"I don’t know how one changes the minds of others. Through fifty years of writing, I’ve regularly heard that film and drama..."

"... should be enlisted in the service of good works; but no one has ever had his mind changed by a play or movie. That’s not how they function—they’re entertainment, with as little ability to alter ones thinking as does a meal. Exodus no more reduced anti-Semitism than tacos clarify the border crisis.... Islamists at home and abroad have been demonizing the Jewish State since 1948: Why would a bunch of septuagenarian Jews in Hollywood conclude they could be defeated by 'changing the narrative'? The answer: they did not conceive of them being defeated; they merely wanted peace, which to their minds might be achieved rationally, without war, through mere dialogue, as if murderous savagery were the result of misunderstanding...."

I'm reading "The Disenlightenment: Politics, Horror, and Entertainment" by David Mamet (Amazon Associates link).

Wait. What about "The Birth of a Nation"? Did Mamet consider the movies and plays that have changed people for the worse? How about all the pornography? 

"'Sexual expression and imagery were common, widespread, legal and quite explicit' in the American colonies...

"... Professor Stone wrote in a 2019 law review article.... 'In the 18th century, bookstores in the American colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica... and there were no statutes forbidding obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary, throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition and possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to be any of the state’s business.' Indeed, Professor Stone wrote... Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin collected such works...."

From "What Would the Founders Have Thought About TikTok and Online Porn?/The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in First Amendment challenges to laws banning the app and shielding minors from sexual materials on the internet" (NYT).

How does that connect to the TikTok problem?

"Seventeen pornographic film actors on Monday announced that they had launched a $100,000 ad campaign on porn sites warning that Project 2025.... wants to ban pornography and imprison people who produce it."

"The online ads will run in the states that will decide the presidency: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.... Vice President Kamala Harris is losing to former President Donald J. Trump among men, but younger men might be winnable — and pornographic websites are among the most heavily trafficked on the internet.... Mr. Trump has sought to distance himself from Project 2025, saying he knows nothing about it or the people involved in its creation...."

The NYT reports.

If you're genuinely concerned about censorship, why would you choose the Democratic Party as the one to trust? 

"The case has garnered national attention both for the salaciousness of a high-profile university official making pornographic movies and publicly talking about it..."

"... and the questions it raises about free speech rights. [Joe] Gow argued that his videos and two e-books he and his wife, Carmen, have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect "The Star Spangled Banner,"' Gow’s attorney, Mark Leitner, told the committee. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect easy and comforting speech. It’s exactly the opposite. We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest. And that’s what we have here.'... The school is pushing to fire Gow for unethical conduct, insubordination for refusing to cooperate with an investigation and violating computer policies.... Gow has maintained that he and his wife produced the pornographic materials on their own time. He insists the videos and the books never mentioned UW-La Crosse or his role at the university...."

From "Porn-making former University of Wisconsin campus leader argues for keeping his teaching job" (AP)." Gow, formerly chancellor of UW-La Crosse, made his argument to the personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.

I don't know if these free-speech arguments garnered the attention of the regents. We're told they "asked no questions."

"As I see it, Google and other search engines are recklessly directing traffic to porn sites with nonconsensual deepfakes."

Writes Nicholas Kristof, in "The Online Degradation of Women and Girls That We Meet With a Shrug" (NYT).

That's a free access link so you can read the description of how easy it is to "nudify" real individuals and make stills and video. Ugh! I realize that giving out that information will cause more people to produce that material, but how else are those of us who loathe this sort of thing going to get outraged enough to have any effect?

"One image shared by a user on X, formerly Twitter, was viewed 47 million times before the account was suspended on Thursday."

"X suspended several accounts that posted the faked images of Ms. Swift, but the images were shared on other social media platforms and continued to spread despite those companies’ efforts to remove them.... Researchers now fear that deepfakes are becoming a powerful disinformation force, enabling everyday internet users to create nonconsensual nude images or embarrassing portrayals of political candidates."

