Recently, in the greater Happy Valley there have been two highly publicized child porn cases, and there is no doubt that in each case, neither man could be said to have had merely a passing curiosity. One was a high school teacher where the materials were found at his home; the other one was a pre-school teacher/day care center worker who admitted to viewing child porn at work, among other places. Neither is known to have actually molested any children at this time, although the consumption of child porn with live “models” almost surely means kids were molested in its production.
Like most of us, I can’t relate to anyone who takes an interest in child porn, save for research and prevention purposes. So, for me these incidents at first raised more questions than provided answers, and correctly, I think, forced me to challenge my own, pro-free speech, opinions about pornography.
I favor laws which prohibit the production of porn using children and measures to prevent pedophiles from having positions where they are entrusted with children.
The most obvious justifications for this position to me are: first, the bodies of prepubescent children are not ready for sexual experiences; second, prepubescent children cannot be expected to make informed choices; and, thirdly, even if well informed, we cannot expect prepubescent children to have a meaningful choice when interacting with adults (or pubescent teenagers) upon which they are dependant or taught to respect.
But, the anti-porn advocates have used these sad and tragic circumstances locally to justify their stance against all, including adult, pornography, and thus their continued invalidation of the naturally occuring, graphic sexual orientation of others, primarily heterosexual men. I think this is wrong.
In contrast to child porn, the consumers of, and participants in, adult porn are in far better positions to make informed choices and to make meaningful choices, however often such adults feel they had no real choices or conclude they were mistaken in the choices that they made.
To be sure all pornography, including adult pornography, can be and is often harmful for consumers and participants. But as my blog readers know, I’ve pointed out that the same can be said historically of consumers and providers of alcoholic beverages, among other socially accepted things. For example, just as there are porn addicts, there are alcoholics. But we, as a society, already have learned the hard way about the futility, if not the evils, of prohibition.
More specifically, anti-porn advocates argue that the adult porn fantasies of the catholic schoolgirl variety (e.g., with titles like “Barely Legal”) cause child molestation, just as adult porn fantasies of sex with adults cause rape. Arguably, child porn and adult porn do stimulate the tendencies of some people to molest and rape and, therefore, increase the incidence of molestation and rape. So, innocent third-parties are hurt, too. But, in the case of adult porn, at least, I doubt the incidence of rape and sexual abuse is increased more than drinking alcohol increases the incidence of spousal and child abuse and neglect, among other things. I really do not know in the case of child porn; how many people openly admit to viewing it, after all?
Certain anti-porn advocates are even more wrong, or naïve, I should say, when they harp upon child porn addiction as justification for banishing pornography. Unless they have spent years in alcohol, drug or sex addition programs such as AA or NA, I highly doubt that they are addiction experts. The real addiction experts, the recovering alcoholics and addicts with many decades of sobriety, will tell you that the roots of, and cure for, addiction are rooted in one’s personality, and in a higher power of their own understanding, not in the prohibition of the addictive substance or censorship of the sexually explicit materials themselves.
More impressive to me than the anti-porn advocates is someone identified as “Annie Mus” who wrote in the Talk Back feature of the on-line edition of the Gazette:
“Mary Higgins Clark, Smith School of Social Work, ServiceNet, Gov. Patrick, Department of Social Services, Church leaders, citizens of the Valley....Help these people BEFORE they harm our children, before we have to hate them because our daughters (and sons) suffer the shame and humiliation of being their ‘victim.’ It is time, no! past time, to offer help and support to pedophiles to come out of their deep dark closets and realize that, albeit they have these desires there are ways to keep them at bay.”
Now, there’s a voice of reason. Thank you, Annie Mus, whoever you are.
- AC
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Who's talking about banishing porn? We're asking people to be mindful of the hazards.
With respect to child porn, part of our case is that its boundary with adult porn is fuzzy and made more so by the deliberate intent of porn merchants like Capital Video. One could mention, for example, the incest fiction they sell.
To be critical of someone's speech is not the same as advocating state censorship.
Adam Cohen
NoPornNorthampton.org
So people can further explore these issues, we have organized two new categories on our blog:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/categories/Child%20Porn.aspx
http://nopornnorthampton.org/categories/Child%20Molestation.aspx
Adam Cohen
NoPornNorthampton.org
It's sort of disingenuous for NPN to claim that they're merely "criticizing" speech. They also have encouraged our local government to pass ordinances outlawing certain types of porn store--ones that carry too much of the kinds of porn of which they disapprove, even if the porn is otherwise legal. It still seems like censorship if the objectionability of the material is the reason for the ordinance.
The NPN website says it all; suffice it to say, the actions of NPN speaker louder than their words.
And,folks, don’t forget to check out the studies and experts (including police) who find that pornography does not increase crime, etc.
See, e.g., the following link recently provided by “porn student” below: http://pornstudies.net/news/Porn-Stores-Crime.htm
Thank you for the link to the pornstudies.net article. Right off the bat, I can see it contains at least one statement that is blatantly false, as they well know in Springfield:
Les Rich, chief financial officer for Capital Video Corp., Amazing Superstore's parent company, says: "We have over 40 stores and [crime's] never been an issue at any of our stores."
The research and findings of the 1970 President's Commission on Obscenity have been widely criticized, as in this research paper:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/files/28534-27078/Pornography_and_Child_Sexual_Victimization_Optimized.pdf
Pornstudies.net also links to studies that we have rebutted, such as those of D'Amato and Kutchinsky:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/search.aspx?q=d'amato&sc=1
http://nopornnorthampton.org/search.aspx?q=Kutchinsky
This NPN comment just reinforces the points I make in the “Studies, Experts & Testimonials” blog entry above at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2007/02/studies-experts-testimonials.html and my subsequent reply comments to NPN’s comments. As NPN’s blog so vividly illustrates, one can spend months, nay, probably years citing and criticizing studies, experts and testimonials proffered by those on any side of the issue as to whether or not porn is harmful, etc., etc.
My point has never been and is not that porn is entirely safe and benign. Instead, my point has been and is that as “regulation” censorship of porn impinges upon free amendment rights, such content based regulations should subject to “strict scrutiny” and “narrowly tailored” (as current Supreme Court jurisprudence would put it) to address directly and solely the potential harmful secondary effects and not the content itself. To be sure, the socially conservative Supreme Court as of late has avoided application of the strict scrutiny standard by ruling that zoning regulations based upon content are not based upon content! The Supreme Court can rule the sun is shinning when it is not, but that does not make it right. Neither does it nor the mere quantity of studies upon which NPN relies make NPN right.
What this all boils down to is what is the right way to have sex? You see, if sex is just for me when I want it, then it doesn't matter who gives it to me. But if sex is a gift for my wife, then I have no right to demand it from anyone, let alone harm that person in the process. Child pornography and child molestation would not exist if people followed God's sex laws.
Dear Joshua -
While you and I would probably disagree on a number of things because I do not believe the Bible to be the authority that you do, thank you for sharing your opinion.
But my missive here is not about the "right way to have sex." My point is the government (federal, state or local) should not censor, regulate or otherwise restrict the views (and the manner in which they are expressed) about the “right way to have sex” except as permitted under the constitution for other laws which are content based and constitute prior-restraints upon expression. For content based, prior-restraint laws to pass constitutional muster, they must be extraordinarily justified relative to laws which are not content based or amount to prior restraints.
That said, fidelity in marriage and protecting children from pedophiles are ideas with merit in my opinion.
Yours/Always Controversial
Post a Comment