impression that it is OK for them. These are minors, and they aren't responsible or mature enough. Plus, Fritz is completely correct in saying that this material objectifies women and can be seen as rather demeaning more so to women than to men.

[Purple State]

It might do something to help kids from turning gay. That might be the only positive out of it.

I sincerely hope that comment was made in jest.

[MaxQue]

Like I said many times, I am on the fence on that bill.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It might do something to help kids from turning gay. That might be the only positive out of it.

I sincerely hope that comment was made in jest.

Party Empowerment Act?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

That is ridiculous. Even accepting for the sake of argument (which is a big jump) that you're right in that it does make men view women as sexual objects that is A) A cultural issue that the government couldn't change either way and B) Already going on anyway since kids are getting their hands on illegal material en masse as it is.

Secondly, porn is about as addictive as video games are. That is also not the fault of the government nor is there anything we can do about it.

This is an individual issue that the government should have no say in one way or another. I guess you hit my 'libertarian' side.

[Meeker]

Rowan's quote is a reference to a semi-well publicized comment made by Tom Coburn's Chief of Staff, fyi

[Purple State]

Rowan's quote is a reference to a semi-well publicized comment made by Tom Coburn's Chief of Staff, fyi

Where it's from is not the question. What matters is whether it was serious or not. But I'm not saying I plan on booting Rowan from the party. The DA doesn't expel members based on ideologies (quite the opposite!). I just felt it was important that someone address the comment.

[Franzl]

Strongly support the amendment brought on my behalf!

I don't have much else to say here except that I agree entirely with Marokai's arguments.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll be around to vote on the amendment and final passage these next few days....but I'll try!

[Fritz]

That is ridiculous. Even accepting for the sake of argument (which is a big jump) that you're right in that it does make men view women as sexual objects that is A) A cultural issue that the government couldn't change either way and B) Already going on anyway since kids are getting their hands on illegal material en masse as it is.

Secondly, porn is about as addictive as video games are. That is also not the fault of the government nor is there anything we can do about it.

I think my main point, which you don't address, is that teenagers are not yet emotionally mature enough to handle this material, and it has the potential to damage their psyche for life- much more so than in adults, because of their immaturity.  The fact that it is already going on is not a valid argument.  I consumed alcohol, cigarettes, and yes pornography, not to mention pot, acid, and cocaine, all before the age of 18, as were many of my peers.  All of these things are already going on- that doesn't mean they should be legal.  I willl buy your argument about porn's addictive nature being similar to video games, but I don't think video games can be as damaging to a tender young mind as pornography- also I believe there are some age restrictions on video games, depending on the content.  These are children who are just becoming aware of their sexuality.  That awareness should be allowed to develop to maturity before exposure to this material.

If you feel so strongly about this, why include the age restriction of those depicted in the material?

The laws we have in place criminalize the sale of this material to minors.  I don't believe we have any law that would punish the minor for "possession".  If we do, I could be okay with relaxing that.

[afleitch]

I have to echo Fritz on this. I support a reduction to the age of 14 but there has to be a limit (and one could argue it at 12)

We could end up having a system where a 8 year old may not be taught or be allowed to be taught about sex education, but they could walk in and buy pornography. That is not the first impression of sex and sexuality that anyone should be exposed to.

I've made it clear in the past that abstinence is not a substitute for proper sex ed. Neither is pornography.

[Hash]

I could support the original version, but there's no way I will support the amended version. I'm even torn on the original version.

I echo most of Fritz and Afleitch's comments on the matter, especially Afleitch who's made excellent points.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I withdraw the amendment, then. Sorry Franzl, my friend, I tried.

[Badger]

As it is the right of Senators to call witnesses to testify on a bill (I think), I would respectfully ask the Senate's permission to address the chamber regarding this bill. Thank you.

(And no, I don't plan on making a habit of this; the DUI bill and this are just two that hit close to home--or work at least).

[Hash]

I call on Badger to testify