From "Explicit Deepfake Images of Taylor Swift Elude Safeguards and Swamp Social Media/Fans of the star and lawmakers condemned the images, probably generated by artificial intelligence, after they were shared with millions of social media users" (NYT).

Combining a photo of the head of a famous person with a photo of someone else's body is an old trick. I remember when Jon Stewart did it to the Supreme Court Justices in his book "America (The Book)." From 2004:

"My wife and I live in a country where we have a first amendment. We’re dealing with consensual adult sexuality. The regents are overreacting.”

"They’re certainly not adhering to their own commitment to free speech or the first amendment.... I got an email last night saying I was terminated. I wish I would have had the opportunity to have a hearing. When reasonable people understand what my wife and I are creating, it calms them down."

Said Former University of Wisconsin-La Crosse chancellor Joe Gow, quoted in "Wisconsin university chancellor claims he was fired for appearing in porn videos/Joe Gow says that his free speech rights were violated after the Universities of Wisconsin board of regents decided to fire him" (The Guardian).

"When people see an age gap, they tend to imagine there is something intrinsically unequal about it — that the older partner wants someone they can control..."

"... and the younger partner has daddy issues or is just out for money.... And even if the older partner is calling all the shots, or some of them, that isn’t necessarily abuse. While Me Too made us all too aware of the way power dynamics can be and have been exploited, it didn’t do away with the fact that desire for these dynamics continues to exist. (Daddy, for instance, was the most-searched term on the porn site xHamster among women in America in 2018.) Sex-advice columnist Dan Savage, who is seven years older than his husband and 22 years older than his boyfriend, has found much of the conversation about age gaps to be fundamentally unrealistic about what human relationships are. 'We are status-obsessed, power-obsessed primates always jockeying for control — socially and also in our interpersonal relationships,' he said. 'There’s no interpersonal relationship without power differentials, without advantages or disadvantages on both sides. And if you want to correct for that, or eliminate that, you have to eliminate human relationships.'" 

From "The Age Gappers/They say they’re happy. Why is it so hard to believe them?" (New York Magazine).

"I think a lot about the fact that I’ve had the privilege of censorship — that my body would be considered worthy of censoring. There are many people whose voices are not even listened to in the first place."

Said Karen Finley.

Quote in "Conservatives Called Her Artwork ‘Obscene.’ She’s Back for More. Karen Finley, one of the N.E.A. Four, revisits culture wars 25 years after a Supreme Court ruling — amid today’s culture wars — with a work at Art Basel Miami Beach" (NYT).

"Casino owners discovered in the late 1980s that people who gambled on screens became addicted three to four times faster..."

"... than those who gambled at tables. The rest of America had learned that lesson by 1992, when a third of homes had Nintendo systems. Men without jobs have video games the way men without girlfriends have pornography, and growing numbers of men are finding the substitute good enough to be going on with, declining to pursue either permanent employment or marriage. The historian David Courtwright calls this 'limbic capitalism,' the redirection of America’s productive energies into inducing and servicing addictions."

From "Boomers/The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster" — a 2021 book by Helen Andrews (and I earn a commission if you buy it using that link).

Here's a 2019 Vox interview with Courtwright. Excerpt: "I make a distinction between ordinary capitalist enterprises like companies that sell people rakes or plows or nails or whatever.... But I think of limbic capitalism as capitalism’s evil twin, a really cancerous outgrowth of productive capitalism. There is a certain class of brain-rewarding products that lead to a form of pathological learning that we call addiction...."

"For better or worse, she wished the lawsuit were done with. 'It’s in God’s hands now,' [Olivia Hussey] said."

"'It’s all in God’s hands in the end.' Even if it failed, she said, she’d be okay. 'Most people on their deathbeds, even the most evil people, have to say, What have I done? And what was wrong? And what did I do right? I’m not afraid to die because I’m not scared of my reckoning.' She’d made her share of mistakes, and sometimes she wondered whether filing the lawsuit was one of them. But she could live with that. 'Nobody’s perfect,' she said. 'If we were perfect, there’d be no need for all this charade, this illusion that we call life. If we were perfect, we’d all be angels.'"

