[AnthonyMouse]

> Only in the Western world is “pro sex” = “pro pornography” in most people’s minds. Everywhere else, these are separate issues, with pornography bans actually being from a pro-sex cultural position (I.e. it shouldn’t be commoditized online).

The general problem is that when pornography bans are passed, they're characterized as being against for-profit hardcore pornography, but then they're worded broadly enough to also cover everything from sex education to medical depictions of human anatomy to actual human beings flirting with each other on the public internet with no profit motive, and then enforced against any of those things according to the whims of government officials.

Or worse, the law is written in such a way that it puts liability on third parties who then aggressively ban those things to avoid potential liability whether or not the law should or would have been enforced against them.

[IAmBroom]

No, the general problem is the government interfering in a natural right of humans. If someone wishes to pursue happiness in some way that doesn't meaningfully harm others, they should be able to.

Moreover, there may be positive social benefits from it; more permissive pornography laws are associated with lower sexual violence in the population.