The topic of pornography is controversial many times because of the various definitions
which each have different contexts. Is it nudity, sexual intercourse, art, or all of
these? Is it magazines, videos, or pictures? For the purposes of this paper,
pornography will be defined as any material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended
to cause sexual excitement. With all of the arguments presented in this paper, it seems
only a vague definition of this type can be applicable to all views on the subject.
Pornography on the Internet has brought about difficulties pertaining to censorship. All
of the arguments in this paper can be divided into one of two categories: those whose aim
is to allow for an uncensored Internet, and those who wish to completely eliminate
pornography from the Internet all together.
All arguments for an uncensored Internet all cite the basic rights of free speech and
press. While arguments in this paper are international, almost everyone of them cites
the First Amendment of the United States. In many of the papers it is implied that the
United States sets precedent for the rest of the world as far as laws governing the
global world of the Internet. Paul F. Burton, an Information Science professor and
researcher, gives many statistics showing that presence of pornography on the Internet is
not necessarily a bad thing. He gives one example that shows that "47% of the 11,000"
most popular searches on the Internet are targeted to pornography. This fact shows that
pornography has given the Internet approximately half of its clientele (2). Without
this, the Internet would hardly be the global market that it is today. Most on the
Internet are not merely the for pornography either. It is just a part-time activity
while not attending to serious matters.
At another point in his paper, Burton cites reasons why the Internet is treated
differently than other forms of media. The privacy of accessibility is a factor that
allows many people to explore pornography without the embarrassment of having to go to a
store and buy it. The fact that anybody, including children of unwatchful parents, may
access the material. However, Burton believes that these pornographic web sites must be
treated the same way as pornographic magazines or videos.
One fear of many people is that children will happen across pornography, but as Burton
writes in his paper, the odds of someone not looking pornography and finding it are
"worse than 70,000:1" (Holderness in Burton 2). Even if a child were to accidentally
find an adult site, he or she would most likely see a "cover page" (See Figure 1). These
cover pages, found on approximately 70% of adult sites, all have a lot of law jargon that
summed up says, "if you are not of age, leave." This cover page will not stop children
in search of pornography because all that is required is a click on an "enter" button and
one can access the site. Adult verification systems, such as Adult Check and Adult Pass,
have been very effective in governing access to these site, but with only 11% of adult
sites having a verification of this nature, this system does not seem realistic. Another
method of controlling access is use of a credit card number to verify age. This method
opens many doors for criminals wishing to obtain these numbers for unlawful use.
According to Yaman Akdeniz, a Ph.D. researcher at the Centre for Criminal Justice
Studies at the University of Leeds, pornography is not as wide spread as some governments
would have us believe. With a total of 14,000 Usernet discussion groups (a place where
messages are posted about specific topics), only 200 of them are sexually related.
Furthermore, approximately half are related to serious sexual topics, such as abuse or
rape recovery groups. Akdeniz also makes the point that "[t]he Internet is a complex,
anarchich, and multi-national environment where old concepts of regulation...may not be
easily applicable..." (15).
This makes a very interesting case about there general nature of the Internet. It is
the first electornic media source that is entirely global, and although some countries
will and have tried to regulate it, there is no way to mesh what every country does to
control the Internet. Germany made an attempt at regulating the Internet within their
country, however, the aim was not only to ban pornography but also to ban anti-Semitic
newsgroups and web sites. Prodigy, a global network server, helped the German government
by blocking these Web sites. When Prodigy was pressured by groups like the American
Civil Liberties Union, Prodigy stopped blocking these Web site, and there was nothing
Germany could do.
This just shows the "power" that the United States holds over the Internet. Two reasons
account for this "power." First, 60% of all the information comes from the U.S., and
secondly, the U.S. has set up most global laws and regulations. Almost every article
pertaining to the Internet freedom or censorship cites the U.S. and bases arguments on
the First Amendment. With this precedent setting responsibility, one must look at what
is going on in the Supreme Court with regards to the Internet.
Peter H. Lewis, a reporter for the New York Times, has been covering the Computer
Decency Act since passing of the law. The Computer Decency Act, part of the
Telecommunications Act, was passed on February 8, 1996. The main purpose of this
section was to halt the "flow of pornography and other objectionable material on the
Internet..." (1). This section, however, was declared unconstitutional by a panel of the
Supreme Court in June 1996. This overturn caused an uproar among the anti-pornography
groups in the United States. The case will be heard once again in June 1997 to ensure
that there were First Amendment rights being violated. Judge Stewart R Dalzell, a member
of the Supreme Court panel, stated that, "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos,
so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered
speech the First Amendment protects." (Lewis, Judges 1). According to Lewis' next
article, no one will be prosecuted under the Internet section of this law until it is
constitutionally determined. So as of right now, there is no fear of prosecution for
pornographers (Lewis, Federal 1)
Maria Semineno, a writer for PCWeek, reported on free speech advocates reations to the
overturning of the CDA. Jerry Berman, executive director for the Center for Democracy
and Technology, stated that, "[i]t is very clear that Congress is not going to let this
alone...." Berman made this statement aluding to the make up of the Supreme Court and
what will happen in June of 1997 when the decision is reevaluated. It is argued that the
Supreme Court is much divided on the subject of free speech, and therefore, the decision
in 1997 will depend upon the panel presiding. When the decision is made it will make one
side of the debate triumphant, and the other fighting for their beliefs.
