Pornography has become an ingrained part of popular culture with widespread acceptance among the public at large. It is far more accessible than it was in generations past, and, indeed, is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid, even by those actively attempting to do so. While many dismiss this troubling trend as a relatively harmless consequence of free expression, there is mounting evidence that pornography ought to be classified as a threat to public health.

Consider the research. Studies have found that repeated exposure to pornography encourages children to become sexually active at younger ages, and that it also provokes more sexually aggressive behavior. Men who consume pornography are also statistically more likely to accept violence against women and to avoid intervening when witnessing sexual assaults. On a broader scale, pornography users find it far more difficult to establish functional and healthy relationships with the opposite sex, as they have conditioned themselves to see women as sexual objects rather than social and societal equals.

These conclusions suggest that pornography does real and lasting damage to individuals and society at large. As such, it is appropriate to consider what measures may be necessary to mitigate its influence on public health.

A template that might be worth considering is equating pornography to the sale and advertising of tobacco. Tobacco was long ago determined to be a public health hazard, and this has resulted in several regulations on how it is advertised and sold. Radio and television ads for tobacco products in the United States have been illegal for over 45 years. This restriction has endured even in the Digital Age. Although the Internet provides a host of opportunities to subvert the broadcast ban. Laws prevent tobacco sales to minors in all 50 states. Few complain that these restrictions are onerous or inappropriate, as they have an overwhelmingly positive public health impact.

Yet when proposing similar restrictions on pornography distribution, many insist that First Amendment rights trump all else. But if that’s true, then why is there not a similar outcry to protect the free speech of tobacco manufacturers? Pornography, like tobacco, is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Because of its deleterious health effects, surely the product of pornography ought to merit a similar level of concern and regulation.

In addition, there is much that individuals and companies can do to protect the public. Corporations like Google and Microsoft prohibit tobacco marketing on their networks. They would be good corporate citizens and well within their rights to prohibit pornography as well.

There are no easy answers, but the well-being of the public at large requires that we start asking many of the hard questions necessary to reduce pornography’s negative impact on public health.