This week is “Pornography Awareness Week,” also called WRAP Week, (White Ribbons Against Pornography). That’s right. We have one more ribbon-shaped magnet to add to our bumpers.

To many this may seem like a lost cause in our culture. Surely, the naysayer may argue, amidst all the other causes relating to war, breast cancer and abortion, pornography is a minor issue. Besides, what exactly are we fighting here? The peddlers of porn aren’t terrorists. They make smutty movies for people to watch in the privacy of their own homes. Where’s the crime here?

Pornography Awareness Week is not just for prudish moralists with an ax to grind; nor is it just for second-wave feminists; nor is it just for moms in minivans with the little Jesus-fish on their bumpers. It is for everyone, because everyone has a stake in how big a voice we want porn to have in our culture.

. . . .

Obscenity Crimes

Is pornography protected by the US Constitution as a right? Yes and no. Yes, the First Amendment guarantees that the government will not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press. But the role of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, communicating what boundaries and limits there might be on our First Amendment rights. In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that “obscenity” is not covered under the First Amendment. As such, obscenity laws have been on the books on the state and federal level for a long time. Many times these laws have been upheld by the courts; other times not.

In a 1957 obscenity case, Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled:

“Although this is the first time the question has been squarely presented to this Court, either under the First Amendment or under the Fourteenth Amendment, expressions found in numerous opinions indicate that this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press.” (italics added)

So the big question for the courts has been how “obscenity” should be defined as a legal term.

During the Roth case and subsequent cases in the 60s, the Court continually revised the obscenity test, making obscenity laws virtually unenforceable. In the 1973 Miller v. California case the Court corrected some of the definitional problems it created in the 1960s, but by then, amidst America’s sexual revolution, most prosecutors would not touch obscenity cases.

In Miller v. California, the United States Supreme Court ruled that obscenity laws apply to materials or performances . . .

“taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

The Supreme Court clarified that this test of true obscenity was intended to “isolate ‘hard core’ pornography from expression protected by the First Amendment.”

That same year, in Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, the United States Court commented that “even if it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles,” enforcing obscenity laws furthers other “legitimate governmental interests” such as protecting a community environment, public safety, morality and family life, and maintaining a “decent society.”

. . . .

Is there “obscene” material online?

A lot has changed in 35 years since the Miller v. California obscenity test. Sexual mores of our culture have shifted. In 1973, Playboy and Penthouse were duking it out in the magazine world. Today, porn is not a marginal industry but a big business—a $13 billion business. Porn is not limited to magazines hidden behind convenience store counters, but can be found in every crevice of the Internet. In 2004 there were 1.6 million pornographic websites, amounting to 420 million pages of porn—17 times more online porn than just 4 years earlier.

Much of this online pornography is “hardcore” by the admission of those who produce it. But is it “obscene”?

1. Does at least some online porn “appeal to the prurient interest in sex?”— What defines what is a “prurient interest in sex”? According to the Supreme Court, this must be based on “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” (Roth v. United States). While the “average person” from community to community may hold different standards from 1957 to 1973 to 2008, much of the Internet porn is truly “prurient.” How much “adult” porn depicts young women made to look like minors, thus feeding a thirst for sex with children? How much online porn depicts sexuality in horribly degrading ways?
2. Does at least some of the online porn portray sexual content “in a patently offensive way”? — Most certainly, yes. Of course we need to carefully define what is “offensive,” but ask yourself some key questions. When a woman is consistently treated like a piece of meat on film, should it be labeled as offensive? When a pornographic scene depicts sex acts that would, if mimicked in real life, cause physical or emotional harm, is this offensive?
3. Does at least some online porn lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”? — I’m not big into separating “erotic art” from “commercial pornography.” I believe they can both easily stem from lustful intentions and used for lustful purposes. But even if we separate the artistic and educational photos and films from the rest of the pornographic landscape, we still find large volumes of worthless material.

. . . .

What can be done about it?

In saying all this I am not suggesting that all pornography should be labeled obscene and outlawed. I am not trying to be simplistic about legalizing morality. But as Americans we do live in a society and governmental structure that at least allows us to bring these matters to the attention of the public and the courts.

I’m also not naïvely suggesting that if we do away with obscene material online, this is going to make us behave like good little boys and girls again. Far from it. Like most things, porn works on a supply and demand principle: it is supplied because it is demanded. The root of the problem is in us: we crave it, therefore it exists.

Still, concern about pornography in our culture ought to move us to both personal conviction and social action. This is what Porn Awareness Week is all about.

What can you do? Go to the Morality in Media website to find out more. Also, read this document by Morality in Media to find out 10 ways you can support this cause and combat pornography in your community year round.

This week on Breaking Free we will be participating in Pornography Awareness Week by educating our readers about the harmful effects of pornography. We believe the facts speak for themselves. Tune in all this week for educational articles about how pornography is affecting our world.