[Note: Later today I'll be sitting down with a documentary filmmaker to discuss obscenity laws. My basic position is that while they are desperately needed they are also hopelessly ineffective. I've come to believe, as Princeton Professor Robert George says, that "laws are likely to be least effective when they are needed most." I’m still trying to decided how to say that is a way that doesn't sound defeatist or pessimistic. Since that is taking up the time I'd devoted to writing new material, I thought I'd dust off this related post from 2005.]
For the past half century, technology has progressed at a blistering pace. The rapid evolution has made it impossible to adequately gauge the overall effect such changes will have on society and even if it were to stop today it would take another half century before we could fully comprehend what has occurred. But while social scientists, theologians, and other moral philosophers debate the ramifications, one aspect of technological progress is quite clear: Technology now allows the unadventurous to explore temptations once reserved for the bold.
Take, for example, the pornographic film. To view such images in the 1950's often required access to projection equipment and an underground distributor of censored material. In the 60s and 70s, though, such films could be watched -- at least in larger cities -- in the relative comfort of a seedy theater with sticky floors and raincoat-suited patrons. By the 1980s, though, the VCR made it possible to view such erotica in the comfort of one's home. But each of these progressions in distribution required the movie buff to make a public effort to obtain the product -- whether in finding a venue showing a "stag film", buying a ticket to an X-rated theater, or renting from a local video store.
The advent of cable television, though, has made is possible to bypass all human contact and have "adult videos" delivered directly to the family living room. In 2002, Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, pulled in $50 million from adult programming and all the nation's top cable operators, from Time Warner to Cablevision, distribute sexually explicit material to their subscribers. The same is true for satellite providers like EchoStar and DirecTV, which is owned by Hughes Technology, a subsidiary of General Motors.
The material offered on cable TV, however, pales in comparison to what can be found on the Internet. With only a few clicks of the mouse you can indulge the most perverse visual interests, viewing sexually charged or violently graphic photos that would make Caligula blush and the Marquis de Dade nauseous. Or, if you are more action oriented, you can carry on an adulterous cyberaffair with a lonely housewife in Des Moines, play a game that simulates killing prostitutes and police officers with other aspiring psychopaths, or gamble away your child support at an online casino.
Because technology has made it possible to turn every household into a virtual Gomorrah, it is natural to assume that the solution to the problem is also technological. But as Quentin Schultze, a professor of communications at Calvin College, notes:
In the cyber-age, we become so enamored with our technical skill at manipulating information that we can lose track of noninstrumental virtues such as moderation, discernment, and humilty. We transform the means of technique into the ends of our ever greater efficiency and control. We also naively believe that for most personal and social needs there must be largely technological solutions, such as Web-filtering software designed to protect children from cyber-pornographers.
David Wayne concurs with Schultze and adds:
Before the rise of the technological society, we were protected against immorality by moral and religious instruction, developing character traits, and habits of mind and heart that enabled us to resist the pull of immorality.
In our day, we assume that the solution to immorality is an online filter or giving away the TV, avoiding movies, etc.. I do think filters have their place and indeed, there are many TV shows and movies I won't watch.
But in assuming that the answer to immorality is a filter we are offering a technological solution to a moral problem. Noting that the apostle Paul planted churches in such moral cesspools as Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, it strikes me that the Christians of the first generation had a faith that was assumed to be able to withstand temptation. In my own experience, it seems that Christians today assume we can't withstand temptation, that none of us has the moral fortitude to do so.
Technological filters, as David points out, certainly have a legitimate role. Children, whose character may not yet be fully developed, often need hedges to protect them from material that may inflame their natural curiosity. Filters provide a way for parents to allow their children more structured freedom until they are able to develop a robust moral character. Adults who have a propensity for succumbing to such temptations may also find such filters useful as tools for shoring up their own fortitude or reestablishing trust with a spouse.
Techniques, however, which can range from social stigma to content-blocking software, can impede the supply of temptation but have no effect on the demand. A heart prone to lust or avarice does not DSL or cable to turn temptation into sin; the human imagination is quite adequate for that task. Technique alone is an inadequate hedge against sin.
