That communities in the united states have the right to supress pornography

I'll point out that this is for round 2 of socialpinko/Merda/Tim_Spin/any future alias's debate tournament. Con caseC1: Porn reduces crimeAnthony Amato of Northwestern University found that "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults (1). ""Pornography is more available and consumed than ever before—8,500 adult films are produced each year. At the same time, according to FBI statistics, the incidence of rape has decreased. .. .violent crime rates, including rape and sexual assault, are among the lowest since records began being kept in 1973" (2)This change can be most attributed to pornography access. Amato theorizes that pornography reduces sexual tension by allowing potential criminals to "get it out of their system". Their sexual desires can be expressed in video rather than forced on someone in real life. Additionally, rape is against the law, so porn videos cant show it or pretend like a video is about rape. This means that most porn videos show consensual partners, which can subliminally send the message that consensual = good. Finally, porn is often vulgar or cynical in nature, so aggressive men use it to get their fix of testosterone instead of raping someone. A comparison can be made to violent movies. We often think that viewing violent or sexual acts makes our brains more aggressive and more likely to be prone to such things. However, violent crimes actually decrease during and after the hours that violent movies are shown (3). The same page estimates that 1000 crimes are prevented each weekend by violent films. We can extend this logic to pornography. If watching violent movies empirically reduces violent crime, it logically follows that watching porn could reduce sex crimes. This conclusion is supported by my empirical evidence given at the top. C2: Harm principleAt first glance, pornography doesn't seem to hurt anybody. All participants are volunteers for the job, and no one is damaged by having sex next to a camera. It is my position that an act should only be restricted or suppressed if it is causing definitive harm to an unwilling party. As previously shown, pornography reduces crime rather than increasing it, so it doesn't have any bad impacts on the external world. The participants themselves aren't harmed either. However, even if they were, it doesn't matter because acting in porn is voluntary. We respect the freedom of others and allow them to do whatever they want to themselves so long as they aren't harming anyone else. So even if harm could be linked to those engaging in pornographic activities, that not a reason to suppress it. In other words, since porn is participated in voluntarily and watched voluntarily, Pro must show that porn is causing some terrible thing to happen that overrides our right to autonomy to justify suppressing it. Pro caseIntroI'll isolate the arguments he makes in this section and then give my response. Individuals voluntarily give up some measure of their personal freedom to come together with other people for the purpose of pursuing their objectivesCool. what I do believe in is the community with the ability to enforce rules so that rights like freedom and equality are not violated and people do not infringe on others rightsCool. Do note that by making this statement, he concedes that the reason rules are enforced (like suppressing porn) is to protect the rights of the people. Therefore, he has imposed the burden upon himself to prove that porn somehow is violating rights or causing some other external harm. A community exists simply to satisfy the general will. .. the communities obligation is to see that the general will is carried out. I actually disagree with this. Saying we should do whatever the people want is an appeal to popularity. If everyone in Memphis wanted to legalize murder, that wouldn't mean the city of Memphis should legalize murder. Determining which action ought to be taken should be decided on an effective weighing mechanism, not by what 51% of people want. In his two contentions, Pro essentially says "The community must follow the general will of the people. So if the general will doesn't like porn, the community should suppress it". C1/C21. Pro gives no reason why a community would want to suppress porn in the first place. He has not made any arguments against porn itself, so his communities have no reason to act on this right he wants to give them.2. Pro doesn't warrant why we should follow democratic principles. He has not explained why following the "general will" is good for society or why the majority can make the adequate decisions. This kicks his entire case because its entirely based off following the general will. The very premise that the Pro case rests upon is unjustified.3. Acting only on what the people want is unreliable because it depends on the majority being able to make rational decisions. But suppressing porn is not a rational decision because, based off my contention 1, doing so would increase sex crimes and limit personal freedom. If doing X action would be overall dangerous to a community, that should override what 51% of people want.4. I find it ironic that Pro talks about societies upholding your personal autonomy, yet he's directly violating it by telling people what they can and can't watch. 5. Pro says, "If the community knows that you are a sexual deviant and disapproves of you that have every right to make you leave. "I reject his use of the term "sexual deviant" to describe someone in the porn business. Rapists and child molesters are sexual deviants, not somebody who has consensual sex with others in order to make a living.6. Remember my contention 2. Based off his own self-imposed burden, he must show that porn is having legitimate negative impacts on society in order to justify suppressing it. This is true because he himself said that the reason the community creates laws to protect the people's rights. He has not done so. No arguments have been made whatsoever as to why porn is bad or why it should be suppressed. In fact, the only thing pro has said about porn in this entire debate is that porn workers are supposedly "sexual deviants". Of course, that was also unwarranted. If he can't link pornography to X bad thing, then there's no basis for giving communities the right to suppress it. 1. . http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu...2. . http://www.radfordreviews.com...3. . http://businessshrink.biz...