"Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes, I felt it wasn't necessary to spell out that point in black and white."
Apparently they taught how to create Constitutional Amendments at your elementary school but they neglected to teach reading comprehension.
I said that the issue was with the hearts and minds of people in this country. But not in the sense that their hearts and minds need to warm to the idea of using gov't to enact laws to change behavior. The change in hearts and minds is needed so that people will stop being consumers of this stuff at every level; right now it's pervasive enough that you can't legislate against it.
There's evidence that it's already changing to an extent -- movie revenues are falling drastically, for example. And the more that people keep making the right choices the more society will change, and the more that advertising dollars will reflect that change. After all, it's all demand-driven anyway.
You said people need to get involved and change the gov't to add new Consitutional Amendments and a SCOTUS that will back it up. The solutions you propose are still based on the old Post-FDR, Baby-Boomer idea of just creating some new laws and that will fix the problem. You can blindly stand by your ideas all you want but it's still the same ol', same ol' liberal idea that gov't can (and should) fix everything by passing the right laws.
First and foremost, that ad hominem attack was uncalled for. It's one thing to digress from what I'm saying. It's another to sublimely hint that I'm an illiterate moron. I'll forgive you this time, but don't do it again.
I don't disagree that this debate lies in the hearts and souls of every citizen. That's very true.
But that is only part of the equation. Society can be enraged all it wants, but with the prevailing attitudes, it doesn't want to change.
Laws are enacted by the people. Laws are also reflective of the morality of society, and are put in place to uphold society. But, they are also like wine--everything in moderation.
Plus, your solution of "quit buying it" won't work. It's like telling the Kim Jong-Ils of the world, "Quit building nukes." You merely tell people not to buy smut, more people will buy it. That's part of human nature.
But you get together with people and form a law that expressly prohibits certain kinds of smut, less people will buy it, lest they end up in prison for it.
The point I'm making is that our society has morally devolved beyond the point where a.)society can clean the problem by itself without the usage of government, and b.) the porn business is more than market-driven by people buying it--it quite literally thrives on being drenched everywhere one goes.
Because of this, letting society try to clean itself up will be futile. It's well-intentioned, but it will never work.
In an ideal world, yes, we could sit back and let our culture clean it up. And if that were the case, I'd agree with you. But we're obviously not in an ideal world and by not doing anything, it will get worse as time moves forward.
Further, I don't advocate micromanagement of society by the government as you quite pointedly suggest. I do however advocate that if society finds it necessary to enact a law to aid itself in cleaning up this filth, it should do so, but only insofar as what is absolutely necessary. Government is a tool, and an extremely dangerous one at that. It ain't pretty, but as I'll explain in a minute, some it has to be used.
But, as I've told you, society must be careful what it wishes for, meaning that if it passes too many laws restricting obscenity, more average Joes will be compelled to break the law, effectively putting us below square one. This is exactly why Prohibition failed.
The solutions you propose are still based on the old Post-FDR, Baby-Boomer idea of just creating some new laws and that will fix the problem. You can blindly stand by your ideas all you want but it's still the same ol', same ol' liberal idea that gov't can (and should) fix everything by passing the right laws.
Now you're putting words into my mouth, and you still aren't understanding what I'm saying. I have never said it's the government's responsibility to handle the issue--you and I both know this.
What I've been saying all along here is that even a free society sometimes needs to use government as a tool. And because government is a dangerous tool, society has to be careful in how they use it, and they need to use it as minimally as possible to get the job done right.