As Christians we recognize that we live in a fallen world yet are still called to fulfill our calling to care for creation. One aspect of this task entails that we protect our ecosystem from manmade pollution, whether it be in the form of toxic chemicals spilled into nature�s streams or septic imagery dumped into the streams of culture. But while technological means may be appropriate for technological problems, the ultimate �filter� for Christians is a sanctified nature. Techniques and technology may be useful but they can never be a substitute for our Redeemer.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3555
1
I think that obscenity laws for the most part are worthless, at least ineffective. It could fit into the same rationale as illicit drugs. Having them be illegal is highly ineffective and there are many, many negatives. But allowing them to be legal changes the whole attitude toward them with many more negative results.
So there is easily accesible porn on the internet. Fine, whatever. The problem that I have is when they cry "censorship" when a library system wants to filter the porn out. No rights are being violated. The publisher is allowed to publish and the viewer can find other avenues to view. A parent or a community has the right to block what they want to within the bounds of the law but especially within the bounds of the property that the community owns.
Speaking of, if you have kids and you don't have a Mac, your missing out. My 11 year old son has his own account. He cannot access any of my files, he cannot go to any website that is not preapproved by me and with a .mac account, he can not send or receive email from anybody unless I approve the email address. So if he is on an approved website like NG kids and clicks on a banner that is off site, no go. It just doesn't happen. If he wants to play at a new site, like a few months ago, runescape.com, then I study it and approve it if it meets my standards.
posted on 04.24.2007 8:53 AM2
I hear you, Joe - and I appreciate you speaking out on this topic. I wonder how many Christian men struggle with this - I gotta guess at least 50%.
But I think your solution is less-than-adequate. You note the differences between today and the 50s - these are differences that the individual did not create, ramping up temptations a thousand fold. I walk down the street, and I see pornographic advertising left and right, I watch a movie and there is nudity all over the place, I surf the web and pornography is a keystroke and click away. The thing is - while "I" have a wayward heart that can indeed be lead astray at weaker moments, "I" did not create these circumstances. Why then is the primary solution honing my individual virtue - when individual vice did not create the problem?
Lauren Winner makes the point that chastity is a communal virtue. I remember in seeing movies about more traditional cultures (I think of John Wayne's The Quiet Man) how the entire community is doing their best to reinforce the chastity of young people and the fidelity of married people. It's a hard task - and one which we need to help each other in. Granted the culture at large isn't going to help us, but the Church needs to realize that this is a problem that can't be relegated simply to every man's personal battle. I'm sure, as a marine, you know that battles are not individualistic personal sorts of things.
posted on 04.24.2007 9:06 AM3
Let me clarify that I'm not saying that we shouldn’t have obscenity laws. Quite the contrary, I believe that the laws should be expanded and rigorously enforced. The unfortunate reality, though, is that such laws are not and likely will not be enforced despite the fact that they are constitutional and publicly popular.
In the absence of our government's willingness to enforce the law, we must do all we can an individual and community level to counteract these threats to public morality.
posted on 04.24.2007 9:59 AM4
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how exactly does pornography threaten you, Joe?
posted on 04.24.2007 10:15 AM5
Ex-preacher,
Think Pottersville vs. Bedford Falls...
posted on 04.24.2007 10:40 AM6
Think Pottersville vs. Bedford Falls...
That's more like the threat from a lack of zoning laws. This thread brought to you by the National Association of Building Inspectors!
posted on 04.24.2007 11:17 AM7
Great post Joe. This speaks to the issue of personal responsibility is always tougher than removing all options. The Pharisees imposed a form of righteousness by creating rules and situations that removed any sign of what they deemed unrighteous. We do the same in thinking that because we eliminate options that this immediately translates into righteousness.
I hear you in that filters and laws will help. I also hear that those things in and of themselves do not trump personal moral integrity. If the fruit of "self-discipline" is evident, the need for these things won't be there. It is good that they are there but they are not used as an excuse to not deal with our own personal responsibility and morality.
posted on 04.24.2007 11:19 AM8
Let me clarify that I'm not saying that we shouldn’t have obscenity laws. Quite the contrary, I believe that the laws should be expanded and rigorously enforced.
