Pornography: How Social Signalling Beats Prohibition Laws

A major reason why pornography can’t be stopped at all by prohibition laws has been poignantly captured by this New York Times article... (all bold highlights mine)

Around the country, law enforcement officials and educators are struggling with how to confront minors who “sext,” an imprecise term that refers to sending sexual photos, videos or texts from one cellphone to another.

But adults face a hard truth. For teenagers, who have ready access to technology and are growing up in a culture that celebrates body flaunting, sexting is laughably easy, unremarkable and even compelling: the primary reason teenagers sext is to look cool and sexy to someone they find attractive.

Indeed, the photos can confer cachet.

“Having a naked picture of your significant other on your cellphone is an advertisement that you’re sexually active to a degree that gives you status,” said Rick Peters, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Thurston County, which includes Lacey. “It’s an electronic hickey.”

One: This is not even an issue of commerce but of voluntary exchanges by a niche community where self esteem is at stake.

Two: Some people see pornography as a way to project personal issues-here sexuality in order to command social attention! Yes I know they are minors, but this doesn’t mean they are amoral or can’t distinguish between right and wrong. For them, social acceptance serve as their highest personal priority (value preference) to fulfil.

So what is construed as generally an immoral act is seen by some as a tool to broadcast social status—whereby consensual participants see such as acts as providing social “utility”.

In short, morality is subjective.

Three: This serves as example why it is an act of futility to legislate away exchanges between willing and voluntary suppliers, and eager audiences.

Legislating away self-esteem needs won’t solve this issue.

Four: I would say that perhaps most people are NOT engaged in voluntary exchanges like non-commercial pornography, yet the political imperatives (like the undertone of the article) are directed towards using the fallacy of composition as an instrument towards exercising political censorship.

In short, deviant behaviour of some segments of the society will be used as an excuse to control the public’s flow of information. The implied message is to shoot the messenger (cellphones, web, etc…) when the problem is one of behaviour.

Halili Kho Sex Video Scandal: A Case of Political Opportunism

A short commentary on the Katrina Halili-Dr. Hayden Kho Sex video scandal.

It is quite dumbfounding how media and politicians have turned in haste an isolated problem into some sort of a collective spectacle or "national" crisis-as Senators and the Palace has joined the fray. And some of them have used the opportunity to scream for new legislation/s to curb so called abuses.

This isn't about "offensive to public morals" - the cyberspace has hundreds if not thousands of sites that cater to pornography, sex videos or "voyeurism". And these include some locals.

Moreover, through the years police enforcement hasn't been able to contain the sale of lewd "illegal" DVDs as scandals upon scandals have emerged.

Besides, this problem isn't anything new-anyone remember the Betamax scandal of a local politician and a sexy movie star?

This only goes to show how our officials have little understanding of the cyberspace or they are not being forthright or have other latent interests.

The main difference in this scandal is that those involved have been public personalities, if not celebrities. And given the proximity of the national elections, the sensationalism surrounding the incident seem like an egregious opportunity to generate broad publicity mileage.

Going back to the case, the issue again is NOT about morality but about the violation of the aggrieved party's private property.

If it can be established that the perpetrator willfully deceived the other party to broadcast their private tryst in breach of trust then there should be an indictment.

And it can also be seen from the context of client-confidentiality if such circumstances have existed.

For instance, the recent sex scandal in Hong Kong saw the arrest of a computer technician who spread the private videos he illicitly obtained when his actor client brought the computer for repair; where the so called "voyeurism" or sex video wasn't disseminated by the participants but by a third party.

In any case, passing fickle laws to curb "this" and "that" has only worsened the problems by creating legal loopholes, fostering bureaucratic inefficiencies, opened opportunities to extortion, bribery and corruption, and has increased profit margins for politically backed operators which sustains the business of "illegality".

Moreover, the proposed law is a form of state expansion which could be utilized as an instrument to suppress the freedom of speech and expression.

Don't forget that each new law comes with attendant expenses that funds the bureacracy for its implementation-all at the expense of the taxpayer and the costs to do business here.

In short, people pay for the mischiefs, profligacy, grandstanding and wrong policies by politicians through higher consumer prices, lack of jobs and poverty.

What may be seen as a popular may in fact be an illusion, learning from Thomas Sowell, ``Televised congressional hearings are not just broadcasts of what happens to be going on in Congress. They are staged events to create a prepackaged impression.

``Politically, they are millions of dollars’ worth of free advertising for incumbents, while campaign-finance laws impede their challengers from being able even to buy name recognition or to present their cases to the public nearly as often.

``The real work of Congress gets done where there are no cameras and no microphones — and where politicians can talk turkey with one another to make deals that could not be made with the public listening in.

``To be a fly on the wall, able to listen in while these talks were going on, would no doubt be very enlightening, even if painfully disillusioning. But that is not what you are getting in video footage on the evening news.

``Some might argue that, in the absence of the cameras, many people might not know what is going on in Congress or in the courts. But being uninformed is not nearly as bad as being misled.

``For one thing, it is much easier to know that you are uninformed than to know that you are being misled."

Don't be misled.