Im fascinated by the debate that has been raging these past several days among conservatives around the issue of pornography. Im happy to accept blame for helping to start this scuffle because I think it has been a clarifying moment for conservatism. As Jane Coaston outlined in her fair and insightfulreporting at Vox,the dispute over porn regulation really springs from a more fundamental disagreement about the actual purpose of government.
Guys like Sohrab Ahmari have come down on the pro-regulation side, while the libertarians at Reason have settled, unsurprisingly, on the other. The dividing line even runs through The Daily Wire. My colleaguesMichael Knowles and Josh Hammerjoin Ahmari, myself, and others in the view that government has a legitimate role in battling the porn epidemic, while Ben Shapiroand Jeremy Boreingsay that it should not have a substantial role and any role, if there is one, should not include an outright ban. I think everyone cited above has contributed thoughtfully to the discussion, and Im not just saying that because two of them happen to sign my paychecks.
But through this whole back-and-forth, I havent seen anyone engage with what I consider to be my strongest argument. Putting aside, for a moment, the philosophical discussion about the nature of government and the states role in preserving the common good an important conversation, but one that leads us far into the weeds and loses sight of the original subject in the process Id like to re-emphasize a very simple point Ive made about the porn problem, specifically.
The defense of pornography, or at least of its remaining legal and mostly unregulated, seems to hinge on the fact that the content is produced and viewed by consenting adults. If viewers do not consent to viewing a sexual act, we all presumably agree that a crime has occurred. It would seem to strain the bounds of the most radical libertarianism to argue that a group of adults are within their rights to have an orgy on the subway, for example.
Porn is different, its argued, because you only view it if you seek it out. If viewers of porn were not consenting if internet porn were of such a nature that millions of people were forced to encounter it against their will every year then it would seem that the argument against prohibition or regulation begins to crumble. Well, I think it has already crumbled because indeed millions of people are exposed to itevery year against their will and consent. Those defending the legality of porn seem to be ignoring this group of victims, and I think that is an insurmountable moral and logical flaw in their position.
Children are first exposed to porn at the age of 11, on average. As we speak right now, there are no doubt millions of minors, some as young as five or six years old, watching adults have sex on the internet. This is an indisputable fact. Does the fact not blow to smithereens the consent excuse offered by the other side? Our legal system rests on the assumption that minors cannot consent to engage in sexual acts. If an adult has sex with a child, the adult is guilty of rape no matter if the child verbally agreed or not. In our society, we understand that children lack the mental and emotional maturity to make an informed decision in this area. To deny that is to literally defend pedophilia.
Well, if children cannot consent to engage in a sexual act, does it not inevitably follow that they cannot consent to witness such an act? If they cannot consent as a second-party participant, neither can they consent as a third-party participant. Thus, every child who watches porn does so, by definition, without consent. Again: I dont see how you can quibble with this argument without also quibbling with the logic for criminalizing pedophilic behavior. Im not saying that the people on the opposite side of this issue are trying to legalize pedophilia. Im saying that they fail to appreciate how our laws against pedophilia also provide a basis for pornography regulation.
This all means that every consenting adult who posts hardcore sex videos to the internet does so knowing that children can very easily access and view it. They are putting it, as it were, within reach of the child. If the child reaches for it, who do we blame? Is it the childs fault or the fault of the person who put it there? I would argue that every child who has viewed internet pornography is a victim of abuse. And the abuser is the person who posted that content where a child, with no trouble at all, could find it.
Indeed, the internet porn industry makes hundreds of millions of dollars every year on children. Each hit to a site like Pornhub is monetized. If millions of children go on that site which they do, because theres nothing to stop them then Pornhub profits to the tune of millions on the psychological and sexual abuse of children. If you dont think the government has an interest in the common good, broadly speaking, will you admit that it at least has an interest in preventing people from making millions on providing pornography to 12-year-olds?
The obvious dodge here is to lay the onus entirely at the feet of parents. Its not the pornographers fault, critics will respond. Its up to the parent to stop their kids from seeing this stuff. I find this rejoinder to be profoundly lazy. Its true that parents should be doing all they can to shield their children from the filth on the internet, but its also true that the internet is so ubiquitous that parents cannot, on their own, do a sufficient job in this regard. Even if the child has no phone and no internet access at home or, more likely, regulated internet access at home he can still go almost anywhere else and access the internet dozens of different ways. Short of moving into a cave in the desert, a parent can only provide partial cover. But partial cover, in the end, is only a little better than no cover at all.
