Porn Does Not Fuel Either Human Trafficking or Sex Tourism
Lawful pornography has nothing whatsoever to do with the illegal practices of human trafficking and sex tourism. In the United States, the production and consumption of pornography are legal and pornography is protected speech. It is illegal to use minors in the making of all pornography, as is the use of non-consenting performers. The industry has everything to lose and nothing to gain by using workers who don’t consent to do the job, or who are under age. Producers are required to keep detailed records of the names and ages of all whom they hire, available to law enforcement for possible inspection at all times. The Free Speech Coalition has a standing reward of ten thousand dollars for anyone whose information leads to the arrest and prosecution of a child pornographer.
If a pedophile wants access to underage prostitutes he must travel overseas where the laws may be looser and his dollar worth more. Legal porn has nothing to do with the actions of pedophiles and the surplus of willing talent makes the use of involuntarily trafficked performers a dangerous and needless risk.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Hardcore Pornography is legal only where there is no obscenity laws. In most states it is illegal to produce or distribute an obscene performance. That is a performance that involves acts of prostitution . In California performers in porn movies may be considered actors or actresses but if there movies were produced almost anywhere else in this country they would simply be prostitutes and there movies would be illegal. Harm? Any time a business operates outside any laws or regulaions there is harm.
In reading through the threads and comments along the "does pornography harm America?" argument, I have been jarred time and time again only by the comments posted by the "expert" Nina Hartley. The opinions presented here, madam, seem incredibly biased on a personal level. Then when I realized you've starred in 803 pornos (per the Internet Adult Film Database) since 1984 it all sort of came together. "Sex educator" is also a title that doesn't command a great deal of impressiveness as it requires absolutely no educational background to be one. Your comments such as "Porn doesn't inspire violence", porn "does not degrade women", "porn is not addictive" carry no weight since you don't have a background in psychology, medicine, biological influences regarding this venue, or societal cause and effects of pornography. And having a background as a porn star is not an adequate substitution for any of the afore mentioned expertise.
Just because Nina Hartley is a porn star does not mean that her argument carries no weight. I actually find it very amusing that she consistently and single-handedly destroys the well-funded and well-educated organizations that attack her proffession. Your attack of the source and not the argument is an argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy, and thus is not valid.
This is an argument against the man, but it isn't illogical. All I'm asking is: how come Nina Hartley is an expert on this subject? Doing it on film with almost a thousand different dudes doesn't make you an expert on anything. What it does give her is over twenty years of personal bias. I posted an actual argument (ya know, with evidence and all that jazz) against her comments on porn addicts, but as I read more and more of her "expert" opinions, I came to the conclusion that she has no idea what she's talking about, and since she has no real credentials, and her opinions are damn near meaningless.
In the interest of logic, it makes no sense for an argument between a porn star and organizations bearing well-educated people to be taken seriously.
The truth of the matter is, these well-funded organizations got whipped in a debate by a porn star, and now you're trying to discredit her. Personally, I would say that someone who's spent 20 years in the industry would probably know a little bit about what's going on. If it was an industry other than porn, would you think differently? If a farmer or slaughterhouse worker with 20 years under their belt had something to say about animal rights, I'm pretty sure they'd be an expert. If a priest of 20 years wanted to say something about whether such and such was a sin, I'm pretty sure they would be an expert. The nature of her work does not change the fact that there was work done, and she has an intimate understanding of the field. Why is it that only the Sally Sob stories of porn stars who were exploited or abused count? I'm pretty sure, or at least I hope, she knows what she's talking about when it comes to porn better than you do.
You are right in one thing, however. A debate between a porn star and organizations bearing well-educated people should not be taken seriously. Such a mismatched argument should surely be taken with a grain of salt, at least. You really can't expect poor Ms. Hartley to "post an actual argument, (ya know, with evidence and all that jazz.)" The fact that she does, and consistently better than her opponent, speaks volumes both about her credibility as a source and about the strength of her position.
She doesn't use evidence at all! Sure, her arguments are well written, her response to the attacks on her industry seem reasonable, but the fact is that there is no way to track how much the porn industry contributes to human trafficking. As "evidence" for her statements Ms. Nina spews out rhetoric such as: "The Free Speech Coalition has a standing reward of ten thousand dollars for anyone whose information leads to the arrest and prosecution of a child pornographer." Well that's a laugh riot, now isn't it? Ten thousand whole dollars. In an industry that makes 13 billion dollars a year in America alone, that we know of, (these guys don't exactly file SEC reports) ten thousand dollars is literally loose change. And the most likely people to have such information are going to be the ones who work in the industry, not a random client. And since ten thousand dollars is peanuts to these guys...how would that stop an influx of human trafficking?
Her point that "the [porn] industry has everything to lose and nothing to gain by using workers who don’t consent to do the job, or who are under age" sounds good, but it isn't factual. Porn companies usually shell out anywhere from $500 to $10,000 per person per sex scene so why would they have nothing to gain from free labor? I understand that she's implying the risk is far greater than the payoff, but if that were absolutely true, we wouldn't have human trafficking at all.
