Chris Segal
Perspectives Editor
Pornography is a taboo subject that people in polite society do not talk about and certainly never watch. Lawmakers recently changed a federal law that went largely unreported. The law, created 15 years ago to prevent producers of pornographic material from using under-age performers, was inspired because of a famous porn star named Traci Lords.
Lords changed her name from Nora Louise Kuzma at the age of 15, obtained an ID with that name and became one of the most successful porn stars of the time. When prosecutors discovered that Lords was under age, every film and photo product had to be pulled from shelves at the expense of the producers. This cost numerous pornographic film producers and distribution agencies millions of dollars. In addition to the monetary repercussions, producers were brought up on criminal charges because no minor can legally consent to getting involved in the industry.
Lord’s story struck a chord in Washington, and stricter laws were created requiring producers to maintain age records for all performers. The major problem with the law, though, is that it never would have prevented Lords from appearing in pornographic movies. She managed to obtain a legal U.S. passport showing she was of performing age at the time she was a performer.
The producers and distributors of a legal product followed the laws and lost millions of dollars because the government gave out the wrong legal documents to a 15-year-old girl. That is a problem. Once prosecutors learned that a government department was really responsible for Lords being cleared to perform, charges against the producers were dropped.
Porn producers face up to 10 years in prison for producing and distributing material featuring underaged performers, so they have been happy to comply with a law that requires them keep a file of their performers’ ages to save their skins.
That same law was revised June 23. The new law requires Web masters of pornographic sites that didn’t produce the material to also keep an age record for any material that shows or implies sexual activity.
The porn industry had complied with the federal law for 15 years but these seemingly little changes have The Free Speech Coalition filing papers in the U.S. District Court to stop enforcement of the law.
This is an ineffective law that punishes porn producers without preventing children from being used in adult material. Federal lawmakers wrote in defense of the law that the changes “merely” improve record keeping. Sounds innocent enough, but what about the precedent it sets for lawmakers regarding freedom of speech on the Internet and the right to privacy?
Adult performers are upset because their livelihoods are being threatened, and the age records that every Web site is now required to keep on file contain private information, such as their real names and addresses.
William Margold, a former adult performer and an industry activist told Wired News, “When your privates become public, you lose your privacy.”
Margold is wrong. Adult performers do not lose their right to keep their personal information from distributors of their material because they feel compelled for whatever reason to perform.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation takes it to the extreme. According to the foundation this law affects the free speech of bloggers. If a blogger posts a comment expressing outrage for the prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, with the now infamous photo of Lynndie England standing over the nude prisoners uncensored, the bloggers would then face up to 10 years in prison for not having the correct age verification.
Controlling content on the Internet is not the job of the government. Web masters could move to Canada and produce the most vulgar material they could find just to spite the U.S. government. Instead industry activists are standing up to the government on principle; even if porn is taboo and disgusting, who is the government to control the industry? It is not protecting children just making the Web master see red.
Benjamin Young
Staff Writer
Pornography is one of the hottest topics in society’s ongoing debate of what is and what is not decent. On one side there are the social libertarians and First Amendment gurus who believe the government should have nothing to do with telling them what is acceptable. On the other side are the Bible-thumpers and family-first advocates who claim pornography is the vilest of social ills and that destroys families.
The approach I would like to take is not a new one, but to me it seems more concrete than the traditionalist’s moral approach. After all, not everyone ascribes to the same moral principles. I do not want to approach this issue from a moral perspective that could be so easily dismissed due to a “difference in morals.” The bottom line is this: Pornography is degrading to women and can cause deep psychological damage to both men and women.
Humans are interesting creatures. We think and feel. We have both the capacity for creation and destruction of life. We are endowed with unique and individual mannerisms, personalities, abilities, disabilities and intellects.
Humans, in spite of all our faults, are still the most advanced, complicated, and frankly, fascinating beings on Earth. Why then would we knowingly stimulate and support an industry that profits not from emphasizing and encouraging the unique individual, but rather profits from reducing human beings, especially women, to nothing more than a collection of mostly surgically enhanced body parts used for sex?
Pornography is nothing but absolutely degrading to women. A woman becomes nothing more than the object of raw sexual desire and then used in ways that provide the most satisfaction to her partner(s).
Granted, the same argument could be made about men in pornography, but this is an industry driven by men, and therefore women are the ones who are primarily affected. Women become sex symbols — nothing more. This is not a celebration of human diversity. These people act the same, look the same — where measurements are concerned, are almost always the same.
Pornography makes humanity less than human; in short, it reduces men and women to objects for use, nothing more.
Furthermore, pornography does not create realistic sexual expectations. In reality women do not go around having sex with every man in the room.
Pornography primarily targets a male market and therefore most of the immediate damage is done to men and boys. According to Robert Ellis, M.D., of the Greenhouse Counseling Center, men exposed to pornography over time become addicted to the chemical stimulus that it supplies.
I suppose it is only natural that men then try to live out their pornographic fantasies in their sexual relationships. How can that be healthy? I’ve never met a woman whose only goal for a sexual relationship is to be used. Even after men give up pornography, the chemical addiction remains.
Unfortunately for them, most of the time the stimulus for chemical release is gone and they struggle to reach satisfaction with a partner.
Children’s accessibility to online pornographic material is also a major issue. Pornography must be kept away from children. Exposure to pornographic material can be damaging to the sexual development of young men. Boys can develop a fantasized view of sexual intercourse not based on a relationship. I’ve yet to read anything that says exposing children to pornography is a beneficial exercise for their development.
In short, pornography undercuts the very spirit of humanity — it preaches a message of sameness instead of individuality, of people being a means to an end and mainly, and most disturbingly, that women are mere objects for the sexual satisfaction of the men who use them. In a society that celebrates the diversity and unique value of every person, pornography has no place.
8-29-2005
