I seek to impose penalties for restricting individual freedom rather than penalties for disobeying bigoted tyranny. See the difference?

You imposing penalties IS restricting individual freedom like a tyrant. See?

I don’t feel like you are making a genuine argument in good faith, as the alternative is literally anarchy. I would still be happier with that situation than the current oppressive regime, but come on… is that really what you are suggesting?

Yes, without naming it, because people (as you demonstrate) immediately presume anarchy === bad/chaos/disorder. All Anarchy means is No Kings, not No Order. In fact, anarchy allows for a type of emergent, bottom up order that cannot ever happen by top-down fiat mandate. It permits all (consensual, private property respecting) beliefs.

It does Not prevent someone else from disapproving of your actions (making porn), but it Does ensure that their response is limited only to their property/sphere of influence.

Anarchy has many different schools of thought. For those curious or intrigued, I'd recommend The Anarchist Handbook by Machael Malice. It contains a collection of writings from many different anarchist thinkers, from the violent dynamite throwers to the peaceful libertarians.

He's also got a podcast and has been on plenty of other podcasts, news shows, etc if you want video content.

As he says: "the black flag comes in many colors."

I accept your clarification but your original comment was pretty specific to certain set of beliefs of a certain set of people, with a very specific punishment.