Arguments against smut don’t stack up

Thursday, April 9, 1998

Arguments against smut don’t stack up

COLUMN: Bill of Rights must protect even those who choose to
view risque images

Pornography in the mass media dates back to the invention of the
printing press, and it has always been very controversial. Although
a large portion of the population – especially the male population
– of industrialized societies purchase and view pornography on a
grand scale, there is a large faction in this country that would
like to see the industry abolished.

It is the platform and shear illogical arguments that this
faction imposes on too many people that I will address. I have
always maintained that pornography is, and should always be,
permissible, especially if you are too ugly to experience the real
thing, do not have the social skills to date and/or have a lover
who is not meeting your hormonal needs.

The recent emphasis on "family values" has brought the potential
abolition of pornography to the forefront, especially in the wake
of the passage of the Telecommunications Bill that disallows the
presentation of "pornographic material" on the Internet.

There are two important arguments against pornography: that it
degrades females – leading to the "silencing of women" as well as
violent acts against them – and that it perpetuates the loosening
of the moral fabric of the country.

The argument that pornography causes harm to women is, at first,
very convincing. However, under careful scrutiny, it makes little
sense. The argument claims that the viewing of films and pictures
that show women in degrading sexual situations perpetuates the
domination of women by men and violent acts against females. The
material that is most often criticized is not the sexually explicit
pictures found in Playboy and Penthouse, but the paraphernalia
(gentleman, you know what I am referring to – the S & M whips,
chains and handcuffs that you have long fantasized about using)
which portrays women as being sexually submissive or shows them
being sexually abused.

Although it cannot be denied that the viewing of such material
does have a negative effect on men’s opinions of women, it would be
naive to assume that pornography was the root cause of these
thoughts. To blame porn for the subordinate position of women in
society and for violent acts like rape ignores the long history of
such behavior that predates the publishing of such material. In
fact, the women’s rights movement made many gains in the ’70s, in
the face of famous porno-films like "Deep Throat" and "Debbie Does
Dallas." The argument also dismisses social norms and other
conditions – such as poverty – as more likely causes of these
problems.

Not surprisingly, evidence exists that concludes there is a high
correlation between the viewing of pornography that dehumanizes
women and the acts of violence against them. The only question is:
which came first, the egg or the chicken?

Many would have us believe that pornography depicting such acts
has such an effect on men that they feel compelled to engage in
acts of violence against women. I would suggest instead that men
who commit these acts simply have a higher probability of viewing
pornography than those who do not. Thus, it is not pornography that
causes them to harbor such desires, but those desires manifest in
the viewing of dehumanizing pornography. For example, adolescent
boys watch pornography initially because they want to see naked
women being sexually submissive to men; the idea that men are
dominant over women was with them before they ever turned on the
VCR.

The argument that pornography loosens the moral fabric of
society is made by a self-righteous group, namely right-wing
Christians, that wishes to impose their morality on society. They
argue that pornography is indecent and that it promotes
promiscuity. Under a societal standard of indecency they are
probably correct. However, the First Amendment allows us to ignore
the societal standard when it comes to our own private consumption
of goods.

We are allowed to interpret our own morality when choosing our
religion and the words we speak; similarly, we are allowed to
choose our morality when determining the pictures and films we
view.

As individuals, we are allowed this latitude in order to protect
our rights in a society that wants to control us. The same people
who want to abolish pornography would be rather upset if, for
example, their favorite piece of literature was deemed to be
"indecent" and was banned. The purpose of the amendment is to
protect the minority from the oppression of the majority; if
pornography were banned, the intentions of the law would be
nullified.

However, First Amendment rights are not paramount. They have
been suspended in the past when there was an overwhelming harm to
society due to individuals exercising their right to free speech.
For example, the Supreme Court ruled it is unlawful to "scream
‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater." Although by screaming "fire"
the person is exercising First Amendment rights, in doing so, he or
she is also endangering the well being of other people.

Other examples include noise-pollution laws that prohibit
playing music too loudly during certain hours. Although it limits
the individual’s right to play his music loudly, it protects the
other individuals’ rights to sleep during normal sleeping hours.
The benefit to society as a whole outweighs the individual right
protected by the First Amendment. The rule of thumb is that you
have the right to do what you want as long as it does not adversely
affect society at large. There has to be a compelling societal
interest to override First Amendment rights.

Those who support banning pornography, in an attempt to find
compelling interest, will point to the affect it has on men’s
opinions of women and to their own right not to see it. Assuming
their arguments are valid, it is still very arguable whether that
is enough of a compelling interest for the ban to be justified.

Current practice dictates that art and literature which present
ideas considered harmful to society are not banned. Although
fascism and communism are ideologies that most people in this
country would not like to see proliferated, "Mein Kampf" and "The
Communist Manifesto" can still be found in the UCLA Bookstore.
Literature that promotes the ideals of racism and the inferiority
of certain minority groups is still protected under the First
Amendment, even though these ideas – theoretically – could lead to
violence against these minority groups.

There is not a compelling interest in these examples because the
undesirable effect on society is indirect and uncertain. A person
screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theater could directly cause a
harmful reaction and endanger the lives of others, and the loud
playing of music keeps people awake during normal sleeping hours.
However, the viewing of pornography does not directly cause a woman
to be raped.

The argument that people have a right not to see pornography,
just as much as people have a right to see it, is more convincing.
However, it still has a few flaws when it is translated into the
banning of pornography. For example, if I were to purchase a
billboard in Westwood Plaza that displayed a picture of Chancellor
Carnesale beating Joe Bruin with a stick, the majority of people
who pass it are bound to be offended. However, since it is private
property, I would have the right to put that picture there.
Similarly, I should be able to put a naked picture of Anna Nicole
Smith there if I wanted to, although by law I cannot.

The bigger problem with the argument is that pornography is
usually viewed in private, and each individual’s right to not see
pornography can easily be protected.

Although I do not believe that there should be many restrictions
on pornography, there are certain ones that are necessary:

* The sale of pornography to minors should be prohibited.

* Pornography should not be sent to people through the mail if
it was unsolicited.

* Businesses that sell porn should make it clear to customers
before they enter the store.

* Pornography cannot be shown to the public without the public’s
consent, even on private property (e.g. the billboard in Westwood
Plaza example)

The first three restrictions are very reasonable to both those
who view pornography and those who have no desire to see it. While
protecting the rights of those who do not want to see "indecent
material," it also allows the rest of us to do as we please in
private.

This a fair balance in comparison to all alternatives.