Besides, this does nothing to relieve the responsibility of the person posting the content in the first place. Even if every child exposed to porn has ineffectual and inattentive parents (which is most emphatically not the case), that still doesnt explain why anyone should have the right to post sex videos on a public forum where children can easily access them. It might be true that some children who are molested could have been saved that trauma had their parents been more vigilant, but that does absolutely nothing at all to excuse the man who did the molesting. The same holds true for pornographers.
The question is this: Do we have a natural human right to post hardcore sex videos online where children can see them? Anyone who says yes has an extremely confused and hopelessly ambiguous conception of human rights. The rational people who say no, however, must weigh whether a persons privilege to post such content outweighs the right of a child to be free from sexual abuse and trauma.
This does not have to be a deeply philosophical debate about philosophies of governance and so on. This can be much simpler. You do not have a right to expose children to sexually explicit content. Children do have a right to certain basic legal protections. That fact alone, in my view, is enough to settle the argument.
- N.Y. Primary: Who Is on the Ballot? - The New York Times - June 22nd, 2020
- We Watched the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Debate So You Didn't Have To - Reason - May 27th, 2020
- That Time the Libertarian Party Debated the Private Ownership of Nuclear Weapons - Reason - May 27th, 2020
- The truth about 'I'm with her' - CNN - May 27th, 2020
- You Dont Have to Like the Decree, But Wear Face Masks Anyway - Bacon's Rebellion - May 27th, 2020
- Justin Amash, Ross Perot and the third-party future: Ranked choice voting is the answer - Salon - May 27th, 2020
- An outbreak anywhere is an outbreak everywhere - Modern Diplomacy - May 14th, 2020
- Libertarian Party To Choose Its Presidential Ticket in Virtual Vote Over Memorial Day Weekend - Reason - May 11th, 2020
- Johnson address shows he has been swayed by hawks in his cabinet - The Guardian - May 11th, 2020
- Dershowitz Defends and Criticizes Flynn by Railing Against Entrapment and Fair-Weather Civil Libertarians - Law & Crime - May 11th, 2020
- Analysis: Reeves tries to balance concerns of health, jobs - Associated Press - May 11th, 2020
- Originalism, Common-Good Originalism, and Common-Good Constitutionalism - Reason - May 11th, 2020
- Libertarian, Green parties sue over Illinois election rules - The Southern - April 9th, 2020
- Lawsuit Filed by Green and Libertarian Parties Over Petitioning Issues Because of Stay at Home Order - wcsjnews.com - April 9th, 2020
- This Libertarian Country Defeated The Coronavirus With The Free Market - Patheos - April 9th, 2020
- Is Passover the Most Libertarian Holiday? - Reason - April 9th, 2020
- Liberty of Movement and Assembly - Reason - April 9th, 2020
- The Most-Watched Show in America Is a Moral Failure - The Atlantic - April 9th, 2020
- The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Exposing Government Follies on Many Levels - Reason - April 9th, 2020
- Three political philosophies, and how they apply to the coronavirus pandemic - BioEdge - April 9th, 2020
- A Little-Known Democratic Governor Is Breaking Out in Kentucky - The Intercept - April 9th, 2020
- The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Set Off A Massive Expansion Of Government Surveillance. Civil Libertarians Aren't Sure What To Do. - BuzzFeed News - March 31st, 2020
- Aiming for KO in KY The only Republican primary challenger with the backing of the RJC - Jewish Insider - March 31st, 2020
- In a pandemic, Nobody thinks we should smoke more weed - The Boston Globe - March 31st, 2020
- How the Right Went Far-Right - The American Prospect - March 31st, 2020
- Margaret Thatcher, Libertarianism, and the Etherization of the Single Tax - Merion West - March 24th, 2020
- On the 2020 Campaign Trail, Where's the Truth on the Economy? - The Liberator Online - March 24th, 2020
- In Remembrance of Jon Basil Utley (1934-2020) | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute - March 24th, 2020
- The coronavirus crisis ignites a bonfire of Conservative party orthodoxies - The Guardian - March 24th, 2020
- letters to the Editor: March 5, 2020 | Opinion - Indianapolis Recorder - March 5th, 2020
- What to know ahead of Super Tuesday primary in North Carolina - Charlotte Post - March 5th, 2020
- Missouris presidential primary is March 10. Heres what to know before you vote - The Rolla Daily News - March 5th, 2020
- Without Government, Who Will Build The Roads? - The Libertarian Republic - March 5th, 2020
- Missouri's Presidential Primary Is March 10 Here's What Voters Need To Know - KCUR - March 5th, 2020
- Here's who's officially in the federal, statewide and Fulton elections on qualifying's Day 3 - The Catoosa County News - March 5th, 2020