What is sad about this is that Joe has no faith in individual human beigns (or human nature) but great faith in collective human nature. Now there are certain areas where collective human nature works better than individual humans because the group is structured in such a way that individual bad traits are neutralized and good traits are accumulated. The free market is probably the best example of this. Individual greed is channelled into motivation to provide for others.
I don't see a reason why this would happen if we collect individual decision making (and responsibility) and allocate it to a few people in power which is what Joe is advocating here. Like any other pleasure, it can only provide so much. Since we get all bent up on sex let's look at food. As we have become richer we can now afford to eat lavish food. We can have wonderful refined meals or we can eat sugar, fat and salt all day long. Even if you have a poor income you can afford to pig out every day if you wanted too.
However you can only go so far with sugar and for most adults eating one bowl of super-sugar flakes or a few candy bars is enough to make you feel sick. Yes kids can push it more but they grow out of it. Most people will eventually grow up and get over the fact that you can eat sugar all day long. They will indulge in the pleasure on occassion but most will naturally find a healthy (or somewhat healthy) moderation.
The same is true of sex. True kids don't engage in it like they do sugar but most of us go thru a period where our minds are focused on nothing but this new-sex-thing but then grow up a bit and realize that isn't going to fly all the time and we start getting a more mature sense of balance.
Yes just like with food there are people who will have a problem and will never grow up fully. The solution, though, is to address those people individually with the help they need to mature...not outlaw 'unhealthy' food. In the long run I think that would be a healthier approach to people with problems than the hammer of law.
posted on 04.24.2007 11:37 AM9
Here's the part where I get a little confused.
I think we can all agree that the availability and exposure to pornography has increased tremendously in our society in recent years. By one estimate I saw, the porn industry in the U.S. has gone from $100 million a year in the early 90s to $10 billion a year today. That's a 10,000% increase. Yet, in the same time period, the incidence of rape and other sexual crimes has declined by about 20% in the U.S.
Is it possible that increased pornography is the route to Bedford Falls after all?
posted on 04.24.2007 11:46 AM10
Because technology has made it possible to turn every household into a virtual Gomorrah, it is natural to assume that the solution to the problem is also technological.
Indeed, the problem though is there is little to no problem at all. Most people are able to achieve a healthy balance in their life and 'adult programming', like junk food, only provides so much. The proof is in the very statistics Joe cites:
The advent of cable television, though, has made is possible to bypass all human contact and have "adult videos" delivered directly to the family living room. In 2002, Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, pulled in $50 million from adult programming and all the nation's top cable operators, from Time Warner to Cablevision, distribute sexually explicit material to their subscribers.
It's easy to toss out large numbers like $50M in an effort to impress but stop for a second. $50M? That's it? Take a peek at http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2005/10/31/daily29.html to put things in perspective:
Note that word Quarter, not year. Comcast has about 20 million subscribers. If a program costs $10 then your typical Comcast house is having trouble getting through one adult program every 4 years. Not a very impressive Gomorrah at all. Perhaps the gov't doesn't need obscenity laws as much as it needs a mass viagra distribution program!
Yea Joe technologically every house could be a virtual Gomorrah but it seems 'adult content' can't even beat out Professional Wrestling in the pay per view market. Perhaps you should consider listening less to the statist devil on your shoulder and more to the libertarian angel on your other side who is telling you it is better to leave individuals to their own judgement.
posted on 04.24.2007 12:22 PM11
Ex-Preacher,
posted on 04.24.2007 12:42 PMThere is a point where law works. Those in society who have any inclination to obey will do so, to some degree. For a nation, esp. our set of elected officials, to be so heartless and to knowingly allow the crimes associated with the porn industry to continue is unconscionable.
Porn may in and of itself do nothing, but it motivates and stimulates to more than mere sensuality. In OKC the "adult" establishments were zoned out of the city. And the rape rate immediately dropped in a significant manner. It hurts many and may well hurt any of us because it is so endemic. It is one of those rare situations where the effect of the act is two steps away from the act itself. The violence of porn is not what it does, it's what character it produces.
