Do you think you are smart enough to know what things to ban? Can you foresee all the unintended consequences of using government might to moralize society?

Some people think they are that smart. Or for some reason, they think restricting people's freedom will have no larger effect than in the targeted area.

One recent New York Times article wants a porn ban to be an option on the table. The author reminds readers that a decade ago, Americans were having a conversation about banning pornography. But now with the "me too" movement in full swing, he laments that people see a pornography ban as untouchable policy.

But unlike many structural forces with which moralists of the left and right contend, porn is also just a product — something made and distributed and sold, and therefore subject to regulation and restriction if we so desire.

The belief that it should not be restricted is a mistake; the belief that it cannot be censored is a superstition. Law and jurisprudence changed once and can change again, and while you can find anything somewhere on the internet, making hard-core porn something to be quested after in dark corners would dramatically reduce its pedagogical role, its cultural normalcy, its power over libidos everywhere.

It so simple to him. Here "we" have a product that we can regulate if we want, just because it is a commercial product. That's how government works right? We get to insert ourselves into interactions which have nothing to do with us. We can dictate how others are allowed to interact.

But why are people so arrogant as to think they are the ones who know how to properly control society for the best outcomes?

The author brings up some harmful aspects of online pornography. And he is likely right about the negative effects it has on certain expectations about real-world sex. It very well could contribute to more troubles between women and men. And it is a bad way for young people to learn about sex.

He basically uses a variant of the "for the children" argument. Adults have to be stripped of their rights in order to protect the children. But he, like so many others, ignore the larger societal consequences restrictions create.

The author alludes to porn playing into the issue of sexual assault, by creating a false reality of how men should treat women. But what lesson is government teaching people if they can simply restrict what adults view online? Without an individual's consent, he wants to say what they can and cannot access online.

He wants to censor online content in order shape views about consent. Except that underwriting the enforcement of a pornography ban would require the government to unconsensually insert itself into transactions between adults. The government would essentially force itself on people who want to view, create, or sell pornography. We have to force people to respect consent.