Those who view that pornography should be wiped off the Internet entirely site many
different reasons. One highly recognized group, the Family Research Council, has
determined that pornography on the Internet is harmful to all individuals and concludes
that the only way to stop this is to ban pornography, in all it's forms, on the Internet.
The FRC categorizes pornography as follows:
...images of soft-core nudity, hard-core sex acts, anal sex, bestiality &dominion, sado-
masochism (including actual torture and mutilation, usually of women, for sexual
pleasure), scatological acts (defecating and urinating, usually on women, for sexual
pleasure), fetishes, and child pornography. Additionally there is textual pornography
including detailed stories of rape, mutilation, torture of women, sexual abuse of
children, graphic incest, etc ("Computer" 1)
In addition to categorizing pornography, the FRC goes on to address questions pertaining
to Internet pornography. One question asked is, "IS THE ON-LINE COMMUNITY AGAINST
PROPOSALS FOR "DECENCY" ON THE INTERNET?" The answer provided was no and that of the 20
million people on the Internet (an out-dated figure), only 2 percent opposed censorship.
However, no citation for this figure was provided ("Computer" 2).
The FRC article then goes on to discuss the the main arguments against banning
pornography. The article poses the question of possible loss of works of art because of
banning. It goes on to cite the "official" definition by the Supreme Court of obscenity,
that any object having artistic, educational, or moral value shall not be censored. The
article next discusses "technological fixes," such as SurfWatch and NetNanny, that could
possibly control pornography from in the home. It gives three points against this
method: children can use other computers, children know more about computers that most
parents, and people who distribute pornography have no legal reasons not to target
children with pornography ("Computer" 2). Cathleen A. Cleaver, head of legal studies for
the FRC, backed the Communications Deceny Act. When was overturned, she stated her
concerns that not only was the broader sections of the law overturned, "...but also the
part that made it illegal to transmit pornography directly to specific children." (Lewis
2). With this section omitted, pornographers may lure children without fearing any
repercussions from the law. Although this is the FRC's main concern, they are still
fighting for a total ban of pornography on the Internet.
Dr Victor B. Cline, a psychotherapist specializing in sexual addiction, argues that
massive exposure, such as with the Internet, will cause irrepairalbe damage to society.
Cline states that pornography, for all intents and purposes, should be treated as a drug.
Cline has treated 350 people with this sexual illness and reports that, "[o]nce involved
in pornographic materials, they kept coming back for more." Cline suggests that with
availability of pornography reaching these great proportions, that we can expect to see
an increase in sexual deviance and sexual illness (Cline 4).
Cline next goes on to explain the steps an addict goes through to becoming a sexual
deviant. First the person becomes addicted. Secondly, there is an "escalation" of the
addiction in which the person becomes engulfed in pornography, even to the point of
prefering masturbation to pornography over actual sexual contact. Third, there is a
process of "desensitization" which allows acceptance of horrific sexual acts as the norm.
Fourth is the "acting out sexually" phase in which a person no longer achieves the
satisfaction from the pornography, and in turn, acts upon fantasies, usually based on
pornography. Cline's main concern is that with the ease of availability of this type of
material, more examples of sexual addiction will occur, not only with adults, but also
children will be able to "start out" at an early age (Cline 4-5). This fear is
substantiated with the number of pornographic sites with ease of accessibility.
With all sides of this issue having their separate reasons to either keep or ban
pornography, each makes their case with facts. Pornography is an issue that is difficult
to take a side on. People for pornography, or against censorship, state that there is no
real reason for this ban. They cite that with of the parental controls and attempts to
keep pornography from children are good enough reasons to allow for pornography.
However, anti-pornography groups argue that not enough is being done to keep pornography
from children, and furthermore, that pornography affects adults just as much as it does
children. The issue of pornography is just as controversial as the abortion debate and
very similar in many respects. Both sides have strong feelings on what definitions are
used, what is morally correct, and the causality of pornography. There is no clear-cut
answer, however, it is now up to the U.S. government to make a decision and set precedent
for the rest of the world.
Works Cited
Akdeniz, Yaman. "The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet."
Online. World Wide Web.http://137.205.240.103:80/elj/jilt/biogs/akdeniz.htm. 4 March
1997.
Burton, Paul F. "Content on the Internet: Free or Fettered?" (20 Feb. 1996). Online.
World Wide Web.http://www.dis.strath.as.uk/people/paul/CIL96.html. 21 Feb. 1997.
"Computer Pornography Questions and Answers." (8 Nov. 1996). Online. World Wide
Web.http://www.pff.org:80/townhall/FRC/infocus/if95k4pn.html. 8 Mar. 1997.
Lewis, Peter H. "Judge Turn Back Law Intended to Regulate Internet Decency." (13 June
1996). Online. America Online. The New York Times Archive. 12 March 1997.
---. "Federal Judge Block Enforcement of CDA.." (16 Feb 1996). Online. America
Online. The New York Times Archive. 12 March 1997.
Semineno, Maria. "Free speech advocates: CDA fight might not end with Supreme Court."
Online. World Wide Web.http://www.pcweek.com:80/news/0310/14ecda.html. 23 Feb. 1997.
|