From "Romeo and Juliet Was a Tragedy/In 1968, Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting were the world’s most famous teens. In 2023, they sued Paramount for abuse" by Lila Shapiro (New York Magazine).

The lawsuit, filed the day before the Child Victims Act expired, is based on the idea that Hussey and Whiting were traumatized by the way the director, Franco Zeffirelli, forced them into appearing naked. They say the movie is "essentially pornography," "a poisonous product," and "evidence of a crime."

"When a man in Ohio found out that someone online had manipulated his 11-year-old daughter into sending intimate photos of herself, he called police for help..."

"... according to a video shared widely on social media. The man was hoping officers could speak with the girl to help her 'realize what this was,' the video shows. But when two Columbus police officers responded to the man’s home, one of them said that his daughter 'could probably get charged with child porn'... 'Who? She can?' the man responded in the video. 'She’s 11 years old.'... 'Doesn’t matter,' the same officer replied. 'She’s still making porn.'"

From "Police told a father his 11-year-old could get ‘child porn’ charge, video shows" (WaPo).

"So What if a Candidate Livestreamed Sex Acts with Her Husband?"

For this story, I'm linking to Jack Shafer at Politico, because his headline is — almost verbatim — the question I had for my search as I looked for an article about Susanna Gibson, a Democratic nominee for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.

"Where was my mother? In the next room, making sure I was eating nine differently colored fruits and vegetables on the daily."

"She was attentive, nearly a helicopter parent, but I found online porn anyway. So did my friends. Today I’m 16, and my peers are suffering from an addiction to what many call 'the new drug.' Porn is the disastrous replacement for intimacy among my sexless, anxiety-ridden generation."

From "I Had a Helicopter Mom. I Found Pornhub Anyway. Porn is not content. It’s a substance. And it must be controlled like one, argues 16-year-old Isabel Hogben" (Free Press). 

This is one of 2 winners in what was an essay contest for high schoolers. The other winner is "Why I Traded My Smartphone for an Ax/At 15, Caleb Silverberg made the most important decision of his life. He ditched technology and headed to the forest."

You see the common theme: Kids challenged to break away from the screens that captured them at an early age. I note that the young woman, whose mother couldn't rescue her, expects the government to rescue her. The young man rescued himself. 

By the way, the observations Hogben makes about on-line porn have been around as long as on-line porn. There's nothing "new" about them. And the idea that porn isn't speech was very well developed by Catharine MacKinnon in the 1980s. I'm not surprised that a 16-year-old doesn't know much about that, but why would she know about what "intimacy" has consisted of in all the various generations? Of course, it's pretty standard to think your generation is different from those that came before and sound, to older ears, like the same thing all over again. 

"Pee-wee’s television stint ended in infamy when Reubens was arrested on a charge of indecent exposure in a porn theater. Late-night hosts pounced..."

"... and so did the news media. CBS took reruns of his show off the air. The controversy now seems preposterously overblown. That happened just one year before Sinead O’Connor’s career suffered a blow from her protest on 'Saturday Night Live' against sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church — an episode that has come under new examination after her death last week. It’s clear that dopey moralizing scandals are far from a hallmark of our age alone...."

Writes Jason Zinoman in "In Pee-wee Herman, Joy and Fun Got Flat-Out Weird/Paul Reubens committed to profound silliness without ever going mean or dark — though some peers were disappointed that he focused on one character" (NYT).

That awful arrest took place in 1991, O'Connor's tearing of a photograph of the Pope happened in 1992. If you lived though that era — the NYT considers it an entire "age"! — do you remember with any specificity the kind of "moralizing"? I remember the Robert Mapplethorpe photographs and the obscenity case against 2 Live Crew. I remember "Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." If the "age" that is 1991-1992 is expansive enough to go back to 1985, I remember when 11-year-old Karenna Gore activated her mother by playing Prince's "Darling Nikki."

