In The Federalist,
Dustin Murphy writes
a screed against pornography that is larded with the usual proofs by assertion. A few passages stand out, though.
According to Murphy, the antisocial effects of pornography include the following:
One of the greatest tragedies of porn’s antisocial effects is that it fuels an anti-child culture. Thinking sex should be open to procreation, or that the two go hand-in-hand, is regarded like VHS tapes: out of style. Some people consider parents with three or more children to be crazy, and children are generally viewed as a burden. Anyone with a large family has probably experienced negative comments in grocery stores or coffee shops.
In addition to the false dichotomy, the cause of the anti-child culture, if such a thing exists, is pornography because Murphy says so.
As for whether one person's use of pornography harms others, Murphy argues,
Recording sex devoid of love violates a couple’s right to share authentic human love and to experience the whole person, not just private parts, during sex.
No, it doesn't. People are still free to do just that. Murphy's argument is just a short stroll from "Freedom is slavery."
He continues that
laws ought to promote the common good, which is to perfect the community.
In addition to being exactly the sort of collectivist reasoning that conservatives at least used to oppose when liberals used it, that argument presupposes that perfecting the community is possible. It is odd that someone who elsewhere expresses a belief in God argues that secular government can perfect the community. Besides, I am not sure that I should want to live in Murphy's perfect community.