Well of course not. I wasn’t suggesting Amnesty would support them (Frank esp) both for those reasons and the liklihood they wouldn’t want to on principle. It’s just that in the great scheme of things, if someone is prepared to break the law and risk so much as a consequence, there has to be a much more driving impetus than simply because they felt horny.
IIRC, Frank made his motivations known, in that his desire was to overturn Miller. I’m not even sure that this entered into the court’s reasoning at all.
It may be that in “feeling horny” they believe (somewhat psychopathically) that society should have no say in what media they should be allowed to produce or consume (as that would be censorship). Regardless of the rightly immoral or unethical perspective of this, it is still an argument based on principle rather than bodily desires.
That basically echoes my position. A little over 50 years ago, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously stated, “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” That is when homosexuality was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada, in 1969. Less than 25 years later, circa 1992, Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code was passed which outlawed child pornography. The definition of child pornography was so broad and all-encompassing, that it even covers fictional text. When Harper was Prime Minister (ending in 2015) he removed or weakened what few affirmative defences there were in the law.
Where many are liable to assume that such people are making excuses for their own degeneracy, this assumption comes from a common inclination to project their own insecurities: like they refuse to acknowledge that a certain “condition” or “concept” has any validity (because to do so would acknowledge their own potential susceptibility to it), thus they’re unable to confront it or push through to consider any associated issues, such as censorship and freedom of speech etc.
Their reactions are purely emotional – there was one Liberal cabinet minister who stated, “… they should not have these thoughts, and they should not write them down.” I seem to recall that someone attempted to challenge the Canadian child pornography statute, saying it was not based on any evidence whatsoever. I seem to recall that a court ruled that Parliament is not required to have any evidence in order to pass any law – that they are free to pass any law they see fit, without restrictions.
Then again, no one predicted that Amnesty International would have supported decriminalization of prostitution a couple of decades back, certainly not against the arguably less controversial option of “The Nordic Model”.
Technically, prositution is NOT illegal in Canada, but communication for the purposes of prostitution is illegal. Go figure, eh?