If only there were blogging back then! The "dopey moralizing scandals" — is that the right phrase? — of the time had to do with fearsome sexuality. I don't think it's wise to explain them as transitory dopiness. We can always predict that 3 decades later we will look back and think we were dumb, but it's also dumb to think that there's no worthy morality, just "dopey moralizing."

By the way, the opposite of "dopey" — which means stupefied by sleep or a drug — is "woke."

"Job centres in Belgium have started asking if out-of-work Belgian actors would like to try their hand at starring in pornographic films.

"Actiris, a public employment agency in Brussels, has been the subject of criticism from politicians, who are demanding that the question be struck from a list for jobseekers. Penalties can be imposed by Actiris on people refusing to work, which has only intensified the controversy.... "

The Express reports.

"The average person who’s looking at this stuff, I don’t think they care. I don’t expect the person I’m looking at online to be the person they say they are."

"I’m not going to meet this person in real life... At the end of the day, if they’re not real, who really cares?"

Said an unnamed AI user, quoted in "'Claudia’ offers nude photos for pay. Experts say she’s an AI fake. Will users feel ripped off as image-generating AI tools fuel a new wave of porn and scams?" (WaPo).

Isn't it better if real human beings are not used in making porn? 

"[W]ho really cares?" I suppose some people care, just like you might care if a movie has real-life stunts or CGI animation. You like thinking that somebody really did that.  

A separate problem is "inpainting," which works the face of a real person onto the AI-created body.

"Our landlord at SF HQ says we're legally required to keep sign as Twitter & cannot remove 'w', so we painted it background color. Problem solved!"

Tweeted Elon Musk, quoted in "Elon Musk painted over the 'w' on Twitter's sign at its San Francisco headquarters, changing it to 'Titter'" (Yahoo).

I'm reading this because I saw, on Twitter, that "titter" was trending. I clicked over there and Twitter did not filter out the pornographic pictures the trend had inspired. I looked at one picture too long because I had trouble seeing and believing what I was looking at.

Why isn't Twitter filtering out this sort of thing? Did Musk want to inspire the childish people who see the word "titter" — which means laugh — and think of breasts? Given the failure to screen out the photos I saw, I'm going to say yes. 

"Seriously, you are the first person who seems to have noticed the sexual framework from intromission to last spasm," wrote Stanley Kubrick...

... to LeGrace Benson, a Cornell art history professor, who had written him a letter in 1964 detailing her observations about "Dr. Strangelove."

Now, Benson, who is 92, is interviewed in "My Coffee With Stanley Kubrick" (NY Magazine).

"Democratic strategist Kurt Bardella recommends that Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) turn to pornography ..."

"... should she lose the down-to-wire Colorado House race against Adam Frisch. Bardella made the suggestion on set with MSNBC host Joy Reid, who responded with a blaring cackle. 'What’s the meaning if Lauren Boebert, the second most popular QAnon congressperson in MAGA, what if she loses?' Reid asked 'I guess there might be a gain for OnlyFans if [Boebert loses],' Bardella responded.... Bardella followed in line with frequent MSNBC guest Elie Mystal, the goofy-looking man who uses racial slurs to refer to Hershel Walker. On Wednesday, Mystal tweeted the following message before quickly deleting it: 'Is… Lauren Boebert still losing? I guess this is the lucky day of the next OnlyFans star Ted Cruz thinks should be a Congressperson.'" 

From "Joy Reid Blasts Her Cackle [When] Sexist Guest Tells Rep. Lauren Boebert to Join OnlyFans" (Outkick). (I found that via this tweet from Glenn Greenwald.)

MSNBC's @JoyAnnReid: "What job will Lauren Boebert have if she loses?"@kurtbardella: "I guess it might be a gain for OnlyFans" pic.twitter.com/fVf5QZG6xa

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 10, 2022

According to Yahoo!entertainment — entertainment? — "DNC Adviser Apologizes For Suggesting Lauren Boebert's Next Job Should Be OnlyFans." But let's take a look at the text and context of that apology.