Although obscenity enforcement has not been a priority for the DOJ, it is a priority for most of the American people.
In recent years the Department of Justice (DOJ) has paid only lip-service to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. In some instances the DOJ has gone after child pornographers and - in a scant few cases - has prosecuted purveyors of the most obscene and graphic adult pornography. But unfortunately, the government has been largely AWOL when it comes to enforcing an entire section of U.S. law, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1460-1470, which criminalizes much of the adult hard-core pornography that has saturated both the internet and our communities.
Although obscenity enforcement has not been a priority for the DOJ, it is a priority for most of the American people. A 2004 Wirthlin Worldwide opinion poll found that more than four out of five Americans want existing internet obscenity laws vigorously enforced. In order to help illustrate that reality, Concerned Women for America (CWA) is preparing to send the DOJ more than 16,000 signed petitions which firmly but respectfully demand that our nation's obscenity laws be properly enforced.
The courts have held that there can be constitutional coexistence between federal obscenity laws, which criminalize certain hard-core pornography, and the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is "unprotected by the first amendment" (413 U.S. at 23) and that obscenity laws can be enforced against "hardcore pornography" (413 U.S. at 28).
Yet law enforcement officials at the local, state and federal levels have chosen to sit back and do almost nothing while the pornography epidemic hits critical mass. Like a sexually transmitted cyber-disease, it widely infects men, women and even children.
Due to the instant availability of such obscenity and the lack of enforcement against it, there are, no doubt, many good people reading this article right now who know someone, love someone or have themselves been ensnared by this public pestilence. And, like a drug dealer doling-out crack cocaine to his hopelessly addicted prey, those who produce and distribute this smut are getting away with societal murder.
Many say that pornography is victimless, but we know that's a lie. It is extremely destructive to all parties involved. It reduces women and even children to mere sex objects and destroys individuals, families and communities.
Adult pornography creates a trap that is difficult to escape. It entices viewers to consume more and more smut and to delve deeper and deeper into more graphic and obscene material.
During a 2004 hearing held by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, several experts testified as to the highly addictive nature of pornography. Those experts further testified that regular consumption of adult pornography can breed sex offenders who prey on women and children. It provides a gateway to child pornography and eventually, to child sexual assault.
Regrettably, our federal government's lack of enforcement has sent a clear signal - whether right or wrong - to smut peddlers and sexual predators: The government is a paper tiger. There are no real consequences for violating obscenity laws and abusing women and children.
That's why it was very encouraging to hear Michael Mukasey, the new U.S. Attorney General, declare during his confirmation hearings that he, too, is concerned about the proliferation of such illegal and obscene material. Continue >>
RSS
merkin- what, do u have some temporary internet files and cookies on your computer that u dont anyone to say u shouldnt be watchin? sounds like you are pro porn to me, what if that was your daughter having sex with 3-4 men at the same time, wonder if u would still be pro porn then? ponder that, those women are somebodys daughter, and you are not condemning that, you should be ashamed
Chris333, >> We do not say, well if you don't like drinking and driving then just don't do it, it is that simple! Rather we say drinking and driving cannot be done by anyone because it is dangerous to others and a detriment to our society <<
Chris, you took the thoughts right out of my head :^) I LOVE that analogy; I was thinking about it the other day regarding some previous article involving actions that "don't hurt anybody". Technically, drinking and driving doesn't hurt anyone ... until it hurts someone.
I can personally attest to the fact that soft-core porn leads to more and more intense (eventually to illegal) hard-core. I still get tempted to look at this garbage (sometimes very tempted), but God has helped me unburden the struggle. I've found the best way is to just remove temptation, but sometimes it finds you. The peddlers sometimes hide these things in the most innocuous (or not so innocuous but unrelated) places ... particularly on P2P searches, ShoutCast, etc...
excellent point goldberry,
and you are absolutely right. The only line is whenever something is perceived to be detrimental to society and individuals, and I believe there is a good case that "hard-core" porn is.
So most Americans, 4 out of 5, want obscenity laws to be enforced against adult pornography? Then why is the video and print porn industry a multi-billion dollar business? Obviously the American public wants it. The way to change society's consumption is not to write the attorney general, but to stop spending money on porn. No market and no buyers, the manufacturers of porn will then have to make money doing something else. If that's not what the American people want, then I say the current society is perfect for them.
Merkin, I agree, and I was not trying to draw an equivalent between child pornography and other pornography, reread my post below to understand what my position was. You seem to be accusing me of making comparisons a lot and I just am not doing that.
Anyways, you brought up another good point, you said that as long as they are people who consent. First of all, this does not change the affect on society and the viewers, and secondly how do you jump to the conclusion that children are forced? Certainly there are 12 to 18 year olds who have a better understanding of what they are doing than some 20 and 30 year olds, and then some of them are already having sex on their own, even against what society says. Even if we go away from child pornography, there are still porn that depicts women being raped or having sex with many men, or demeaning them in some way. I would say that all porn does demean women in some way (or else both men and women), and pushes an unhealthy view of sex. Anyways my point was that there exists a liine that should not be crossed, but which is being crossed. For Christians the line is clear.
