Banning porn curtails freedom of expression

By Janet Steele

JAKARTA (JP): Many people believe that the recent controversy surrounding pornography is just a "sideshow" -- a distraction from the real issues facing Indonesia. Others who usually defend freedom of speech and of the press make an exception for pornography because they believe it is harmful to society. Some feminists would like to prohibit pornography because it insults and degrades women, while large numbers of men as well as women agree that pornography violates accepted social and cultural norms.

Pornography may indeed be a distraction, but that doesn't make the effort to prohibit it any less dangerous. The campaign against pornography is especially troubling because it has the potential to become the first battle in a far more deadly war to limit other kinds of expression. One does not have to admire pornography to see it as a kind of "expression" that is deserving of protection along with speech and the press.

Freedom of sexual expression is related to freedom of expression in general; it is not necessary to read, buy, or even like pornography to believe that it shouldn't be silenced or prohibited. Those of us who are concerned with freedom of expression often find ourselves defending words that we personally find distasteful. If we don't defend the right of others to express themselves -- regardless of how vulgar or sexist their words may be -- the next time someone's opinions are "silenced" by the majority, the opinions that are silenced may be our own.

In the United States, freedom of religion, speech and of the press are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the only American "press law", the First Amendment guarantees that, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The framers of the U.S. Constitution deliberately linked freedom of religion with freedom of expression because they believed that the government should not regulate matters of personal conscience. In their view, the right to freedom of thought, speech, and expression was as fundamental as the right to practice whatever religion one chooses.

As is the case in Indonesia, many Americans find pornography offensive and believe it should be regulated. But the effort to protect people from "harmful" media content -- however understandable -- must be carefully balanced against the fundamental principle that free and open discussion is essential in a democracy.

Part of the problem is the difficulty in defining pornography. Just where should we draw the line in deciding what is and what isn't pornographic? Is pornography any material that contains sexually explicit words and images? If we define it this way, then we run the risk of censoring great works of art and literature, as well as raising the possibility of denying citizens access to essential information on public health issues such as contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-part rule for defining obscenity (Miller versus California). The Court ruled that an average person, applying local community standards, must find that the work in question appeals to "prurient interest". The work must also be determined to depict in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law, and it must be judged to be lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

But are these standards reasonable? Community standards vary widely; what is considered "obscene" in Kansas may be considered fine art in New York. It is difficult for censorship boards to determine whether content is obscene or whether it is literary or artistic. Community standards can also change -- what seemed quite shocking several months ago looks tame by today's standards, just as today's "pornography" may barely raise an eyebrow tomorrow.

And whose standards should we use in determining what is and isn't pornographic? If pornography violates "our" cultural values, just whose values we are talking about? There is clearly a market for pornography. In Indonesia, for example, it appears to be one of the fastest-growing segments of the print media industry. Pornography does not seem to offend everyone. Is it right to allow those who oppose pornography to decide what everyone else can read?

In the United States, the debate over pornography has cultural dimensions as well as legal ones. One of the most interesting manifestations of these "culture wars" has been the unlikely alliance between conservative Christians and some feminists led by University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea Dworkin. Both of these groups claim that they seek to defend women against pornographic images. And although they agree on little else, they are united in their view that pornography degrades women and must be controlled.

It is possible to share these women's concerns about violence and discrimination against women without accepting as a solution what American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) President Nadine Strossen has called the "quick fix" of censoring pornography. Critics of pornography often claim that pornographic words and pictures violate and degrade women by using their bodies to make a profit. Perhaps they do, but there are many other things in consumer culture that also "degrade" women by treating them as commodities. Consider images of women in advertising: are the images of women that are used to sell cigarettes any less exploitative than photographs of models in bathing suits? And what was more degrading to model Sophia Latjuba, posing for a few photos in Popular? Or five hours of questioning by the police?

Women are also exploited in the work force at large when they get lesser pay for equal work. They are humiliated when they face sexual harassment or physical abuse on the job. And they are degraded when they are victimized by domestic violence. Where are the so-called defenders of women on issues such as these?

The truth is that a ban against pornography is not going to protect women from harassment, exploitation, or other kinds of degradation. Nor is a ban on pornography going to reduce violence against women. Women don't need to be protected from pictures and words, but rather from government infringement on their freedom and autonomy, even if it is "for their own good".

Defining pornography as "protected speech" does not have to lead to chaos. It is possible to regulate the distribution of pornography without banning it altogether. For example:

-- Make it a crime to sell pornography to children. In the U.S. it is assumed that children under the age of 18 are not capable of making the same kinds of informed decisions as adults, and thus their access to pornography is limited.

-- Design a voluntary rating system. If the industry that produces pornography were to develop its own standards and guidelines, it could do a lot to forestall more draconian kinds of regulation.

-- Prosecute those who commit crimes in the making of pornography. Using children in the production of pornography is a crime, and anyone who breaks this or any other law should be prosecuted.

There are many forces in society that claim we should be "protected" from dangerous forms of expression such as pornography. But is it really the government's job to protect us in this way? Parents, community groups, and religious organizations have a right and a duty to teach morality, but this should not be the government's role. Let each individual make his or her own decisions in these and other matters of conscience.

The campaign against pornography is not a "sideshow", but rather a potentially dangerous show of force by conservative powers who seek to control freedom of speech and of the press. If the government is given the power to prohibit pornography, what is to prevent it from censoring other kinds of "dangerous" ideas?

A principled defense of freedom of expression requires a defense of pornography, along with other kinds of speech that we may not personally like. It is easy to defend the viewpoint of the majority; the true test of freedom comes when we are called upon to defend the rights of a minority with whom we disagree.

There is no such thing as being partially free. If we are going to fight for the free flow of information in society, we cannot make an exception for those ideas we find abhorrent. Pornography may be distasteful, but it is also a kind of expression. And no one is forcing us to buy it.

The writer is associate professor of journalism in the school of media and public affairs at George Washington University.