Banning porn curtails freedom of expression

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.