Art, Free Speech and the Market of Pornography
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
Courtesy: New Nation [October 4, 2005]
As
of 2003, with the pornography industry reaching a worldwide market of 57+
billion dollars, porn revenue being larger than the combined revenues of all
professional football, baseball and basketball franchises, US porn revenue
exceeding the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC (the three broadcast TV
networks), mushrooming porn-websites (4.2 millions; 12.5% of all sites), and
daily pornographic search engine requests almost 68 million (25% of total
search engine requests), it has become a really hot issue for those who oppose
pornography and those who defend or cherish it.
1960s
saw momentous changes in terms of the development of the industry of
pornography. With the introduction of VCR, enabling easier and more private
group or individual viewing, it reached a new height. The emergence of the
Internet has catapulted the industry to such a height that was unthinkable
even two decades ago. Pornography has now become a serious social concern,
about which empirical evidence is beginning to emerge slowly, but steadily.
“At
a 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two thirds of
the 350 divorce lawyers who attended said the Internet played a significant
role in the divorces in the past year, with excessive interest in online porn
contributing to more than half such cases. Pornography had an almost
non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago.” [Divorcewizards.com]
All societies in various degrees now have to contend with this issue,
the significance of which is recognized by everyone, but societies are in
disarray in determining their course of action. The issue is made more complex
by invoking the following arguments some of which are central to the modern,
liberal, secular societies: the art argument (i.e., pornography is a form of
art), the free speech argument (i.e., pornography is a form of expression and
it is covered by the right to free speech), and the market argument (i.e.,
market governed by freedom of choice should dictate the availability or
acceptability of a product or service).
The
indecency pornography represents is generally prohibited by all religions.
Therefore, for those people – individuals and societies – that turn to
religions for moral guidance, the issues are clear and borders are well
defined. To them this matter does not have anything to do with art, free
speech or market. Of course, often these societies turn out to be
authoritarian and not just the art, but free speech or the market become easy
or quick sacrificial lamb for both acceptable and unacceptable reasons. Many
such societies have not quite figured out their ability to offer health space
for free speech and market in a balanced and effective manner. In the secular,
liberal societies, however, separately or together the arguments for
pornography in terms of art, free speech and/or the market remain quite
powerful.
There
are some advocates of pornography who may shun the vile commercialization of
sexual expressions, but support the role of pornography in the form of art.
The challenge is to be able to effectively and practically distinguish between
what is art and what is not when it comes to pornography. In a landmark ruling
of US Supreme Court in 1973, “art and pornography are mutually exclusive.”
It was ruled that if the overall material has artistic merit, then it
couldn’t be considered pornographic. It was argued: “to be pornography,
imagery must be gratuitously offensive.” During that court debate Associate
Justice Potter Stewart remarked: “while he couldn't define pornography, he
always knew it when he saw it.”
This
whole thing, of course, relates to the problem of defining what is
pornography. The art argument – pornography is art or a form of artistic
expression – is quite important for the defenders of pornography, because
there is hardly any positive or beneficial effect of pornography on the
society. In 1970 during the Johnson White House a Presidential Commission on
Obscenity and Pornography was appointed. Based on Danish Studies, which were
subsequently refuted, the deeply divided Commission came up with a report that
provided a strong support for more liberal environment for pornography. As
David Scott points out in Pornography:
Its Effects on the Family, Community and Culture [1985], “Viewed through the Commission’s eyes, these
materials were seen as ethically neutral and psychologically ‘cathartic.’
Pornography promised beneficial results to normal persons who would be helped
in their sexual expression. The Report even advocated the use of
pornography as a way to inhibit and help rehabilitate sex offenders
who, after viewing this material, in theory at least, would experience an
emotional ‘catharsis’, which would deter them from committing
subsequent sexual offenders.”
Even
though the Report was rejected by the U.S. Senate, the Report’s “no
harm” conclusions may have served as the Magna Carta for the
Pornography industry. Such conclusions were quite consistent with the values
and culture that have a more lenient and permissive view about immodesty and
obscenity. In most non-western societies nudity as well as obscenity in all
forms have been shunned. The western world, however, traces its secular,
liberal root to the Greco-Roman heritage, which always had glorified nudity in
art and sculpture. Even societies with aversion (and laws) against obscenity
have shown flexibility, when the art argument has been invoked.
Pornography
is also defended by some on the ground of the right to free speech. The
argument has served the porno industry well. If obscenity or pornography can
be regarded as a form of artistic or sexual expression, then it is
understandable why or how the western societies that raise the right to free
speech and expression to a venerable level would allow or tolerate
obscenities, as long as there is no proven or widespread harm to others in the
society. Scientifically proving such harms has been a murky area, and
establishing specific causal connection between pornography and social harm
has not come forth. One should probably note how for decades the Tobacco
industry denied or fought any claim connecting tobacco (nicotine) with health
hazard.
