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

FrameworkI would like to note that none of my opponent’s links worked, so I was unable to access any of his evidence besides the Stanford Encyclopedia Article.CaseContention 1: In its production stage, pornography violates the theory of informed consent. In order for any sexual act to be considered morally permissible, all participants in the activities must grant informed consent, or “informed, voluntary, anddecisionally-capacitated consent.” [1] Informed consent is a direct extension of the right to property. If an individual has control over his or her body, then she has the right to use her body in any manner that she deems fit. This justifies almost every type of fornication between adults. However, if any part of the “consent” process is violated, it is the moral duty of the state to prohibit the activities. For example, children cannot consent to have sexual relations because they are not rational enough to make informed decisions.One key requirement for informed consent is that there is no external pressure or coercion that factors into the decision-making process. This is known as the non-domination principle. “The idea here would be that no one should be under the arbitrary control of another and that informed consent requirements help to prevent such arbitrary control.” [1] The non-domination principle, for example, is the reason that health care providers must give patients the choice as to whether or not to participate in drug trials. Non-domination itself has a variety of components, two of which are violated in the pornography production process. The first component is freedom from undue inducement, “a term of art usually meaning that something is being offered that is alluring to the point that it clouds rational judgment, for instance cash in hand or airline tickets in return for kidney donation. Attention is fixated on the benefit, disallowing proper consideration of the risks from, say kidney loss or trial participation.” [1]. The second is “only bad alternatives”. Consent cannot be granted if there is a “ lack of decent alternatives to accepting a bad offer, a so-called no-choice situation (Wertheimer 1987, e.g., p. 13), is said to make us forced or compelled to choose the offer (Cohen 1979), or to undermine voluntariness otherwise.” [1].Becoming a porn star is highly lucrative. The average female star makes $100,000 to $250,000 a year, causing them to ignore the risks of obtaining STDs, which are significantly higher among porn stars than other individuals [2]. Thus, the porn industry often preys upon indigent women who find the job offer highly lucrative and who are more likely to ignore the negative effects of participation.Moreover, many stars in the production process are forced to commit acts that they do not consent to. Shelley Lubben, a former pornography performer, has publicly testified: “Women are lured in, coerced and forced to do sex acts they never agreed to do…[and given] drugs and alcohol to help get through hardcore scenes…. The porn industry is modern-day slavery.” [3]Contention 2: Pornagraphy has overall negative impactsNote that many of these arguments directly clash with the arguments that my opponent provides.Negative Perceptions About WomenPornography increases negative perceptions about women and promotes the objectification of women. A study conducted by Dr. Zillman of San Diego University notes, “Exposure to “massive pornography” (4 hours and 48 minute) leads to changes in beliefs and attitudes. For example, reduced support for the women’s liberation movement, reduced belief that pornography needs to be restricted for minors, reduced recommended jail sentences for rapists, increased callousness toward woman, and beliefs of increased frequency of pathological sex (such as sex with animals, and sex with violence).” [4] Moreover, pornography introduces negative and harmful attitudes about women’s views on rape. J. Check discusses the negative effects of violent pornography in the International Journal of Women’s Studies, “The first group who had seen a woman aroused by sexual violence was more likely than the second group who did not see that to say that the woman in the rape pornography suffered less, enjoyed it and that women in general enjoy rape. “This directly contradicts my opponent’s contention that it does not affect women. The studies that I have provided are not confounded by alcohol or other drugs, as he suggests, because the researchers controlled for those factors ahead of time. His next argument is that pornography is profitable. Just because something is profitable does not mean that it is just or moral. Slavery was profitable, but it was neither just nor moral. The modern sex trade industry generates $31 billion per year, but that does not mean that the U.S. government should legalize the sex trade. Economic inducements should not be considered in this debate.Sex Crime RatesI would like to note that child pornography constitutes a violation of rights because it forces children, who cannot consent to sexual activity, to participate. Thus, any results that he provides are false because an increase in child pornography increases the abuse of the children participating in it. Pornography causes an increase in rape. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that eighty percent (29 of 36) of recent mass murderers used pornography extensively and used it as an integral part of their murderous sexual activity, which often included serial rape-murders.” [6] J. Court of San Diego University notes, “In South Australia they liberalized the pornography laws and saw a 284% increase in rape. During the same time period in Queensland, Australia, they had conservative pornography laws and they experienced only a 23% increase in rape. In Hawaii, pornography laws were liberalized and then became more restrictive and then were liberalized again. The rape curve followed the same pattern of increasing, then decreasing when the restriction on pornography occurred and then increasing again when the restrictions were lifted.” [4] Prefer my evidence over his because it is more inclusive. He only examines child pornography, while mine examines pornography as a whole.Free SpeechFirst, like all aspects of the right to liberty, free speech is limited by the rights of others. A terrorist cannot kill or rape other people even if he does so to express political rage, for example.I have demonstrated that the creation of pornography necessarily violates the principle of consent. Thus, it can be banned even if it is speech. Note that pornography is distinct from erotica. Erotic”a is works of art, includingliterature, photography, film, sculpture and painting, that deal substantively witheroticallystimulating orsexually arousing descriptions. The term is a modern word that describes theportrayal of thehuman anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations, differentiating such work from commercialpornography”[6]. Since erotica is distinct from pornography, and the affirmative world still permits erotica, no right to speech is violated.My consent analysis answers back “forced” analysis and the “human rights” analysis. Censorship is justified if the work in question leads to criminal activity and the degradation of women,so he loses that argument as well. Sources1.http://plato.stanford.edu...2.http://en.wikipedia.org...3.http://www.salvationarmyusa.org...4. https://docs.google.com...5. http://news.bbc.co.uk...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...