As if freedom weren’t in enough danger already, the threats
just keep on coming. Like it or hate it,hardcore pornography will be under attack if presidential hopeful Rick Santorum
makes it to the White House. He has
vowed to enforce obscenity laws that would prohibit hardcore pornography from
being distributed online, in stores, through the mail, etc. The man who keeps talking about the
importance of economic freedom is promising to shut down a multi-billion dollar
industry that contributes countless tax dollars to the government every year,
and whose sales “stimulate” the economy, so to speak.
He argues that pornography denigrates women, leads to
violence against women, and weakens marriages.
First off, most women in the porn industry choose to be there for
various reasons. As legal adults, it
should be their right to make that choice.
Second, the violence against women he talks about is already illegal,
and not all studies conclude that it influences men to behave violently toward
women. If anything, it does men a great
disservice to assume that watching pornography changes men so much that they
can no longer control themselves. And
third, if pornography supposedly destroys your marriage, I assume there were
probably underlying issues. In that
case, it is likely a symptom of a problem rather than being the actual problem.
My attitude toward so-called obscene material is this: If
you don’t like it, then don’t watch it. Regulating porn to keep it away from children is one thing. Outlawing it altogether is going way too far.
One thing that worries me is the lack of clarity when
material is defined as “hardcore.” And knowing Santorum, he'll take it as far as he can. If
such a ban went too far, we could be looking at a bold new era of banned books,
which, by the way, was a reality only a few decades ago. Barney Rosset, who passed away this past
February, fought for the freedom to publish and distribute books that were
illegal due the obscenity laws of the day.
Though Santorum signed a pledge awhile back that called for him to fight
against pornography, among other things, it seems interesting that he
reiterates such a hard-lined position right after such a prominent crusader for
the freedom of the press died. Hmmm . .
. Coincidence, maybe, but it still seems
a bit much.
As a writer, I can’t trust someone who wants to thoroughly control
what you can watch. If the obscenity
laws are once again believed to apply to written materials, it could potentially
affect me, along with many others. We
shouldn’t look at this as just being about porn, because that’s only scratching
the surface.
No politician should have that much control over what we
view in our own homes. Or write. Or say.
If you despise pornography but love the first amendment, this should
still disturb you.