Finally, her seemingly flawless point that "Producers are required to keep detailed records of the names and ages of all whom they hire, available to law enforcement for possible inspection at all times" serves as a clever sidestep from the actual argument. Her original statement wasn't "there are some good, legitimate porn companies out there" it was "porn does not fuel human trafficking." Period. And that is a statement which even the FBI cannot prove, so how's some uneducated has-been supposed to prove it?
The biggest flaw in her argument is that she seems to think that if porn and human trafficking are related, then somehow it's the mainstream porn industry getting involved in human trafficking. But wouldn't it be far more likely that the guys already doing the trafficking would increase on their gains by producing porn? Maybe companies like Vivid and Falcon don't have anything to do with human trafficking (I don't believe they do), but that doesn't mean traffickers can't get into porn. They can, and they do, and the average porno connoisseur probably can't tell which is which.
Now, it doesn't take an FBI agent to figure this logic out. Nina Hartley could probably have come to this conclusion all on her own if she didn't have 20 years of personal bias clouding her judgment.
First off, just because the industry $13 billion a year, does not mean that each individual is. There are a lot of people in porn to divide that among. Besides, an industry that generates $13 billion a year undeniably has a very positive effect on the economy. Even if individuals in the porn industry make vast amounts of money, they are going to take an extra ten grand, especially if it makes them and the industry look better, and helps to reduce competition and threats to his business from Washington. Human trafficking is generally not related to porn, but rather to prostitution, sex slaves and abuse. If someone involved in human trafficking tries to increase on their gains by producing porn, their video quality is going to be lacking, they are not going to have the website or the video distribution capabilities to really put it out there, and the average porn connoisseur will definitely be able to tell, if he/she even finds it.
Also, arguing that a few creepers out there involved in human trafficking also producing porn makes porn bad for America is like saying a few Catholic priests molesting little boys makes Catholocism bad for America. As you said yourself, porn brings in big money, and that money stimulates the economy.
The money coming into the US through porno production doesn't stimulate the whole economy since you have billions of dollars circulating through a fairly small channel of people. So maybe that money creates jobs - in the porn industry, which makes pornography more widespread, and if you're of the opinion that "porn harms America"...you can see my point...
I must say, you act as though human trafficking is somewhat taboo - like it hardly ever happens, how could it possibly become intertwined with something so wholesome as pornography? In reality, human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world as of right now, and even with a flailing economy it shows no signs of dying out in popularity anytime soon. You would think that Americans would be less oblivious to women and children being shuffled around, bought, sold, abused, etc. under their own noses. Well the reality of the situation is that we don't give a damn because nobody's taking OUR women and kids. It's estimated that around 14,000 people are IMPORTED into the US as modern day slaves a year (but it could be much higher than that, since it's illegal and all). But again, I don't think we could really care less.
And when you say "If someone involved in human trafficking tries to increase on their gains by producing porn, their video quality is going to be lacking, they are not going to have the website or the video distribution capabilities to really put it out there." Yeah...I'm not buying it. What keeps human traffickers from distributing their own porn? Absolutely nothing. There's no FCC for the internet, and you can be sure that someone can darn near mimic the quality of professional pornography for pretty cheap (especially since porn doesn't exactly use high-end cinematography in the first place.)
And as far as human trafficker's putting stuff out there - it's already happened. If I wanted to, right now, I could pull up a snuff film in my browser, and pay $9.95 to watch someone get raped, tortured, and shot in the head (if I wanted to risk drowning my hard drive with viruses). I'm not talking about BDSM films, and I'm not talking about really dramatic hollywoodized shots. I'm talking about someone getting murdered on film for my entertainment. Snuff films do exist, but it's hard to prove that a) a snuff film is indeed just that, and b) where it's being produced, and who's doing the producing. Like I said, no FCC for the internet.
And the biggest reason I think pornography harms America (well everyone, really) is not because I think if you just watch pornography you risk a chance of fueling human trafficking (I mean, I get that the chance is pretty minute, for the time being.) But if you're ok watching a porno, why wouldn't you be ok going to a strip club? And if you're ok going to a strip club, would the thought of prostitution really be that abhorrent to you? (I mean, they're just working women.) And the 14,000 people being trafficked into the US every year for the sake of prostitution...they have to end up somewhere. I mean, someone is using them sexually, and it isn't the kind of someone who's at home doing it with their spouse.
I suppose you can argue the point that "just because you enjoy porn, doesn't mean you'll end up frequenting prostitutes." Fine. You could also argue that marijuana is perfectly harmless because it doesn't necessarily lead to heroine use. But I've spent a lot of time around stoners, and I gotta say - no one starts off hitting the big stuff. There's a reason mary jane is called the "gateway drug." There's a reason pornography is linked to human trafficking. Pornography in the right place, at the right time, with the right person CAN be ok...but speaking as a less than naive observer, porn is more often than not, used to fill a void, for sexual gratification, blah blah blah. And when one gets involved in the pursuit of immediate sexual gratification, there's a ridiculously fine line between harming yourself and harming others. As I said, the 14,000 or so victims being trafficked into the US a year have to be used somewhere. And there's obviously a demand for them here in the US, or they wouldn't keep on coming.
Now, this is just my opinion on porn + human trafficking. We haven't even discussed what it does to marriages, young adult's preconceived perceptions on sex, or the paradigm shift it's causing on Americans' views concerning gender roles.
Don't get me started.