12
Hi Randy,
My point is that there is an essential step in between the government and the individual that we are ignoring, to our peril.
posted on 04.24.2007 1:34 PM13
In OKC the "adult" establishments were zoned out of the city. And the rape rate immediately dropped in a significant manner. It hurts many and may well hurt any of us because it is so endemic. It is one of those rare situations where the effect of the act is two steps away from the act itself.
Assuming this is true you're probably only observing a zoning effect rather than anything in the nature of 'adult entertainment' itself. Let a lot of bars open next to each other and do a poor job of policing them and you'll get a rise in assorted types of petty crimes it doesn't follow that the beer itself is the cause and we need a lynch mob to descend on the local Shop Rite Liquers.
As Joe nicely pointed out access to adult material has increased dramatically. Certainly OKC has plenty of internet connections and I'm sure Comcast or someone similiar provides cable service. You shouldn't have seen a decrease in rape but an increase if your theory was true.
No you haven't been 'hurt' by adult entertainment anymore than you've been hurt by excessive sugar and fat in food. You're a human beign and you have the ability to make choices no matter how much you want to pretend to be in denial whenever those choices involve anything sexual.
posted on 04.24.2007 2:32 PM14
I think everybody who surfs the net has war stories of suddenly finding themselves in a porn site. The Web means information is always a click away -- doesn't say anything about what SORT of information you can wind up with.
Anecdote: Don't search by title for Hammer Horror films of the Sixties. I've punched in Hammer Horror movie titles and gotten snuff porn sites. (Even on YouTube -- a Hammer Horror search got me a video of a Barbie doll being guillotined. Don't know if the guy was showing off his 1/6 scale horror movie prop or his kink. Not sure I want to know.)
Anecdote: They say when Gutenberg invented his printing press, the first thing printed on it was the Bible. (Gutenberg would only use his press to print the Bible and nothing else.) The second thing printed on it was porn -- by his apprentices, after the boss had gone home. Somehow, it figures.
posted on 04.24.2007 2:37 PM15
2005 Crimes per 100,000
Forcible Rape
New York City: 17.4
posted on 04.24.2007 3:05 PMSan Francisco: 22.96
Oklahoma City: 67.33
16
So much for that theory. Here's another, strip clubs, adult bookstores etc. are actually a good thing. People there let off their 'steam' in a controlled manner that still requires that they conform to social norms (don't ever give a strip club bouncer reason to think you're a problem!) & the fact that these places cost money forces them to exercise some moderation.
Get rid of those places and people retreat to the net where the material goes to 'deeper depths' and anonymity removes the 'feedback' that keeps people on a somewhat even keel.
Not a theory that I take all that seriously but I was thinking that most 'adult establishments' tend to be very harmless to the community and in terms of what actually happens it's rather tame.
posted on 04.24.2007 3:13 PM17
Also, some better stats on rape trends in the U.S.
1992: 42.73 per 100,000
2005: 31.71 per 100,000
If I've done the math correctly, that's a drop of 25.7%.
Quantifying the increase in porn availability over the time period is much more difficult, but I think we all agree that with the growth in cable, satellite, video, DVD and the internet, the use of porn has greatly mutiplied in the last 20 years.
So, will someone explain how more porn leads to less rape?
posted on 04.24.2007 3:18 PM18
I think there are some reports that show that conservative christians are some of the largest consumers of pornography in hotels.
posted on 04.24.2007 4:27 PM19
Once again, Joe takes a stand against something--this time pornography--and people like Boonton and ex-preacher take a stand against Joe. Thanks, guys, for showing us who you are and for protecting us against...Joe...and all the rest of those nutjobs who want to fight against pornography.
Why can't Joe and all the rest fight against something really pressing--like global warming?
posted on 04.24.2007 10:33 PM20
Thanks, Joe. I agree that personal accountability is essential. But aren't we, in a liberal democracy, the government? If the indecency laws are publicly popular, why can't we hold politicians accountable to see that they are enforced?
If government officials started getting tossed out of office, wouldn't their "unwillingness" change?
Wonders for Oyarsa makes a great point. The differences in advertising (etc.) between the 50s and today -- these are differences that we (as individuals) did not personally create.
posted on 04.24.2007 11:24 PM21
Once again, Joe takes a stand against something--this time pornography--and people like Boonton and ex-preacher take a stand against Joe.
