Internet Porn : Practical Solutions Not Anti-Porn McCarthyism
As pornography continues to make inroads in American culture, there is a marked increase in the number of moral vigilantes and whistle blowers who at times come across as more sex obsessed than the average porn user.
Maybe they should focus their concerns on the local church. A June 2007 survey by an online Christian internet community, ChristiaNet.com, came up with some surprising statistics. The survey found that 50% of men and 20% of women, characterized as 'regular church goers' admitted to having a regular porn habit.
Porn might be regarded as having a positive influence, when considered from a statistician's point-of-view. A decrease in rape rates is apparently a result of increased internet access according to data analysis by Anthony D'Amato of the Northwestern University School of Law. D'Amato cites records from the US Dept of Justice that show there has been an 85% reduction in sexual violence in the past 25 years. There were 2.7 rapes for every 1,000 people in 1980, and by 2004 with vastly increased internet access the rate had decreased to 0.4 per 1000 people ( a decline of 85%). Factors such as an increase in sex education and improved 'rape proofing' of women can't get close to adequately explaining this trend. D'Amato adds credibility to his claim that the reason for the decrease in rapes was greater internet access, by showing that the opposite was true statistically. In other words, when internet access in a given state is low, rates of rape tend to increase.
Despite positive findings of this sort, pornography is still viewed with suspicion by many. A couple of stories illustrate the heated reactions internet porn can whip up. In one case a wife freaked out and figured her husband was a pedophile because she discovered a 'teen' site on his computer toolbar. It turned out to be a legal soft porn site that features models in the 18 to 24 age range. In another case a man was teased mercilessly by co-workers who suspected him of being into whips and leather, because the name of a porn site he visited was mildly suggestive of S & M activities.
In many ways porn has created a media driven comedy-of-errors with people trying to second guess others preferences, often incorrectly. Unfortunately the suspicions and paranoia can do more harm than the actual porn viewing itself. Relationships have broken up over porn. Rumors have damaged reputations, communications and trust. These melt downs are frequently based on little more than info gleaned by a spouse or employer spying on surfing activities. Fact is a legal site that appears on regular porn lists and that posts up-front legal disclaimers is legal irrespective how kinky the name of the site happens to be - otherwise a high profile US or Canadian site of this sort with a high Alexa rank would be closed down by the authorities. These sites are monitored by citizen watchdog groups and these days there is more international cooperation on pornography related issues than existed in the past.
An example of activity that did cross the line hit the news recently. The story involved Who guitarist Pete Townsend. He was incriminated when a credit card was traced. While acknowledging his offense, Townsend claimed he only accessed the site (that offered extreme content involving small children) for "educational reasons". A more recent case in the UK involved the actor Chris Langham, who has admitted to accessing child porn.
I can't speak specifically to the Townsend case, since I don't have all the information. But in my view there is absolutely no excuse for paying to enter a site of this nature. There is nothing more abhorrent than sites that exploit children for financial gain. Irrespective of motive, anyone who is caught accessing such sites and supporting them with custom and cash should experience the full force of the law. People who surf kiddie porn. People who send porn to underage contacts over web services. People who betray the trust of our children in churches, schools, camps - should absolutely be nailed and have the book thrown at them. Criminal activity of this sort betrays us all, especially when the perpetrators are ministers, priests, teachers, politicians or others in positions of trust.
Those who have legitimate concerns about illegal online content should focus on web activity that is demonstrably illegal. What we don't need is an inquisitorial climate in which paranoia wins out over rational judgment and common sense. We don't need the anti-porn McCarthyism evident in the activities of vigilantes. What is required are better regulatory standards that are enforced and efforts to improve standards in the industry across the board. By continuing to view the porn industry as a questionable, quasi-legal phenomenon existing in a fringe limbo land, the Feds (both US and Canadian) are exposing the public to risk. Without meaningful regulation that is enforced, the odds are higher that kids will be exposed to porn online and that models and performers used in the industry will be exploited.
The legal aspect of soft core pornography has occasionally come into dispute. Sites that claim to be using models no younger than 18 at times come under suspicion when visitors to the sites complain that the models look younger than 18. In some cases these claims have been vigorously contested by site operators who have succeeded in proving that they are compliant with the law. Models who look to be in their early teens have in some cases turned out be in their late teens or twenties. The Feds have gone some way toward tightening up this type of loophole with the 18 USC 2257 provision that requires producers to keep records on hand to prove models are in fact 18 or older. However this law hasn't been as vigorously enforced as it should have been. More recent regulations also require that so-called "secondary" producers retain the same records, which generally tightens up the legal requirements across the board.
These laws are necessary in order to protect the user. A porn surfer can't be expected to be the judge of whether or not a site is maintaining standards in accordance with its disclaimer. That burden shouldn't be placed upon the surfer. This is why the authorities should absolutely demand compliance from the distributors. Moreover the Feds should ensure that standards are being maintained through occasional inspections of sites' records. This would send the message to other producers that they risk consequences if they undercut legal requirements.
Given that there is a criminal aspect to internet pornography, there has been a tendency to go overboard and make hasty judgments about behavior that is really nothing more than human nature in action. The notion that older men are deviant if they have an eye for attractive younger women in their late teens and twenties is way off the mark. Throughout history older males routinely took young women as wives. An objection to this preference would have evoked a yawn from an Egyptian pharaoh or an Israelite king, maybe even a belly laugh. Older guys who fancy themselves as hot stuff still have an eye for younger babes. There is a Grand Canyon sized gulf though between that type of legal surfing and the sinister underside of the internet represented by child exploitation, snuff movies, rape movies, bestiality and other deviant material.
Bottom line the porn industry is huge in the US and generates more profits than all the professional sports franchises combined. It's not going to go away. However it needs to be more tightly regulated and greater efforts need to be made to target distributors of child pornography and other illegal content. This effort of necessity has to include an international dimension since many of the offending sites are located in countries outside the US and Canada.
Aidan Maconachy is a freelance writer and artist based in Ontario. You can visit his blog at aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/.
Comments
Add comment