Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay) Titelbild

Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay)

Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay)

Jetzt kostenlos hören, ohne Abo

Details anzeigen

Nur 0,99 € pro Monat für die ersten 3 Monate

Danach 9.95 € pro Monat. Bedingungen gelten.

Über diesen Titel

 BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD, II Legally could is not morally should, and untangling the two dooms the latter. In the 1960s, Ralph Ginzburg’s conviction for promoting obscenity through his magazine of “literate eroticism” was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case, but NPR isn’t the only one to have dubbed him a “free speech icon” in the historical record. Debatable if what he fought for is considered free speech, but he certainly shouldn’t be elevated as an icon for publishing obscene and erotic materials. The fight may seem silly to the generation of today, as there remain almost no limits on what can be published or filmed anymore. Worse, such materials no longer garner notice through delivery in the mail or ducking behind a curtain to a secluded section of a store, as all of it comes directly to a private handheld screen, or in an innocuous cardboard box, without anyone the wiser. A win for free speech, absolutists and liberally-minded say. In a strictly legal sense, perhaps, but standing upon the wreckage of society wrought by that supposed victory, debate is smithereened by the undeniable wrongness of the cost. That battle was a harbinger for the fate of the morality war, a war long since clouded by terms and rationalizations around unfettered freedoms and absolute legalities. Thus, the battles rage, but clarity, and thereby the war, can only be won with unyielding, unassailable adherence to the conviction that legally could is not morally should. Recent studies show that Gen Z wants to see less obscene material in books and entertainment, and though some may profess puzzlement at these results, they’re entirely logical. As they came to shelter under the aegis of free speech, travesties like obscenity, pornography, erotism began appearing everywhere, from big-budget Hollywood films to books for young readers. The current generation has been so inundated by the never-ending ticker tape parade celebrating the mainstreaming of immorality seeing it is no longer edgy but numbing and meaningless. Proliferation led to oversaturation, so much became too much. Then again, Gen Z’s preferences may not be anchored in morality, but rather in eventually rejecting something they saw everywhere, through easy, ready, and constant access. The mind may eventually forget, but the eyes cannot unsee. Thus, the role of the reliable moral guardrail, the knowing that could is not should. Consider the rebranding unrepentant individuals have welded upon the porn industry. Despite the absurdly high rate of suicides by women, and men, reports act surprised at such inevitabilities, describing several in a row as having shaken the industry to its core. They’ll speak about terrible treatment from an industry insensitive to costs of healthcare, mental health, abuse, harassment, exploitation, drug and alcohol use, and more, in addition to the self-destroying doubt that comes between signing one job and wondering when the next will knock. Never mind the unspoken truth that shame has a way of creeping in unrelenting when the day is quiet and the mind is unoccupied. As the average lifespan for a female so-called adult film entertainer is below forty, anyone with a functioning mind and intact moral compass knows that the fault is not in the treatment, but the industry’s very existence. And for those about to wail about free speech, expression, association, and the like, think very, very carefully about what it means that a woman might commit suicide after a career spanning about three years and two hundred films. Two hundred films. That’s, at minimum, two hundred partners in three years. You call this freedom, expression? You call this entertainment? You’re shaken by a rash of suicides? You think a soul dies just because the body no longer listens? No, you’ve fallen prey to thinking that legally could may as well be should. If absolutists and activists are so psychotic as to still support the allowance of this industry, if other nut jobs are adamant about rebranding so everyone can hide behind a false, brittle shield of self-worth, then society itself must make it unimaginable for the existence of such “entertainment” resulting in a multi-billion-dollar industry, let alone anyone willingly admitting to being part of it. Laws should make it impossible to profit, society should make it impossible to allow without honest, devastating shame. So brazen, so lost has the distinction become that the industry has award ceremonies. The industry has a hall of fame. The industry calls popular and “high performers” stars. Some are even married, which means their spouses allow them to participate in this so-called “work.” As if there never was a case in the history of man of a job negatively impacting a worker. Mainstream film isn’t much better, which could be why Gen Z is rejecting its excess entirely. Mainstream film also features nudity and eroticism and essentially pornography by ...
Noch keine Rezensionen vorhanden