Citizens of the United States, take a moment out of your day today to thank President George W. Bush for his concern for your psychological, spiritual and romantic well-being. It was out of Bush’s deep desire to ensure that we are all happy and healthy that he declared Oct. 26 through Nov. 1 to be Protection From Pornography Week. Didn’t you feel safer?
You probably didn’t know about it. During a week in which Southern California burned and the Middle East smoldered, major publications weren’t interested in Protection From Pornography Week and Americans had more pressing threats on their minds. The only coverage it received was smirking blog mentions and glowing praise from conservative religious organizations. Nevertheless, this was an official White House proclamation, made the same way that National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month (November) and National P.O.W./MIA Day (Sept. 19) were announced this year.
“”Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families and children,”” the proclamation reads. “”During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.”” It continues to identify children as the principal victims of “”pernicious”” pornography. It mentions the Protect Act of April 2003, which admirably toughens penalties for those who make and distribute child pornography and encourages states to establish Amber Alert systems. It also plugs the recently created Dot Kids domain, a cute idea that has yet to take off.
The bulk of the proclamation suggests that Bush is merely trying to protect children from being depicted in and exposed to pornography, and one can hardly criticize him for that. No one wants kids stumbling across explicit Web sites or movies, and monitoring children’s television viewing and Web surfing can seem daunting to parents, some of whom understandably appeal to the federal government for help.
It would be overkill to thunder indignantly about the time the Bush administration is wasting with these proclamations, as some have done. In all likelihood, they are cooked up by the bottom tier of his staff and Bush is only momentarily briefed before signing them into national record.
Perhaps the main use of the proclamation is political. It serves to court the religious right ‹ a tiny minority who nonetheless has held political sway in the Republican party since the 1980 presidential election ‹ while simultaneously soothing more moderate conservatives and centrists with comfortable, legally meaningless platitudes about “”the dangers of pornography.”” Handy in the face of an oncoming election, these “”proclamations”” are a great way to appear to care about an issue without having to delve into specifics.
The seemingly innocuous effects of Protection From Pornography Week shouldn’t mask its true intent: The Bush administration’s larger crusade against pornography that features and caters to adults.
The New York Sun reported on Sept. 15 that the Justice Department is “”going back”” to enforcing obscenity laws by cracking down on pornography producers and distributors. U.S. Attorneys are being trained in how to prosecute such cases, and the FBI, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Postal Service are mobilizing as the main enforcers. Although, the Sun reports, “”bestiality, sexual violence, and unusual uses of human waste”” are the focus right now, “”there is no particular behavior that is off the table,”” according to John Malcolm, deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division. Producers of more mainstream pornography are also being prosecuted.
A crackdown on pornography relies upon obscenity law, the basis of which is found in Miller v. California. This 1973 case established the standard “”criteria”” by which illegal obscenity may be discerned from legal speech: Material is obscene if the “”average”” person finds that it “”appeals to the prurient interest,”” if it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a “”patently offensive way,”” and if it lacks “”serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.””
The problems with these criteria should be immediately apparent. Who is the “”average”” person, and how might a court determine that? Who decides what is “”prurient,”” which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “”marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially marked by, arousing, or appealing to unusual sexual desire””? How can we consistently determine what is “”patent””? Who determines literary or artistic value? Proponents of these criteria would have us believe the answers are simple: The courts make these decisions, and we can trust them to do so in a way that will satisfy all of us ‹ that is, that will satisfy all of us who aren’t degraded, unwholesome and otherwise a blight on society.
Demonizing those who don’t conform to vague moral standards is a poor, if storied, basis for law. Obscenity law is prejudicial, ill-defined and nearly impossible to enforce. It relies on the idea that pornography is harmful to society and the individual, which has yet to be proven. What pornography does undermine is conservative religious views about sex, views which are not in the American mainstream ‹ which should not be forced upon others. Not to mention that federal attention to a legal issue that is explicitly local ‹ obscenity law looks to community standards, not national ones ‹ smacks of inconsistency from a president whose party claims to protect states’ rights. He extols the virtue of the free market when courting business donations and votes, but would now rather legislate the extermination of one of the most successful consumer-driven industries in the world.
Better to hearken to the Miller v. California dissent of Justice William O. Douglas: “”The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to Œoffensive’ as well as to Œstaid’ people Š The use of the standard Œoffensive’ gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment.”” Whether one grants the government the barest of authority to ensure its people’s well-being (as conservatives do), or looks to government institutions to provide more hands-on care (as liberals do), the thought of giving the government the authority to decide what we can and cannot see, watch or read should be frightening.
Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are looking to enforce their own morality upon the American people, who spend increasing billions of dollars on porn every year, and the First Amendment is what suffers most.
“”I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities,”” the proclamation concludes. Book burning, anyone?
