You keep making the argument that, since enforcement could not be perfect, we should endorse pornography by making it legal.
The problem isn't that enforcement won't be perfect. The problem is that enforcement could never realistically catch even 0.1% of violations without serious abridgements of the Bill of Rights.
We can't stop people from committing any category of crime at all, from cannibalism to mooning. That simply does not constitute grounds to stop trying, or to stop registering our disapproval.
If a law cannot be enforced well enough that reasonable punishments will significantly deter the prohibitted activity, that implies pretty strongly that it is a bad law.
It is worse, as a general thing, but before I explain why, let me ask what that comparison has to do with anything? Some crimes are worse than others, but that doesn't mean we should legalize the lesser crimes.
Well, since picking up strangers at a bar is perfectly legal (and IMHO is worse), the question would be why a less-damaging activity should be treated more harshly than a more-damaging one.
It is worse to watch the video because the people in the video are engaged in prostitution, and when you watch, you become the person paying them to degrade themselves (and put their immortal souls in deadly peril). Futher, they are often being exploited and even extorted into performing.
The contribution of one viewer to the industry pales in comparison to the contribution of an individual to the morals of a woman whom he takes on a one-night stand. Being one of many thousands of people to watch a woman perform a particular immoral sex act would seem to pale in comparison with being the one individual with whom a different woman performs an immoral sex act.
As with so many things, once the cycle gets running, it is both cause and result, feeding upon itself.
That is, to some extent, true but I would maintain that attacking symptoms of societal problems is still often ineffective and at times counterproductive. Even if one is successful at completely eliminating a particular symptom, another is almost guaranteed to emerge; in many cases, the new one may be worse than the old one.
The fundamental problem is that women's lib has made the proper method for sexual release (i.e. sex within wedlock) impractical for many people to obtain in timely fashion. Trying to curtail all forms of sexual release is generally neither effective nor helpful. If porn is eliminated, men will release their sexual energies in some other way; I see no reason to expect that to be an improvement.
“The problem isn't that enforcement won't be perfect. The problem is that enforcement could never realistically catch even 0.1% of violations without serious abridgements of the Bill of Rights.”
What abridgements? The BOR doesn’t protect pornography.
“If a law cannot be enforced well enough that reasonable punishments will significantly deter the prohibited activity, that implies pretty strongly that it is a bad law.”
Wait a minute, there. You just said that reasonable punishments will not be forthcoming because the wrongdoers won’t be caught. You can’t make both those arguments at the same time.
Besides, it is not always the case that a widespread willingness to break a law indicates that it is a bad law. It might, or it might indicate widespread moral depravity.
“Well, since picking up strangers at a bar is perfectly legal (and IMHO is worse), the question would be why a less-damaging activity should be treated more harshly than a more-damaging one.”
It is not worse, because prostitution is worse than fornication. Besides, the profusion of pornography is far more damaging to the nation’s moral fiber than private fornication.
“The contribution of one viewer to the industry pales in comparison to the contribution of an individual to the morals of a woman whom he takes on a one-night stand.”
That’s not the way the moral calculus factors out. Each viewer of pornography bears a 100 percent share of the blame.
“That is, to some extent, true but I would maintain that attacking symptoms of societal problems is still often ineffective and at times counterproductive.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s ineffective. A moral society will still take a stand, even if they die on that hill.
“Even if one is successful at completely eliminating a particular symptom, another is almost guaranteed to emerge; in many cases, the new one may be worse than the old one.”
Yes, Satan is a busy fellow. That doesn’t mean we should cede any of these fights to him. Nobody ever won anything through preemptive surrender.
“Trying to curtail all forms of sexual release is generally neither effective nor helpful. If porn is eliminated, men will release their sexual energies in some other way; I see no reason to expect that to be an improvement.”
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Whether it is an improvement or not would depend on how those men are bent. Perhaps, sufficiently deprived, they would sublimate their sexual energies by wiping Islam from the face of the earth. Or maybe they’d go down to South America and clean out the commies and drug cartels.
Or, heck, maybe they’d go to our own big cities and clean out the commies and drug cartels.