I'm not gonna argue about conservatives here, because the only ones occupying the blathersphere are neocons and neocons seem to hate any consent or free speech that doesn't go their way, to the point where they never retreat to accepting these things as a "good" in and of themself.

But in popular thought liberals prefer to claim that tolerance is a virtue and that consent and free speech are "goods" despite some abuses. ( And despite some intolerance when their own domains [ say, academia?,] are encroached upon. )

But consent and free speech vis a vis Pronz are not understood by the courts the same way that they're understood in the minds of their advocates.

Its quite clear that the justices who argued to make Pronz legal hold that it is unhealthy without exception. But that society must tolerate this always harmful thing. I'm not sure that generations of nude female models ( say, courthouse sculptures of "Justice?," ) would agree. But we need to understand that where we believe that one man's "obscenity" may be anothers' art and therefore intrinsically good; that those who allow this good see it as intrinsically bad.

It seems that all legal arguments around consent argue to its impossibility. To the baby everything is new. And consent depends on a full understanding of a thing; not an approximation. So you can only consent to what you have already experienced IF you know that it will be repeated without variation. ( Mutter mutter Zen mutter mutter same river twice. )

It seems that here too the justices throw up their hands, realizing that all contract law disappears without consent and allow the approximate as a substitute for the action itself being consented to. And in doing so admit to harm as an inevitable eventual result which is merely the lesser evil, but in no way constitutes a good.

When pro-consent or pro-Pronz free-speechers are talking about the reasons why these things can be good and conflating them with references to the law; they need to realize that they're projecting what they want to see, rather than what is there.

* And here I admit that maybe I limit myself to talking libruls because I came to Right Anarchism from the Left and am still an unreconstructed Lefty in many regards.

Dante