comments powered by Disqus
More Comments:
Hugo Schwyzer - 5/10/2004
I'm with you, Jonathan, and will try and find time to blog on this -- thanks, gentlemen, for the links.
Jonathan Dresner - 5/7/2004
Cramer and Volokh are splitting hairs when they attack the pornography argument, because the bulk of Hughes' argument (which Cramer accepts) is about the connection between sexual humiliation and enslavement (sexual, political or otherwise), and the fact that there are "voluntary" (within the limits of social choice) subjects of pornography and "voluntary" prostitutes does not in any way rebut the existence of involuntary participants. Moreover, the inability (or unwillingness) of consumers to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary participants means that the sexual product/services marketplace is clearly tainted. The connection between political repression and sexual humiliation is even more powerful, and that's clearly a way in which we should be loudly and clearly distinguishing ourselves from Iran, etc., not making excuses for diving (not falling) to that level.