It's nice to see CWA stepping away from its usual extremely anti-gay rhetoric and finding something new to get extreme about.
I know that nobody is likely to read this since the thread has disappeared, but I'm going to write it just in case. I want to amend that last post, because I suggested in it that people actually have something called "free will" and I don't really believe that to be true. I'm only suggesting it for the sake of simplicity.
It's annoying that these threads disappear so quickly. Anyway, I thought it was obvious that my argument didn't extend to things like child pornography (or lynch mobs—when I referred to racist propaganda I was thinking of books like The Bell Curve). Child pornography is an example of criminal behavior that clearly has little to do with free speech. There is obviously some degree of coercion involved with children and that's what makes it a crime—not simply that it's sexual, but that it's coercively sexual because the "actors," if you will, aren't experienced enough to know whether or not they should participate. What I'm talking about is pornography that depicts consensual sex between adults. There is absolutely no reason to lawfully prohibit adults from watching other adults have sex provided that everyone involved has freely chosen to be.
Merkin,
While you are right that we live in a society that guards freedom of speech, there is a line that cannot be crossed, and that is when someone's freedom of speech endangers or threatens others in some way.
For instance, though the KKK has every right to assemble, they cannot go out in public waving banners saying to burn minorities and put pictures of minorities being lynched. Yes they have a right to say they don't like other people, but there is a point that it cannot breach.
With pornography, we already say that certain extremes, such as child pornography are not allowed, and serious repurcussions exist for any who partake in it. (For good reason) We as a society have to decide what is too much, freedom of speech means literally nothing when we are talking about something like pedophilia or lynching others, and if I do say so myself, blind tolerance is one of the worst evils ever to have existed. I hope you would agree. Now, I and many others, would argue that something such as "hard-core pornography" is detrimental both to society and the value of individuals, specifically women. It promotes an unhealthy attitude towards sex, and does corrupt the minds of individuals. Also I stand by my statement that porn is harder to break free from than drugs or alcohol.
As a Christian, the choice is easy for me (applying it is difficult, but the choice is easy), but as a citizen of this country I am going to push to limit pornography for the above reasons.
Let me add that there are many things that I deplore but would still fight to protect (and I agree that certain kinds of pornography are totally deplorable). Most of us hate racism, for example, and want to see MLK's dream come true, but I will still defend a person's right to publicly promote a blatantly racist opinion—no matter how insidious I think it is for society. One step down the road of putting restrictions on people's freedom to express themselves is one step closer to creating an American Taliban.
Chris, I'm glad to hear that you're not calling for a Prohibition on pornography, but that is very clearly what Mr. Barber is calling for in this article. I won't comment on your claim that porn is more addictive than smoking other than to point out, as a former smoker, that this is no small claim. You say that the issue is more complicated than my "if you don't like it, don't consume it" solution. It may be true for some individuals—especially those who were raised in sexually repressive environments—that pornography has a negative effect, but hopefully we agree that the sort of paternalistic legal response that Barber is calling for IS essentially anti-free speech.
Bingo, Chris
My point was that it is not just a don't do it if you don't want to. This is something that does affect society.
I also did not mean to use drinking as a direct one to one example, but as a general reference. None the less pornography becomes an addiction much easier than smoking or drinking, and is much harder to break. It also does influence the way a person thinks about sex, and the way a person views others.
Finally I am not calling for prohibition (for non-Christians at least) but I have known way too many people who's marriages and lives have been messed up by it to just casually brush it off as don't do it if you don't like.
And incidentally your daughter/wife/mother are much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (or raped by a depraved drunkard—and because he is stupid and plastered, not because he watched a porno).
That is a completely false comparison, Chris. Drinking ALWAYS leads to impaired perception. It's a one to one connection. If there is any connection whatsoever between pornography and rape it is extremely tenuous at best. A person has to have some intense psycho-pathological issues already twisting his mind in that direction. If watching a porno causes him to think that it would be a good idea to go out and forcibly rape some poor woman or child, it's no more the pornographer's fault than it is the beer manufacturer's fault in the case of the drunk driver. Prohibition is not the answer in either situation.
Well, though I think some of that statement was slightly exaggerated, the main point is true, and no it is not so simple as, "if you don't like it, don't do it" For instance my daughter or wife or mother might become a victim of some depraved rapist, who was influenced by pornography.
We do not say, well if you don't like drinking and driving then just don't do it, it is that simple! Rather we say drinking and driving cannot be done by anyone because it is dangerous to others and a detriment to our society, why is this different for pornography?
Pornography destroys individuals, families, and communities. It is a gateway to RAPE — just like marijuana is a gateway to snorting heroin off of the sweaty parts of some toothless tranny in a Skid Row alleyway. Worse still, pornography is so addictive that once you've started down that road you're almost guaranteed to become a mindless, masturbating sexual predator. It is, in short, "societal murder."
Jeez...Hyperbole has its place, but Mr. Barber obviously has no idea where that place begins or ends. If you don't like pornography, DON'T CONSUME IT. It's that simple.