Originally Posted by dcortez

We live in a world of "freedom of speech and expression" that gets wiped out at the gate by legal corporate censorship.

"Social media" decides what is suitable to be freely expressed, and platforms that cater to some arbitrarily filtered adult content do the same.

Legislation will not resolve corporate censorship, because the censors are fully backed by neo-lib and conservative governments.

The only way to move this nut is through consumer pressure.

Softcore models and customers of OnlyFans can boycott, expressing clear intent that they will not participate in pseudo-adult platforms.

The nineties are over. Even big new players like Patreon at least flinched when their corporate "community" policies put independent sex trade workers out on the street, and a broad social community called them out for it.

Even with webhosting, I see queries now and then about which web hosts support "adult". But the reality is that some webhosts have seriously relaxed their arbitrary censoring of "unacceptable adult content". If it's legal, put on servers that can handle the (crap) traffic load they are likely to get, and flag their content appropriately, they are fine with it.

The work that organizations like EFF have been doing to reduce the (conservative-punitive) onerous clerical requirements of 18-2257 compliance is very important and should continue. I hope that their victories are not limited to protecting just the clients who they represented in the precedent setting case, otherwise, one (not in the list of protected clients) might start thinking that even "free speech institutions" serve mostly big interests.

Anyone who "platforms" either technologically, or through financial processing, should observe the law and stop their (conservative focus group) corporate censorship.

Originally Posted by dcortez

I don't expect my "what-about-hollywood" argument to win any case, but it is necessary to compare apples to apples on the "intent" level from a cultural standpoint.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but at the root of my concerns is the REAL affect that FAKE creative production (mainstream and porn) has on society from a community mental health standpoint.

Of course, the "real-world harm" has to be considered first for the people "doing the job" (the talent), but equally, for a conversation that that has any chance of getting anywhere meaningfully, the societal harm has to be considered as well.

That's why Hollywood has to be dragged into the discussion.

So, mass-produced publicly unrestrained (kids can easily access it) fictional work that glorifies non-consensual psychotic behaviour (hollywood specializes in this), that we generally have decided to lock people up for if they did it "for real", disqualifies itself from any "free speech protection", just as "crying fire in a crowded theatre" is not protected by free speech.

"Speech" that knowingly causes harm, does not enjoy any legal protections.

The "free speech" legal approach may be the practical path to balancing things out today, but moving forward, I don't see any conversations in the adult industry (other than overt perfunctory concerns about ch*ld sexual abuse/human tr*fficking) regarding taking greater responsibility for the cultural messaging of its members' creations.

In some countries, using adult models to create the impression of underage sexuality is just as illegal as actually using underage models - as it should be.

That speaks directly to my point, and the topic of "abuse" is much broader than just the low hanging fruit that everyone picks, ch*ld abuse.

A producer who creates "legal" porn that obviously panders to ped*s, IS creating k*ddy porn, and the "free speech argument", while in court might win in some countries, from the level I'm talking about, it has no value nor place in society.

The law is always last. Cultural norms, the institutions that act as agencies of this (and sadly, big money), are what drives the laws.

The adult industry has a responsibility to raise this discussion to a more prominent level - or be happy with knowingly condemning most responsible adult producers and talent to being forever stigmatized by mainstream as "creepy dangerous people".

We are not.

Originally Posted by dcortez

Exactly!

Any institution that promotes, or even remains silent about, egregious behaviour, is very likely plagued with that behaviour in its own ranks.

Look at domestic violence in law enforcement, and military families.

And more broadly, violence against its own people, by the state that uses aggression and violence abroad.

It always comes back home.