Resolved: The United States ought ban all forms of pornography.

I was going to apologize for forfeiting this round since I thought I had more time, and for the forfeit, my opponent can take the conduct point because of my poor punctuality. I will argue CON.Observation 1: The wording of the resolution implies that the federal government is the actor banning because it states that the United States as an entity is banning it. This means that references to the Constitution and foundations of American law and justice are applicable in this debate.Observation 2: The focus of this debate, however, is still on morality of the decision, and the determining factor in who wins this debate is which debater better supports morality. In my case, I will be looking at morality through the following perspectives:1. Consequentialism2. Justice3. Harm principleWith these parameters listed, I move on to the iteration of my case. Contention 1: Pornography poses no threat to society.Pornography has no harms and aids to society.Sub-point 1a: Pornography does not destroy perceptions of men or women.Simon Louis Lajeunesse, a postdoctoral student and professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Montreal, found the following in his research on the effects of pornography on perceptions of men and women: "All test subjects said they supported gender equality and felt victimized by rhetoric demonizing pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship...Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star," says Lajeunesse. Lajeunesse refutes the perverse effect often attributed to pornography. "Aggressors don't need pornography to be violent and addicts can be addicted to drugs, alcohol, gaming and asocial cases are pathological. If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation." Milton Diamond substantiates the claim in the International Journal of Law and Psychology: ""Indeed, the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes... Lastly we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence."Sub-point 1b: Pornography provides jobs and is beneficial for the economy.The pornography industry is heavily profitable, reaping about $100 billion per year. Because of the heavy demand of pornography, it maintains jobs for those participating in pornography and those producing it in order to supply it into the public. These are the direct profiters of the industry, whereas indirect profiters would include computer companies that create technology specifically designed in order to place blocks on Internet pornography. All of this together--the provision of jobs for younger populations and the spending by industry--pushes the investments part of the GDP up.Sub-point 1c: Pornography can reduce sex crime rates.While I'm not keen on the idea of legalizing child pornography, the idea that its legalization was able to reduce sex crime rates empirically shows the effect of maintaining a legal status for pornography: "Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan...The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose."Contention 2: Pornography is just.Considering that the actors in the pornography consciously agreed to engage in the actions depicted in pornography and because people have a right to their property (including their bodies), I contend that pornography is perfectly justified.Sub-point 2a: Pornography is free speech.Pornography is figured to be a form of speech, and as a form of speech, it is protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, meaning that the United States federal government has no right to make any such bans on pornography lest they wish to violate the Constitution. This was a case tried before: "In 1983, two of the most prominent anti-pornography feminists in the United States, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, drafted an anti-pornography ordinance at the behest of the Minneapolis Council. A similar ordinance was passed by the Indianapolis City Council in 1984, but later overturned on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that the ordinance violated pornographers First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Importantly, the ordinance did not seek to impose criminal prohibitions or sanctions on pornography: it did not seek to make the production, sale or consumption of pornography a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment." Sub-point 2b: Pornography is not forced in any way. Not only this, but pornography is not forced on the public and is held to be private. Sub-point 2c: Bans on pornography would be a violation of human rights. Bringing this back to a moral perspective, it would be unjust to ban pornography considering the fact that the actors in question are denied the right to do with their body as they please with it as long as it doesn't harm other people. By denying them employment in the pornography industry, it takes away their freedom of choice for employment and takes away the right to control their own bodies, contradictory to principles of human rights (as they would be iterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).Contention 3: Censorship can be devastating."They point to the difficulties involved in formulating a legal definition of ‘pornography’ that will be sufficiently precise to minimize the danger that censorship laws targeting pornography will be used (intentionally or unintentionally) to censor other unpopular material, including valuable literary, artistic and political works. Censoring pornography may thus place us on a dangerous "slippery slope" to further censorship of other material; and may have a general "chilling effect" on expression, making people reluctant to say or publish things that might be construed as pornography and for which they could be prosecuted. (For further discussion see Williams 1981, Schauer 1982, Easton, 1994.) Works Cited "Are the Effects of Pornography Negligible?" ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...;. Bartley, Bayode. "Pornography and the Economic Benefits." Web. <http://www.abdn.ac.uk...;. "Homo Consumericus." Pornography: Beneficial or Detrimental? Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com...;. "Legalizing Pornography: Lower Sex Crime Rates? Study Carried out in Czech Republic Shows Results Similar to Those in Japan and Denmark." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...;. "Pornography and Censorship." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu...;.