The first, and easiest - everyone has something they consider obscene.  There is a line for everyone to draw, over which they will not cross without severe pressure or profound and repeated desensitization (the rounding up and gassing of Jews and other "undesirables" in Nazi Germany for example. While many could eventually come to this with great detachment through the normalization of horror, still others could not).  We can all agree that we can all find "something" we could call obscene. But, when we apply the concept of what makes something obscene to sex or art, then, of course, these stemming from much more subjective experiences, become hard to define as our personal and community attitudes shift, internet revolution or no internet revolution alledgedly making things obsolete because it implies a level of privacy.

But, the making of, or producing of pornographic materials is not, itself, pornography, though we often erroneously apply the term (perhaps for the very reason of obscuring and blurring the distinction between the active act of creating it and the more passive act of consuming it).  By lumping it all together, we can quickly and erroneously apply "obscenity" measures and standards to all the various aspects of this type of sexual objectification. Pornography, by definition, is a dissociative product allowing individuals to become aroused or repulsed, as the case may be, by images, that while stimulating a socially learned and conditioned subjective response in the viewee, affords a safe distance and emotional detachment from what is being viewed - thus one of the more obvious elements of the act of objectifying.  And, it can be argued, the primary basis for its popularity in western societies.

All this, of course, makes it infinitely easier to fail to see, recognize, or regard the "models" as "persons", which, in turn, makes it possible to exploit these non-persons under the guises of "sex work", pornographic industry, porn star, and other already socially acceptable transactional models, i.e., if you pay someone, and you can extract their agreement, and they are an adult, then it's okay. There are too many ways to refute this.  The lack of willingness to even try is the greater issue, not a scarcity of well reasoned arguments why the exploitation of persons is neither desireable nor good, no matter how much they agree to it.  The simplest being -that we agree to many things we really don't wish. The more severe the effects of overriding our deeper core needs to be integrated individuals with a reactive and conditioned desire to be dissociated,the deeper the harm to ourselves and others.

But, all this aside, obscenity laws were created before the existance of photography.  Meaning, anything lewd and lasivious was rendered by an artist's imagination and hand.  By pen and paper, so to speak.  It was thought that the harm of the obscenity was to society, not to the consumer nor the artist.  But, now we have introduced an entire class of "non-persons" into an equation where one can photograph and record an act that, oddly, while inviting us into the pornographer's sexual fantasy, asks us to remain unseeing of the very physical real activity unlying the creation of the glamour.  This is, of course, nothing to do with obscenity, in todays common usuage of the term, unless we still apply its most basic of meanings - something which, if seen, would disturb our sensibilites.  

The issue, then, would be, not whether we all see differently, but whether we can see at all.

The liberal Lefts unwavering failure to see the distinction between the making of pornopgraphy with its subsequent need to objectify and exploit a class of persons (there are any number of social mechanisms to inculcate a sense of willing collusion to go against one's own best interests), and with the final published product is, in my experience, one of the Left's most shameful legacies.  (A legacy which was my door out and away from the liberal movement and into compassionate and radicalized self-empowerment and social change). While it has shown a capacity to apply compassionate insightful intervention into the exploitation of others by race or class or religion, as such, there is an utter breakdown in reasoning when applying these same basic tenets of human rights and liberties in the sexual sphere.

"He Leadeth Us from Porn: God Bless You, Edwin Meese."

Generally, traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of motorists are found to be successful, while laws that arbitrarily restrict the majority of motorists encourage violations, lack public support and usually fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. This is especially true of speed zoning.

Speed zoning is based on several fundamental concepts deeply rooted within the American system of government and law:

• Driving behavior is an extension of social attitude and the majority of drivers respond in a safe and reasonable manner as demonstrated by consistently favorable driving records;


• The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered appropriate;


• Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable behavior on the part of individuals; and


• Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and voluntary compliance of the public majority.

...

According to a Federal Highway Administration study, all states and most local agencies use the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic as the basic factor in establishing speed limits.

Well, to begin with, if you believe in any moral basis whatsoever, you do not seek to justify what we ought to do based only on what we are doing.  Such a standard, based mainly on what is, is no standard at all.  It is just blowing in the wind.  Rather, by definition, to aspire beyond ourselves, to what we should do, we measure also against ideals, rather than only against facts.

A better test for proper standards pertains not to how we presently meet our existential challenges, but to how we should seek to improve and surpass ourselves in how we evolve and morph in meeting our existential challenges.

In this day and age, we cannot enforce obscenity standards by prosecuting consenting adults regarding their bedroom behaviors.  Yet, for promoting moral exemplars, especially when it comes to child abuse, shame retains an important function.

nowhere in the free speech clause does an exemption for "community standards" exist, regardless of how tortured your reading of it may be, it's solely an artifice of a court unable or unwilling to admit it was none of the "community's" business what you or i watch, read, see or hear.

it does, however, provide a convenient platform for ambitious prosecutors, seeking higher office.

the whole "exploitation" argument is fraudulent on its face: by that standard, nearly everyone, willingly performing any job they don't really like, just to make a living, is being exploited. why is being exploited by mcdonald's morally superior to being exploited by a porn producer?

if anyone's exploiting people in the porn business, it's those who use that argument against it; they reduce the performers to mindless drones or simpletons, incapabable of thinking for themselves. pretty damn arrogant really.