Comparing 'Holocaust denying propaganda' with healthy sexual activity (this is what OP is talking about) explains a lot about US puritanism.

I do feel 'porn' as it is understood now is vastly different than what was talked about in the og comment. I've seen porn and I've seen videos of people faking sex on tv as a teenager (erotic movement and nudity, not allow under 16 in my country at the time). The original comment was probably talking about the second one, where the erotism come from the touch, eyes and behavior (and genitalia and boobs, tbh). I agree that most pornography I've seen was too violent and/or disturbing to be on tv(I'm not a consumer, never was really, but i think in my group of friends, Rick roll included porn gif/videos). Erotica however, i wouldn't bat an eye even if showed during the day.

Although lacking nuance, your point is clear and there was no need for that dubious holocaust switcheroo you did at did the end.

Keep in mind that there is a vast zone between showing a couple holding hand and random people straight out fucking. What's missing on TV and the Internet these days are tasteful and varying depiction of people expressing their love in wholesome ways. People need references as to what is normal and not shameful. Banning _every_ depiction of physical emotional engagement is certainly not the way to go.

I did not found that convincing argument. It amounted to "I find porn disgusting and animalistic, therefore it is good if it is censored". But, none of that suggests freedom in any way.

Also, there is difference between broadcasting something that leads to huge loss of freedom and life ... vs broadcasting something disgusting.