Anti-pornography movement in the United States
An
Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography
In 1970, the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that "there was insufficient evidence that exposure to explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior." In general, with regard to adults, the Commission recommended that legislation "should not seek to interfere with the right of adults who wish to do so to read, obtain, or view explicit sexual materials." Regarding the view that these materials should be restricted for adults in order to protect young people from exposure to them, the Commission found that it is "inappropriate to adjust the level of adult communication to that considered suitable for children." The Supreme Court supported this view.[2]
A large portion of the Commission's budget was applied to funding original research on the effects of sexually explicit materials. One experiment is described in which repeated exposure of male college students to pornography "caused decreased interest in it, less response to it and no lasting effect," although it appears that the satiation effect does wear off eventually ("Once more"). William B. Lockhart, Dean of the University of Minnesota Law School and chairman of the commission, said that before his work with the commission he had favored control of obscenity for both children and adults, but had changed his mind as a result of scientific studies done by commission researchers. In reference to dissenting commission members Keating and Rev. Morton A. Hill, Lockhart said, "When these men have been forgotten, the research developed by the commission will provide a factual basis for informed, intelligent policymaking by the legislators of tomorrow".[3]
Commission member Father Hill, the founder of
Meese Commission under Reagan
President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to set up a commission to study pornography.[5] The result was the appointment by Attorney General Edwin Meese in the spring of 1985 of a panel of 11 members, the majority of whom had established records as anti-pornography crusaders.[6]
In 1986, the
- "Children and adolescents who participate in the production of pornography experience adverse, enduring effects,"
- "Prolonged use of pornography increases beliefs that less common sexual practices are more common,"
- "Pornography that portrays sexual aggression as pleasurable for the victim increases the acceptance of the use of coercion in sexual relations,"
- "Acceptance of coercive sexuality appears to be related to sexual aggression,"
- "In laboratory studies measuring short-term effects, exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women"
According to Surgeon General Koop, "Although the evidence may be slim, we nevertheless know enough to conclude that pornography does present a clear and present danger to American public health".[7]
New Right opposition
In the 1980s, a grassroots effort began to mount opposition to pornography.
Pandering and prostitution statutes
In 1983, prosecutors in
Obscenity vs. free speech
In a line of cases beginning with
Miller v. California
In explaining its position, in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court found that:
- The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a "misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . ." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S., at 645.
and in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) that:
- In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby. 7 [413 U.S. 49, 58] Rights and interests "other than those of the advocates are involved." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951). These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself... As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society ...," [413 U.S. 49, 60] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 199 (1964) (dissenting opinion)... The sum of experience, including that of the past two decades, affords an ample basis for legislatures to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex.
The Supreme Court defined obscenity in Miller v. California with the Miller test.
Protect Act and U.S. v. Williams
The Supreme Court on May 19, 2008 upheld a 2003 federal law, the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, the
Criticism
The so-called "
Another matter, which frequently circulates in American anti-pornography movement is a close bond of pornography with rape. According to a 2006 paper, Porn Up, Rape Down, by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D'Amato, "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults". Recognizing that the Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence, D'amato concludes that "the reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence". D'amato suggests there are two predominant reasons why an increase in the availability of pornography has led to a reduction in rape. First, using pornographic material provides an easy avenue for the sexually desirous to "get it out of their system". Second, D'amato points to the so-called "Victorian effect". It dates back to the British Victorian era when people covered up their bodies with an immense amount of clothing, generating a greater mystery as to what they looked like naked. D'amato suggests that the free availability of pornography since the 1970s, and the recent bombardment of internet pornography, has de-mystified sex, thus satisfying the sexually curious.[17]
See also
- Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom
- Free Speech Coalition
- Nymwar
- Scunthorpe problem
- Sex-positive movement – the opposing viewpoint
- Stop Porn Culture
- XXXchurch.com
References
- ^ STANLEY v. GEORGIA, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
- ^ President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Report of The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. 1970. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
- ^ "Politics and Pornography". Home.earthlink.net. Archived from the original on 2009-08-25. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- ^ [1] Archived January 25, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Ronald Reagan: Remarks on Signing the Child Protection Act of 1984". Presidency.ucsb.edu. 1984-05-21. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- ^ Wilcox, Brian L. "Pornography, Social Science, and Politics: When Research and Ideology Collide." American Psychologist. 42 (October 1987) : 941-943.
- ^ Koop, C. Everett. "Report of the Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health." American Psychologist. 42 (October 1987) : 944-945.
- ISBN 9780802076434. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- ^ People v. Freeman, 46 Cal.3d 419 (1988).
- ^ "Porn In The U.S.A." CBS News. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- ^ Stout, David (May 20, 2008). "Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Law". The New York Times. Retrieved May 7, 2022.
- ^ www.supremecourt.gov,UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, No. 06–694, Decided May 19, 2008
- ^ theweekdaily.com, Busting child pornography, real and imagined
- ISBN 1-56024-307-4
- ISBN 0-8014-3002-X
- ISBN 071904393X.
- . Onlineopinion.com.au. Retrieved 2010-01-24.