Adult entertainment is a multi-billion dollar. Consumers of pornography pay producers, studios, webmasters, and content creators of all stripes billions of dollars every year.
Adult entertainment is strictly regulated in many parts of the world, including the United States, where it is held to rigorous legal standards. Adult entertainment encompasses far more than just the creation of audio and video. Retail, production, software development, web design, video game creation, and social media activities are all included in this.
The sector offers chances for achievement and business. The industry is made up of people like lawyers, accountants, copywriters, journalists, audio designers, camera operators, and talent agents, among others.
Adult Business Consulting is proud to bring you this post about sexuality censorship.
Modern censorship discussions have frequently centered around the United States. Censorship and official attempts to prohibit speech they disagree with have existed for a very long time.
As appropriate to the time for which humans existed, censorship was widespread in ancient Greek city-states and the Roman Empire. However, puritanical censorship techniques pertaining to sexuality gained popularity during the Middle Ages and even in some regions of Renaissance Europe. The United States and its forerunner states—the thirteen British crown colonies that extended south along the East Coast—were the cultures that inherited customs that denigrated, if not outright criminalized, straightforward political dissent to the free exchange of libertine ideas and actions. An unfortunate reality that could have an international impact is that the growing adult entertainment sector in the United States is being targeted by a modern era of digital puritanism.
We are perplexed by the fact that both pro-and anti-porn campaigners have been known to concentrate solely on current affairs pertaining to pornography’s presence in public life.
We believe that many digital puritans and politically motivated moral entrepreneurs are trying to ban forms of expression and points of view that are in opposition to their preexisting beliefs by addressing a number of issues related to the debate over the place of pornography in society.
This is demonstrated by efforts to outlaw LGBTQ+ literature from being used in classrooms and public libraries, by right-wing politicians calling for a ban on all drag performances, by state legislatures labeling porno as a public health emergency despite lack of supporting data, and by hate groups demonizing those who support comprehensive sexual education for minors as “groomers.” Or, a group of well-funded non-profit organizations accusing organizations like Netflix, a leader in video streaming, and EBSCO, a provider of educational databases, of facilitating sexual exploitation of children by allegedly exposing them to “pornographic” material.
But that phrase is laden in and of itself. Over the years, the term “pornographic” has been frequently used to attack media and speech that tackles issues like women’s rights and sexuality. Another term, “prurient,” adds the qualification that anything that might allude to such subjects needs to be eradicated from a society in addition to the censorship of this sort of discourse.
Many people are unaware of the fact that the Puritans were the ones who initiated the first book ban in North America. Ironically, the colony in Quincy, Massachusetts, was taken over by the Puritan government in 1637.
New English Canaan, the widely panned book by author Thomas Morton, was outlawed by the Puritan government for being rude, heretical, noisy, and too critical of Puritan traditions, spiritual power structures, administration, and overall control. According to a historical documents archive at the University of Maine, one of the Puritan censorship hypothesis was based on Morton’s recollections of having affairs with Native American women. But all signs point to the North American book ban history being in its prime right now.
Government-sponsored censorship has advanced 200 years later. Transmission of “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” material through the mail was forbidden by the Comstock Act of 1873. A book, brochure, image, representation, or message that was indecent was likewise illegal to purchase, distribute, or possess. Anthony Comstock, a New Yorker, and secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, was the “anti-vice” activist behind the action.
Comstock was such a devoted Christian that he was horrified by what he saw on the streets of New York because of how his faith interprets public life. He observed that the sex industry in his city was booming. Comstock gained notoriety in the 1860s for his campaign to bring together anti-vice morality groups and to alert the police to apprehend sex workers. With his persistent anti-obscenity campaign, Comstock’s notoriety rose. Birth control device marketing and sales also angered him, and he soon designated them as a target of his moral crusades. Additionally, he was absolutely “certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.”
The United States Postal Service accused suffragette and pro-choice campaigner Mary Coffin Ware Dennett of breaking the Comstock Act. A federal appeals court in New York concluded in 1930 that Dennett had been falsely accused of breaking the law and had been lawfully convicted under the Comstock laws, which require that actual arousal occur while viewing such material. Dennett wrote and sent out a leaflet for young people on sex education via the mail. The Hicklin obscenity test, which federal courts employed based on English case law, was called into doubt in this case. In support of health and privacy rights, the courts ultimately overturned the Comstock Act.
Until the 1960’s, the Comstock Act was in effect. As indicated, the Comstock statutes criminalized the spread of obscenity and immorality via the mail, including materials and products. However, the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1965 led to the repeal of the Comstock laws. The state of Connecticut attempted to enforce a prescription birth control law from the Comstock era on a couple. According to this decision, the statute restricting access to birth control was unconstitutional since it infringed on a person’s right to privacy. The First Amendment was used in the ruling because it provided further detail on the rights to free speech, expression, and privacy that were already protected.
Thus, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. A decision in Miller v. California was made that year. Obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment, was put to the test in Miller v. California. By using “contemporary community standards,” the high court determined that obscene materials are those that the typical individual would find appealing to “prurient interests.” These interests would show sexual activity or other excretory activities that are expressly prohibited by applicable state legislation in a way that is obviously offensive. If taken as a whole, this information wouldn’t add anything substantive to the cultural dialogue in terms of literature, the arts, politics, or science. The Miller standard is known as this.
Maintaining “national contemporary community standards” as a criterion for defining obscenity is probably unconstitutional. Communities have different standards, therefore there’s a risk that certain content might be regarded as obscene in one place but not in another. The First Amendment protects the content if it meets the Miller test for obscenity. The U.S. Justice Department contends that pornographic material is only illegal in terms of obscenity under U.S. Code 2257 if there have been violations of the rules governing age verification and compliance.
If the content is “revenge porn” or if it was created without consent, it may also be prohibited, including being obscene. Additionally, non-obscene content is protected by the First Amendment.
Here’s more Adult Business Consulting blog.
Please fill out the following form if you're interested in getting in touch with a member of our team.