During the debate, the topic was weather the government create harsher laws for the adult entertainment industry. Our opponents argued that harsher laws needed to be introduced for several reasons. They believed that porn was degrading to women, depicting them as submissive sex objects and creating negative gender views. This argument lead to the topic of minors participating in pornographic media, causing harm not only to them but also to individuals who suffer legal repercussions for unknowingly viewing the material. Those proposing more government interference also acknowledged the wider accessibility that children have to the material due to technological advancements such as the internet and search engines. This group believes that stricter laws are necessary to prevent harming minors and eventually do away with the industry altogether.
The opposing side argued for preventing further government interference . We argued that there were already laws in place to prevent the participation of minors in pornographic materials. Access to pornography should be regulated by parents, not the government. Because adult entertainment is deemed a form of free speech, having the government regulate it beyond protecting minors and workers from harm would open p a can of worms leading to the infringement on other forms of free speech. Also, different cultures have varying opinions on what constitutes pornography.Assuming the standards of one equals the views of another is culturally insensitive and possibly dangerous on a social level.
Both views have valid points. A compromise would be the government enforcing the laws already in place more strictly while adjusting them to incorporate new media such as the internet and running campaigns to encourage greater parental supervision.