Ms. Strossen is terrific on civil liberties and free speech. She was the president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1991-2008, back when the ACLU was the ACLU.
Nadine Strossen, though, is the same principled civil libertarian she aways was, as far as I’m aware.
She helped kick off the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (F.I.R.E.) which is essentially the new “ACLU” for people who want to defend free speech and expression like the old ACLU used to do.
Even if a piece of pornography is assumed to have no artistic value. If it helps its viewers achieve climax and satisfy their sexual urges, that alone demonstrates that it has social value.
Honestly, I’d consider that a form of artistic value in itself. Art is supposed to make people feel emotions, and sexual satisfaction comes with some pretty intense emotions.
The issue with trying to objectively define ‘artistic value’ like this is that it simply is not a matter of fact. If someone, be it an artist, audience, culture, etc. prefers to ascribe something as being ‘artistic’ or having such value, then it has it.
The arguments that pornography, even CSAM, are somehow devoid of it despite they seeking to satisfy what have been clarified as valid artistic functions is also wrong. I support bans on CSAM because of how they are made, not for what it communicated. That subject can be the most wretched or gut-wrenching thing imaginable, but the fact that it appeals to some sexual interest, by definition, gives it artistic value, and any negative reaction to that should not be the subject of a criminal prosecution. Period.
The idea that CSAM is prohibited because it treads on a certain ideal, rather than being intrinsically related to the market and demand for child sexual exploitation and abuse, actually harms children because it implies that, should such depictions not trigger that, or some other factor, then the child would be forced to endure sexual abuse/exploitation.
Misplacing this motivation towards the application of disgust/offense, rather than the simple fact that it was created by using a real child conflates disgust for empathy and concern for what is objectively a child.
Fictional children do not have the same rights, and the mere concept of a child or minor is not to be conflated as that of a real person who is a child.
The problem is that the antis are now using the “evil thoughts” angle, so said fictional child is basically a nonissue.
I think a distinction between porn and erotic literature is meaningful although I don’t believe any of it should be subject to censorship.
When arousing the reader is clearly the sole motivation of the creator, at the expense of character, plot, and everything else which makes literature literature, it’s porn.
I know this drifts from the topic, but it’s a good Idea to know about proponents.
I recently read this 2002 article on the ACLU site. Has the ACLU drifted from what is explained?
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment
That article is from two decades ago. I said more in a previous message but the mods blocked it and wouldn’t permit it to be seen until I deleted all criticism of the ACLU.
If you want to fight back against censorship and for free artistic expression, F.I.R.E. is the organization to support nowadays.