- Voters in Fayetteville and across NC to make choices in Tuesday's primary election - The Fayetteville Observer - March 5th, 2020
- Evolution in action in the Middle East - Boulder Weekly - March 5th, 2020
- Today is primary day. Here's what you need to know. - Hickory Daily Record - March 5th, 2020
- Qualifying for 2020 election has started in Georgia. Here's who has made the cut - Forsyth County News Online - March 5th, 2020
- Andrew Yang launches nonprofit aimed at making his former campaign's ideas a reality - WICZ - March 5th, 2020
- Senior services support,county commissioners races on primary ballot; Here is a list of what you - Galion Inquirer - January 27th, 2020
- Republican Party chairs chose Jacobs as 27th District Congressional candidate - The Daily News Online - January 27th, 2020
- Tyler Cowen on "State Capacity Libertarianism" II: Is it the Right Path for Libertarians to Follow? - Reason - January 25th, 2020
- Libertarianism and assassination - Nolan Chart LLC - January 25th, 2020
- Peter Thiels Latest Venture Is the American Government - New York Magazine - January 25th, 2020
- Six things to know about the primary election - Shelby Star - January 25th, 2020
- Joe Rogans Endorsement Is One of the Most Influential in America - VICE - January 25th, 2020
- State Election Board Releases Official 2020 Voter Registration Statistics - The Marlow Review - January 25th, 2020
- Tyler Cowen on "State Capacity Libertarianism" I: Is it the Wave of the "Smart" Libertarian Future? - Reason - January 18th, 2020
- A Conversation with a Libertarian Observed | Mark Shea - Patheos - January 18th, 2020
- The Evolving Libertarianism of Neil Peart - National Review - January 18th, 2020
- Why Libertarians Have a Love-hate Relationship With the 10th Amendment - HowStuffWorks - January 18th, 2020
- Did Vermin Supreme Win the New Hampshire Libertarian Primary? - Heavy.com - January 18th, 2020
- Last of the Hollywood libertarians: why the outrage over Vince Vaughn's handshake with Trump? - The Telegraph - January 18th, 2020
- Elizabeth Warrens evasions and other commentary - New York Post - January 18th, 2020
- State Election Board releases official 2020 voter registration statistics - Claremore Daily Progress - January 18th, 2020
- Liberty and Death - Splice Today - January 18th, 2020
- Lincoln Chafee on SS Privatization, Drugs, and When Taxation is Theft - The Libertarian Republic - January 18th, 2020
- Does Gun Girl Kaitlin Bennett Hate America And Also The Constitution? - Wonkette - January 18th, 2020
- Justin Amash's Biggest Fiscally Conservative National Donors Are Abandoning His Re-election Bid - Reason - January 18th, 2020
- In California: Get ready to matter in the presidential primary - USA TODAY - January 18th, 2020
- 'Sister Wives': Kody Brown Is Going to Hang Out With This 2020 Presidential Candidate - Showbiz Cheat Sheet - January 18th, 2020
- The Libertarian Movement Needs a Kick in the Pants - Reason - January 7th, 2020
- What libertarianism has become and will become State Capacity Libertarianism - Hot Air - January 7th, 2020
- The Libertarian Party's Attack on Austin Petersen Shows Why They Lose - The Libertarian Republic - January 7th, 2020
- Libertarian says college district is using the number 8 to influence Chinese voters - The Daily Post - December 31st, 2019
- Recognizing the four pillars of the republic in public schools - Washington Times - December 31st, 2019
- The Best Truthdig Originals of 2019 - Truthdig - December 31st, 2019
- Disputed Appointments and the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, in 1937 and Today - Cato Institute - December 31st, 2019
- Meet the Kochs - The Mountain -Ear - December 31st, 2019
- Scoppe: How SC law made it crazy for cities, counties to give any ground to billboards - Charleston Post Courier - December 31st, 2019
- U.K. Election: Brexit Wins, Jeremy Corbyn Crashes - Reason - December 13th, 2019
- A Federal Government Thats Not Good at Its Job Cant Effectively Serve the Common Good - National Review - December 13th, 2019
- As Texas elections get tighter, more third-party candidates are making inroads - Houston Chronicle - November 30th, 2019
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: The anti-vaxx movement is 'libertarianism taken to the extreme' - GZERO Media - November 30th, 2019
- DeSantis is reshaping Floridas courts with the Federalist Societys help - Tampa Bay Times - November 30th, 2019
- Meet A.D. Smith, Forgotten Libertarian Abolitionist Hero and Would-Be President of Canada - Reason - November 25th, 2019
- Romaine Worster: The illusion of the socialist ideal - Greensboro News & Record - November 25th, 2019
- 3rd party wins promise to shake up Thanksgiving dinner table talk - WHYY - November 25th, 2019
- BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is 'right-wing'? - NWAOnline - November 25th, 2019