Because the general public's opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of comics fandom is what matters. And comics fandom has spoken.
And here's why that argument fails and dies:
Marvel isn't going to care.
Marvel is not likely to fall in line with your definition of porn just because "the majority" of comics fandom (a claim of which I'm still skeptical) calls the HfH cover porn. Because, as I've mentioned before, selling porn to kids is a serious legal charge. Do you seriously think they'll say "oh, you got us! We're selling porn to kids and by admitting that we've left ourselves open to civil lawsuits and criminal charges, woe is us!"
Marvel is going to look at covers to FHM and Maxim - not porn. They're going to look at artwork elsewhere that may be similar that is also available to minors that is not considered porn. They will scour the earth, if need be, to find other examples of questionable material that can be accessed by kids and is not considered porn by the world at large. And they will turn to their lawyers, who'll shrug their shoulders, bill them a few thousand dollars, and say "we dunno what the fuss is, this doesn't look like porn to us." Then they will send Joe Quesada out to say, "we're sorry some of you don't like it, but it really isn't porn, we don't see what the problem is, and we don't know what kind of porn you're talking about, anyway--"
Oh wait, they already did that.
If they change the cover, it will be due to fan outcry and bad publicity, but NOT because they consider the cover "porn". As a publisher, they deal with things the way the world at large defines them, and yes, the way the law defines them, not just "comics fandom". If comics fandom is really so insular that it has the luxury of defining words at a disconnect from the rest of society, then... well, there is indeed no reason to continue, is there?
But let me continue, because I can already hear you saying, "Maxim, FHM? Those aren't porn and they aren't like the HfH cover, why bring them up? They have nothing to do with it!"
Maybe, maybe not: if a large enough group defines something as porn, you say, then it is porn.
(But what if that group is ignorant or just plain stupid, or has an agenda to push when it calls things porn?)
Consider this example: Here is a link (http://www.gaiaonline.com/artarena/index.php?mode=vote&postid=342247) to a picture I drew, posted on a site called Gaia Online. If you'd care to peruse the comments (nine pages worth), you will see that there are comments that approve of the picture for being "hawt", some non sequiters, some calling the figures "fat", and quite a few - possibly a majority - calling it perverted, hentai, and/or "porn".
Is it porn? If so, then a Maxim cover is porn. You say your linguistics arguments are not "O'Reilly speak", but it's the same principle - if you get enough people to call something "porn" or "left-wing extremist", it becomes that thing.
But, as you like it. The cover is porn. My picture is porn. I'm a leftist commie fanatic, and red is now the new green.
To hopefully cap off the lingustics/semantics battle, if the definition of porn is widened to include non-explicit imagery (by which *I*, at least, mean no visible genitals, female nipples, or the byproducts thereof, and "mystery fluids" don't count), then the word itself will become diluted, so that things like my picture become porn. Two things could happen in that case: "porn" retains its taboo cachet, and brings on a ultra-conservative-style crackdown on anything vaguely erotic - or "porn" loses much of its negative connotations, so that saying "that kid is reading porn" becomes no more scandalous than "that kid is looking at a swimsuit poster".
no subject
And here's why that argument fails and dies:
Marvel isn't going to care.
Marvel is not likely to fall in line with your definition of porn just because "the majority" of comics fandom (a claim of which I'm still skeptical) calls the HfH cover porn. Because, as I've mentioned before, selling porn to kids is a serious legal charge. Do you seriously think they'll say "oh, you got us! We're selling porn to kids and by admitting that we've left ourselves open to civil lawsuits and criminal charges, woe is us!"
Marvel is going to look at covers to FHM and Maxim - not porn. They're going to look at artwork elsewhere that may be similar that is also available to minors that is not considered porn. They will scour the earth, if need be, to find other examples of questionable material that can be accessed by kids and is not considered porn by the world at large. And they will turn to their lawyers, who'll shrug their shoulders, bill them a few thousand dollars, and say "we dunno what the fuss is, this doesn't look like porn to us." Then they will send Joe Quesada out to say, "we're sorry some of you don't like it, but it really isn't porn, we don't see what the problem is, and we don't know what kind of porn you're talking about, anyway--"
Oh wait, they already did that.
If they change the cover, it will be due to fan outcry and bad publicity, but NOT because they consider the cover "porn". As a publisher, they deal with things the way the world at large defines them, and yes, the way the law defines them, not just "comics fandom". If comics fandom is really so insular that it has the luxury of defining words at a disconnect from the rest of society, then... well, there is indeed no reason to continue, is there?
But let me continue, because I can already hear you saying, "Maxim, FHM? Those aren't porn and they aren't like the HfH cover, why bring them up? They have nothing to do with it!"
Maybe, maybe not: if a large enough group defines something as porn, you say, then it is porn.
(But what if that group is ignorant or just plain stupid, or has an agenda to push when it calls things porn?)
Consider this example: Here is a link (http://www.gaiaonline.com/artarena/index.php?mode=vote&postid=342247) to a picture I drew, posted on a site called Gaia Online. If you'd care to peruse the comments (nine pages worth), you will see that there are comments that approve of the picture for being "hawt", some non sequiters, some calling the figures "fat", and quite a few - possibly a majority - calling it perverted, hentai, and/or "porn".
Is it porn? If so, then a Maxim cover is porn. You say your linguistics arguments are not "O'Reilly speak", but it's the same principle - if you get enough people to call something "porn" or "left-wing extremist", it becomes that thing.
But, as you like it. The cover is porn. My picture is porn. I'm a leftist commie fanatic, and red is now the new green.
To hopefully cap off the lingustics/semantics battle, if the definition of porn is widened to include non-explicit imagery (by which *I*, at least, mean no visible genitals, female nipples, or the byproducts thereof, and "mystery fluids" don't count), then the word itself will become diluted, so that things like my picture become porn. Two things could happen in that case: "porn" retains its taboo cachet, and brings on a ultra-conservative-style crackdown on anything vaguely erotic - or "porn" loses much of its negative connotations, so that saying "that kid is reading porn" becomes no more scandalous than "that kid is looking at a swimsuit poster".