Societies
that place high value on freedom face special challenges, particularly in a
morally-relativist culture. Law, politics and social tendencies/institutions
collide head-on in resolving various conflicting priorities and concerns,
where even defining something like “pornography” is near impossible. As
Dick Thornburg and Herbert Lin [2002], the authors of the highly regarded
report “Youth, Pornography and the Internet” by the Committee to Study
Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their
Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content comments: “The term
‘pornography’ has no well-defined meaning. Despite the fact that
individuals use the term as though it does and behave as though there is a
universal understanding of what is and is not covered by the term, judgments
about the precise dividing line between the ‘pornographic’ and
‘non-pornographic’ vary widely.” Thornburg and Lin refer to pornography
as “sexually explicit material, which is material--textual, visual or
aural—that depicts sexual behavior or acts, or that exposes the reproductive
organs of the human body. However, as soon as the qualifier
“inappropriate” is added to any such descriptor (e.g. sexually explicit
material), any semblance of agreement among the scholarly, professional or
activist communities quickly evaporates.
What
is “prurient” - marked by or arousing an immoderate, unwholesome or
unusual sexual desire – in the view of U.S. court [Roth vs. United States
case in 1957] has not really helped to sharpen the contours of the debate or
conflict, since the very words immoderate, unwholesome or unusual – that is,
“prurient” – are morally relativist. One can allege, as the feminists
have, that pornography demeans and objectifies women and desensitizes its
viewers or consumers not only toward the rights and dignity of women, but also
reinforces the notion that women actually desires deviant, voyeurish or
violent treatment. But can the media or the industry be blamed for this? There
is no dearth of theories to offer us a maze of confusing and conflicting
explanations as to how media exposure may affect young or other people. Out of
various theories – Psychoanalytic theory, Arousal theory, Social learning
theory, Cognitive approaches: information processing theory, cultivation
theory or Uses and gratification theory – if some of these draw strong link
between media exposure and its effects, there are others that counter those
suggested links.
Is
widespread, inexpensive and easy availability of internet pornography in
particular contributed to aggravated marital tensions, disaffected wives and
even more divorces? Well, any such suggestion, scholarly study or scientific
work is immediately attacked through counter studies and works.
Greater
liberalization of pornography came about in the western world under the
influence of the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60s and 70s, whereby
pornography was represented as an embodiment of ‘sexual freedom.’
According to Sheila
Jeffreys, even though “historians of sexuality have understood the
‘sexual revolution’ to be about women’s sexual freedom,” the right to
have sex – with or without marriage – and its acceptability emerged as one
of the major undercurrents. The ‘sexual revolution’ has brought some gains
for the women, but the international sex industry seems to have emerged as the
main beneficiary of the revolution.
The
art argument and the free speech argument are further reinforced by the free
market (laissez faire) argument. The abundance of supply of pornography is
dictated by the existence of huge and lucrative economic profit. The demand
has become increasingly robust with the changing values, laws, culture and
technology. The free market argument – economically and philosophically –
plays in favor of the other two arguments.
Except for the protection of general citizens from any personal (or
verifiable social) harm or for the specific protection of the children, laws
and secular institutions seem to be utterly at a loss in dealing with
pornography and its alleged ill effects.
The
word pornography originated from the Greek, pornographos, meaning
“writing about prostitutes.” Of course, it is now more than just writing.
Even though hardly ever any incontrovertible positive benefit of pornography
has been identified, a great deal of harm is being suggested and documented by
contemporary researchers and scholars. Caught in the maze of art, freedom and
market arguments, secular, liberal societies are trying to protect the broader
society in many ways: blocking or restricting inappropriate material; warning
a child or minor (or even adults) about impending exposure to inappropriate
material; educating the public, especially the minors about the harms of such
inappropriate material; reducing the accessibility of inappropriate material
to children; prosecution against child pornography; tougher laws against
sexual offense; raising the legal age to have unfettered access to
pornography, etc.
Well,
usually, anything that is morally bad for children should also be bad for the
adults. Merely, restricting the access to minors does not often lessen the
exposure of those minors to inappropriate material and resource in the way
society desires.
In
an increasingly more globalized world, the unfortunate challenge is that the
dominant powers and societies would dictate the moral and cultural terms with
which the rest of the world has to wrestle. Yet, the societies that have
better defined view and approach toward obscenity or immodesty might be in a
relatively better position to deal with this problem. However, just moral
prohibition and restriction do not guarantee much success in the face of (a)
the powerful onslaught of modern arguments and facilities that so easily and
effectively glamorize what is immoral and sucks the society toward a niche
consumer base and (b) the inability of the traditional or non-liberal
societies to build and maintain a moral environment that also provides healthy
social institutions and culture to help the people stay away from the lure of
immorality and indecency.
| This page has
been visited by |
HOME Index of my writings Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam? Genocide 1971 Page? Hadith Humor Page? |
Art Free Speech
Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom
Art Free Speech Pornography Evil Harmful Effects Faith Indecency Morality
Sexual Freedom