Why a Pornography Ban Would Create More Problems Than it Solves
By Joe Jarvis - March 03, 2018

Do you think you are smart enough to know what things to ban? Can you foresee all the unintended consequences of using government might to moralize society?

Some people think they are that smart. Or for some reason, they think restricting people’s freedom will have no larger effect than in the targeted area.

One recent New York Times article wants a porn ban to be an option on the table. The author reminds readers that a decade ago, Americans were having a conversation about banning pornography. But now with the “me too” movement in full swing, he laments that people see a pornography ban as untouchable policy.

But unlike many structural forces with which moralists of the left and right contend, porn is also just a product — something made and distributed and sold, and therefore subject to regulation and restriction if we so desire.

The belief that it should not be restricted is a mistake; the belief that it cannot be censored is a superstition. Law and jurisprudence changed once and can change again, and while you can find anything somewhere on the internet, making hard-core porn something to be quested after in dark corners would dramatically reduce its pedagogical role, its cultural normalcy, its power over libidos everywhere.

It so simple to him. Here “we” have a product that we can regulate if we want, just because it is a commercial product. That’s how government works right? We get to insert ourselves into interactions which have nothing to do with us. We can dictate how others are allowed to interact.

But why are people so arrogant as to think they are the ones who know how to properly control society for the best outcomes?

The author brings up some harmful aspects of online pornography. And he is likely right about the negative effects it has on certain expectations about real-world sex. It very well could contribute to more troubles between women and men. And it is a bad way for young people to learn about sex.

He basically uses a variant of the “for the children” argument. Adults have to be stripped of their rights in order to protect the children. But he, like so many others, ignore the larger societal consequences restrictions create.


The author alludes to porn playing into the issue of sexual assault, by creating a false reality of how men should treat women. But what lesson is government teaching people if they can simply restrict what adults view online? Without an individual’s consent, he wants to say what they can and cannot access online.

He wants to censor online content in order shape views about consent. Except that underwriting the enforcement of a pornography ban would require the government to unconsensually insert itself into transactions between adults. The government would essentially force itself on people who want to view, create, or sell pornography. We have to force people to respect consent.

And simply banning porn would not mitigate those issues without making new ones arise. First, the author admits that anyone who really wants it will still be able to find it. But he argues that then it will be a dirty subculture so we can shame people away from it. And use the government’s guns and cages.

Because he may not say it, but anytime someone talks about a government ban or regulation, they are advocating violence against people. They are saying the government should step in with force to stop people from creating or viewing pornography, even among entirely consenting parties.

And people like him ignore the main overarching problem with bans and aggressive regulation. Coercion causes deeper rifts and problems in our society. Government force makes people go crazy. Literally.

It’s not like I wrote this article to exclaim that pornography is an important human right that should be celebrated and promoted. But rather, it is written from a principled perspective that we should not try to limit other people’s rights just because we personally find them reprehensible. We shouldn’t try to dictate subjective morality.

Other people will have different ideas about what is demoralizing society, and what should be banned to cure it. But that decision is not for them to make. Some people would argue religion is bad for society. Others might argue that video games should be banned, or no one should watch offensive comedy.

But debating how much each of these things hurts society is missing the point. Individuals should not be robbed of their choice. If they are, the consequences of that coercive society will be worse than whatever the ban was trying to prevent.

However “immoral” porn may be, threatening violence against people is worse. When consenting adults engage in interactions of any kind, third parties are wrong, and ultimately violent, if they step in to stop them.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with: , , ,
  • DrRGP

    No surprise here. Today’s journalists (from Columbia University’s School of Journalism and pretty much everywhere else) tend to be intellectually naive and, consequentially, simple-minded in their approach to almost anything, including, especially, social problems, politics, and other matters of concern.

  • THE quintessential consequence of government enforced morality was the widespread violence as a result of the prohibition of alcohol.

    Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    • James Higginbotham

      right you are.

    • Whatever Imtold

      Same when it comes to abortion?

      • Because Prohibition of Alcohol was done be Constitutional Amendment and the violence was so widespread that Repeal was also done be Constitutional Amendment, I consider it to be THE quintessential example of government enforcement against everyone, of that what some people consider to be moral.

        Having learned exactly ZERO from that example, some people clamored for and government eagerly provided prohibition of abortions (currently repealed) and prohibition of some plants and drugs (still ongoing). None of these prohibitions is authorized by the Constitution, and all of them (and other unauthorized and un-Constitutional prohibitions) are responsible for much unnecessary violence and suffering because of the heavy handed, brutal enforcement by government.

  • tommygun722

    THE WAR ON PORN! I can see it now. What they are going to need us all to do is login to our computers via biometrics. We will have to have an eye scan, fingerprint, maybe facial recognition. If anyone even attempts to look at a boob or butt the event will be recorded and added to their portfolio (in case they want to run for office). Similar to what the NSA currently does, but with more evidence. The government doesn’t like violating our right to privacy, they have to, they don’t want to, they have to. They love us and want what is best for us. Kind of like your mother going through your drawer to make sure you weren’t smoking cigarettes.

    If the sudden death of the DC Madam taught us anything, it’s that Washington DC loves the United States Citizenry.

    • SnakePlissken

      I suspect that any time a legislator votes against raising the budget for the NSA, they get a list of all the nudie sites they’ve visited in the last couple of years. “So Congressman, I see you’ve been doing some late night research on college sororities. Are you sure you want to vote against this amendment?”

      • tommygun722


  • USA has already laws forbidding info of various kind – . And if you break the law … DEATH! National security, you know! So why not forbid PORN and punish law breakers accordingly, e.g. castration?

  • SnakePlissken

    There were several ISPs in 2000-2010 that were started with the intent of blocking pornography and other non family oriented content because so many people complained about it and “the children”. All of these ISPs went out of business, because there was no real market for it. This shows that what people say in public is different than how they really feel. They just want to be perceived as morally superior.

  • SnakePlissken

    In the USSR, pornography was banned. That didn’t work at all. But that’s the price you pay for good communism.

  • Nikola Bijeliti

    You’ve all heard about this race problem, haven’t you?
    You know, the one that exists in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries.
    The one that can only be solved by flooding those countries with masses of non-Whites.
    You’ve also started to figure out that it’s not really a race problem at all, but rather a White problem.
    After all, nobody’s flooding non-White countries with White people.
    Diversity is a codeword for White genocide.
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    • englishbob

      Wrong article dude.

  • OAML7

    If a number of women woke up and fulfilled their role, might not be as necessary.

    • Col. E. H. R. Green

      And what, exactly, is their “role” ?

    • John Hankinson

      Misogyny anyone?

  • snow27

    Fascists on the left and right. That’s why it’s best to be libertarian. There is no left and right, only less free and more free. Unfortunately most leftists and some rightists lean strongly towards less and less freedom. F*** them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!