In California, where most commercial domestic porn is filmed, producing "obcene matter" of the type described by Knee for distribution to others is criminalized in sec. 311.2(a) of the Penal Code. How Knee's proposal differs from existing law is less than clear. He may be advocating a federal law prohibiting the production of commercial porn for broadcast over the internet, but he doesn't explain how that law would be any more useful than the existing law prohibiting the interstate transportation of obscene material. Maybe he thinks enforcement is the problem: that federal law enforcement agents should divert their attention from terrorists to track down porn actors in California suburbs.

In any event, Knee's premise -- that "the value of laws against prostitution is well established" -- is deeply flawed. Laws prohibiting consenting adults from exchanging money to do what they could legally do for free in the privacy of their own homes have no value all. Like other victimless crimes, laws that criminalize prostitution use the criminal justice system to address a perceived social problem that would be better addressed through education and persuasion.

It is popular to claim that prostitution isn't victimless -- that prostitutes are themselves the victims. If so, why should government use the criminal law to punish the victim?

As another op-ed piece in today's Times argues: "Pornography has been around for a long time, and it's not going to go away." Knee's call for "a more radical approach to censoring pornography" isn't going to change that reality. The criminal justice system is not the place to resolve this issue.