that porn paper needs to be re-focused
I've reached information saturation and I don't know how to focus my paper any more. The idea I wanted to do has basically been done by several people already and I still need a preferably (by the professor) experimental way to approach the topic. if not that then at least an analytical critique.
so, this is what I've got so far. If anyone is interested in giving feedback on the few ideas I do have, or suggesting better ones to narrow my paper topic I'd love it. :) I cannot make decisions in a vaccuum! (right now I feel like I'm in a vaccuum.)
Basically, I'm looking for an economic take on obscenity laws.
Originally I wanted to argue that obscenity laws weren't practical and were a waste of resources in the face of the internet and its free access - but...I've found two articles that argue about the same point - one from a legal perspective, and the other from a legal/econ perspective.
One takes the position that obscenity laws are designed to prevent moral harm (which is something that should be prevented) but that obscenity laws are too crude for the task and should therefore be abandoned. He aruges for "crude" legal regulation, i.e. don't sell sex related things to minors & maintain zoning laws re: sex shops.
- can i do something economically with that? an arguement in support of his decision and a cost analysis of the current regulations?
The other takes the position that obscenity laws treat the nation's citizens as children. He argues that a free market of information and ideas is how people fully develop morally. By censoring certain ideas because 'someone' deems them unfit, is preventing people from developing their own ideas and opinions. He then goes on to say that children should be censored from things - but that it's a job for the parents as they are tasked with trying to pass down their morals to their kids. He also says technology exists such that parents CAN censor what their children take in and having the government do it for them takes away that right and responsibility.
There are points made in various texts that the two major supreme court cases regarding how obscenity is defined are vague. They rely on "the common man" and "contemporary views of what is obscene". The problem being that they are both arbitrary conditions. There's also a point that there is no measurement of obscene consumption or what is actually considered obscene for a region/state therefore there's no way to accurately judge what is considered obscene for any particular court case - one must rely on the judgment of the cops, judges, and jury members.
outside of the legal field, it's pretty common knowledge that the porn industry (and the subsequent attempts at censoring of it) have lead to technological advacements or the national adoption of new technologies (btw - invest in blueray if this is true. the porn industry is using it for their interactive videos because of the options and quality it offers). So porn was an early adopter of softback books, vhs, camcorders, the first to use the internet, the 1st to use intrusive pop-up advertising, online-streaming, online videos, the 1st to develop membership sites, leaders in credit card security over the web, broadband, etc. censoring has developed pop-up blockers, web/tv filtering (and that's all i really know about that part).
so, that's what i've got so far. i really wanted to argue that the obscenity laws are useless and costly to impliment but that's been done. I was thinking this morning about a free market and de-regulation and how that plays out in other markets. A free market being nice in theory, but in a world where people abuse a system and make choices with poor long term effects that affect the nation, it's not practical and regulation is necessary. so, i was thinking about how i could apply that logic to the porn industry and obscenity laws. I'm just not sure if the idea would pan out.
the other idea was trying to design a research project around a lot of this, but I don't really have any good ideas where to start or what to study.
so, this is what I've got so far. If anyone is interested in giving feedback on the few ideas I do have, or suggesting better ones to narrow my paper topic I'd love it. :) I cannot make decisions in a vaccuum! (right now I feel like I'm in a vaccuum.)
Basically, I'm looking for an economic take on obscenity laws.
Originally I wanted to argue that obscenity laws weren't practical and were a waste of resources in the face of the internet and its free access - but...I've found two articles that argue about the same point - one from a legal perspective, and the other from a legal/econ perspective.
One takes the position that obscenity laws are designed to prevent moral harm (which is something that should be prevented) but that obscenity laws are too crude for the task and should therefore be abandoned. He aruges for "crude" legal regulation, i.e. don't sell sex related things to minors & maintain zoning laws re: sex shops.
- can i do something economically with that? an arguement in support of his decision and a cost analysis of the current regulations?
The other takes the position that obscenity laws treat the nation's citizens as children. He argues that a free market of information and ideas is how people fully develop morally. By censoring certain ideas because 'someone' deems them unfit, is preventing people from developing their own ideas and opinions. He then goes on to say that children should be censored from things - but that it's a job for the parents as they are tasked with trying to pass down their morals to their kids. He also says technology exists such that parents CAN censor what their children take in and having the government do it for them takes away that right and responsibility.
There are points made in various texts that the two major supreme court cases regarding how obscenity is defined are vague. They rely on "the common man" and "contemporary views of what is obscene". The problem being that they are both arbitrary conditions. There's also a point that there is no measurement of obscene consumption or what is actually considered obscene for a region/state therefore there's no way to accurately judge what is considered obscene for any particular court case - one must rely on the judgment of the cops, judges, and jury members.
outside of the legal field, it's pretty common knowledge that the porn industry (and the subsequent attempts at censoring of it) have lead to technological advacements or the national adoption of new technologies (btw - invest in blueray if this is true. the porn industry is using it for their interactive videos because of the options and quality it offers). So porn was an early adopter of softback books, vhs, camcorders, the first to use the internet, the 1st to use intrusive pop-up advertising, online-streaming, online videos, the 1st to develop membership sites, leaders in credit card security over the web, broadband, etc. censoring has developed pop-up blockers, web/tv filtering (and that's all i really know about that part).
so, that's what i've got so far. i really wanted to argue that the obscenity laws are useless and costly to impliment but that's been done. I was thinking this morning about a free market and de-regulation and how that plays out in other markets. A free market being nice in theory, but in a world where people abuse a system and make choices with poor long term effects that affect the nation, it's not practical and regulation is necessary. so, i was thinking about how i could apply that logic to the porn industry and obscenity laws. I'm just not sure if the idea would pan out.
the other idea was trying to design a research project around a lot of this, but I don't really have any good ideas where to start or what to study.