Pornography and Censorship

It goes by many names, from "smut" to "erotic art."  It's as old as civilization itself, and is present in all cultures, with or without the approval of those in authority.  It takes many forms, finding expression in literature, music, painting, sculpture and theater, as well as in the more modern media of photography and cinema.  Its creators range from the anonymous scrawler to the likes of Catullus, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Titian, and Wagner; and their talents run the gamut from childishly crude to supremely eloquent.  As with any other creative genre, pornography indulges a wide variety of tastes from the brutish to the exotic, and covers themes from humorous to sublime to tragic.

There are some who hold that any work of man which depicts or describes sexual activity is harmful to those (especially children) who view it, and ought to be banned outright.  They cite cases in which individuals have committed heinous acts of molestation or rape, ostensibly as a direct result of their exposure to sexually oriented material.

On the other hand, there are those who say that pornography (or "erotica," if you prefer) is not only stimulating and beautiful, but even beneficial in some situations.  They contend, for example, that exposure to erotic material can help rejuvenate flagging sexual desire in marriages that, while otherwise satisfactory, may have gone stale from a romantic standpoint.  And it has been convincingly argued by some psychologists that, far from encouraging sex crime, pornography may actually prevent countless rapes, by aiding a person's ability to fantasize and gain release through self-stimulation rather than resorting to a forcible act against another human being.

As to pornography's supposed ill effects on children, the worst that is likely to happen in the case of any reasonably well-adjusted child is that he might have a few questions to ask his parents about what he has seen or read.  And if mom and dad are forthright and candid in answering these questions it's very unlikely that the experience will have any lingering negative effects.  But let's assume the worst, and suppose that a six-year-old child could experience some form of mild trauma as a result of glimpsing, say, some of the steamier portions of an adult video.  Obviously, abolishing the production and sale of such materials would have prevented the trauma.  But proscription of everything that is unsuitable for children would also necessitate the removal of all power tools from the home workshop, as well as cooking utensils and appliances from the kitchen.  Also illegal would be automobiles, household chemicals, hunting weapons, lawn mowers, medicine, and most of the books in our libraries (including Bibles, which contain much material of a distinctly adult nature).  Do we really want to reduce the general intellectual and social environment in this country to the kindergarten level?

Adult Americans are still free—in most localities—to choose for themselves whether or not to procure and use pornographic materials.  And while there is room for question concerning some of its alleged benefits, the assertion that porn's use leads to sex crime is soundly refuted by the fact that the large majority of those who use porn do not engage in antisocial behavior.  (It's also difficult to take seriously claims by convicted rapists that they were driven to their crimes by viewing sexually explicit material.  Criminals of all types are eager to blame everyone and everything but themselves for their actions, and sex offenders are no exception.)  Even if it could be proved that a tiny percentage of the millions who regularly view sexually oriented material were directly motivated by that experience to commit antisocial acts, banning the sale of erotic material in order to prevent sex offenses would still be akin to banning the sale of gasoline in order to prevent arson.

Even so, there are some very vocal zealots who are convinced beyond all doubt that pornography is the scourge of mankind and must be eradicated at all costs, even if it means the revocation of the basic rights set forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It seems to be their ultimate aim to set up authoritarian "boards of decency" to determine "community standards" of what is fit for us common citizens to read or view.  But, given Americans' healthy tendency to harbor diverse opinions on any subject, the notion of establishing valid community standards for anything as subjective and vague as decency or obscenity is patently absurd.

In any case, in the absence of substantive evidence that pornography is in any way harmful to the average citizen, government efforts to restrict its distribution (except for preventing its propagation to minors and to those adults who do not wish to view it) are essentially attempts to dictate public taste.  And in a free society this is not a legitimate province of government.  Nevertheless there are some public figures who eagerly take advantage of citizens' gullibility in this matter to further their own political ends in a shameless grandstand display of demagoguery.

It is inconceivable to me that a free people would willingly surrender to government the right to decide what they should be allowed to read or view.  To assert that they could do so and remain truly free is blatantly self-contradictory.  But even if it were theoretically possible or desirable for a government agency to determine what material is fit or unfit for consumption by a free people, I cannot think of a single bureaucrat—elected or appointed, in any branch or at any level of government—whom I would trust to make such a decision for me.  Can you?

=SAJ=