> the expansion of the definition of porn to suit political purposes
How would that work? "Hate speech" for example is very easy to define broadly enough to ban basically any opinion those in power deem undesirable. But how would you do that with porn? Is the government going to somehow start classifying news articles criticizing particular political candidates as pornography? That seems like such a ridiculous stretch that it couldn't possibly work.
If there's any danger here, I think it's more the potential for collateral damage on human freedoms, like the right to online anonymity. (E.g. Widespread deployment of age verification systems requiring users to provide a government-issued ID.)
I think the OP might have meant "obscenity" that goes against "community standards" when he wrote "porn". I agree that defining crimechink and crimespeech as "porn" would be a stretch, but defining them as "obscenity" would be less so.
How would that work? "Hate speech" for example is very easy to define broadly enough to ban basically any opinion those in power deem undesirable. But how would you do that with porn? Is the government going to somehow start classifying news articles criticizing particular political candidates as pornography? That seems like such a ridiculous stretch that it couldn't possibly work.
If there's any danger here, I think it's more the potential for collateral damage on human freedoms, like the right to online anonymity. (E.g. Widespread deployment of age verification systems requiring users to provide a government-issued ID.)