Hmmm, the only reasonable explanation must be that Joe is good and Boonton is Pure Evil(tm).....ex too.
posted on 04.25.2007 6:50 AM22
Hmmm, the only reasonable explanation must be that Joe is good and Boonton is Pure Evil(tm).....ex too.
More like 1% evil and 99% hot gas.
posted on 04.25.2007 8:11 AM23
Well let's see, Joe says just about every home is (or can be) a virtual Gomorrah. He cites statistics. I simply apply some simple math to point out that we are hardly Gomorrah....
I suppose I'm the one full of hot gas. You are all helpless victims of the media and technology and have no self control over very simple body functions that really should have been mastered by you when you finished High School. Your only hope is to have the state oversea you media consumption decisions to save you from yourselves.
posted on 04.25.2007 9:29 AM24
This is not JUST a question of individual morality. As Aristotle remarked (more or less, and if memory serves) society should be so ordered as to facilitate virtue and discourage vice. Of course, how society (and the state, not the same thing) do this prudentially is the key question. How about taxing pornography?
posted on 04.25.2007 9:54 AM25
This is not JUST a question of individual morality. As Aristotle remarked (more or less, and if memory serves) society should be so ordered as to facilitate virtue and discourage vice. Of course, how society (and the state, not the same thing) do this prudentially is the key question. How about taxing pornography?
posted on 04.25.2007 9:55 AM26
Let's see, individuals cannot be trusted to make their own decisions to 'promote virtue and prevent vice' therefore a gov't will tax porn. This gov't, of course, is made up of no one other than the individuals who you do not trust in the first place.
There are times when 'collective decision making' works better than individuals. As messy as politics is, for example, I think the results are better than if we appointed the world's smartest person to be our 'philosopher king'. The reason is that there is too much to know for even the world's smartest man. when you put representatives from different areas together they pool their knowledge so a state made up of collective wisdom does better than any one really smart person can ever do.
For many decisions, though, the information needed to make it is not dispersed but very local so that the individual has almost complete and the best access to it. Here's an example from Chesterton... In his time the scientific minded crowd was enamored with the idea of improving the human race by 'scientific' matching up couples. The error, though, was that the people who know the most about themselves are themselves and the most about a potential partner are those that are thinking of hooking up with that potential partner. Even if the 'scientific matcher' is smarter than the individuals the individuals still have the edge in the information needed to make the best call.
Now who knows more about the movie you're watching or web page your clicking on than you do? Who knows more about what it is doing for you, to you, etc.? Whatever state committee Joe would appoint will not know this.
As Aristotle remarked ...
And you think Aristotle is going to end up on the censorship committee? If actual history is any guide those who would end up making these calls would either be mediocre beuracrats or the corrupt and power hungry....not enlightened philosophers who will boldly steer us towards a more wholesome media.
posted on 04.25.2007 10:45 AM27
Hmmm, the only reasonable explanation must be that Joe is good and Boonton is Pure Evil(tm).....ex too.
Boonton, you can be assured that I don't think you are in any way pure.
posted on 04.25.2007 10:57 AM28
I suppose I'm the one full of hot gas.
Ahh well, you or your kids (assuming you have any) must not like SpongeBob or you might have got the reference.
posted on 04.25.2007 1:05 PM29
I didn't catch the reference either... but then again SpongeBob is not allowed in our house because it's kiddie porn.
posted on 04.26.2007 2:11 AM30
Well I wonder what happened to that comment that went to moderation...
posted on 04.26.2007 10:05 PM31
I didn't catch the reference either... but then again SpongeBob is not allowed in our house because it's kiddie pr0n.
Sigh.
posted on 04.27.2007 12:55 PM32
I guess that joke went over like a lead balloon.
posted on 04.27.2007 1:07 PM33
Blogging can sometimes be hard... Relevant content is needed to suceed in blogging
posted on 05.22.2007 1:55 AM34
hey there awesome site!
posted on 10.02.2007 8:52 AMhey hey hey
this is me and me only yo yo
123tytytyywywyw