Ethical and Moral Issues of Pornography - Essay Example

Pornography Prior to universal access to the internet and cable television, pornography, much as alcohol and firearms, was tightly regulated and not widely accessible to children. Generally, a person had to make an explicit decision to view pornographic material by driving to an adult movie store to retrieve a film thus the argument which held that disallowing an adult to see a particular film was tantamount to disallowing an adult to read certain material was at least somewhat viable. With the advent of new technologies, children have greater, if not full, access to pornographic material which has opened the nationwide discussion of internet censorship. Virtually all of society agrees that laws, including the statutes within the Constitution, regarding children are separate and distinct from the laws that govern adults. So should the First Amendment’s guaranteed right to free speech be applied to the internet? The First Amendment is a standard by which the U.S. gauges its freedoms, the same freedoms so many have fought and died to protect. It allows those fortunate enough to be U.S. citizens to be able to say, write or otherwise express their thoughts without fear of reprisal by the government. Organizations that espouse hate and fear are allowed to hold rallies and march the streets in full view of children. Some, including me, would argue that this is more disgusting and causes a greater harm to society than does the viewing of sex acts by either children or adults. Of course the First Amendment, it is hoped all would agree, does not protect those that would use children in pornographic films. It is the difference between viewing a plane crash and being part of it. This discussion will examine the public debate on pornography and whether its accessibility to children via the internet forfeits its free speech protection, and then observes the complex issues surrounding laws regarding internet porn. We have local, state, and federal laws governing children’s access to pornography, but these laws are unenforceable and thus meaningless with the advent of the internet. A teenager cannot walk into a video store and rent an adult movie but can log on and quickly find many thousands of adult movies that can be viewed, downloaded and stored or even sold to other teenagers. The moral dilemma generally surrounds minors’ uncensored access to adult material. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 made it a federal crime to display ‘indecent material’ on any computer network unless the website owner utilizes ‘effective’ techniques to control access of that material to minors. This law appears to be a reasonable compromise that protects free speech and prevents children from accessing objectionable material, but in practice and effect, outlaws free speech from the Internet. Free speech is guaranteed to all, but the vehicle by which it is most extensively distributed is not. The concept of free speech is not an absolute and occasionally, society is compelled to compromise this right. The Internet has no physical, ethical or moral boundaries. It allows everyone the freedom to connect with other people and suppliers worldwide but an economical means for individuals to restrict their art or thoughts to the eyes of children is yet to be developed. Because of this lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law. Supreme Court decisions have consistently found that the First Amendment does not apply to obscene communications and have allowed communities to establish their own restrictions regarding what is obscene. The court in Miller v. California explained that if the ‘average’ person would describe the work as obscene or if it showed or expressed patently offensive sexual conduct without ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,’ the material is correctly defined as obscene (Mason, 2000). The community of the World Wide Web has combined to establish what is and what is not acceptable. Neither a single government alone nor the coalition of all can hope to effectively restrict such a universally encompassing phenomenon such as the Internet. In addition, the associations and comparisons made of the Internet to the broadcast media when formulating laws is flawed as is the perceived right to restrict its content. Before cable and satellite television brought effective child protection techniques within a click or two for parents, children could access the network television stations at will and censorship was widely accepted as a necessary governmental responsibility. However, Internet access is not as universally accessible in the same way radio airwaves are. A person does not accidentally look up a Web site the way they might accidentally hear something on network television or radio. No law regarding internet indecency passes constitutional inspection no matter how vigilantly crafted or well intended. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” (Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis cited in “Olmstead”, 1928). The term indecent is vague, confusing and destined for continual debate and evolution. Local judiciaries that try to define it and build moral parameters excluding what is currently perceived indecent from a source based on a worldwide scale is impossible and unwarranted. The biggest casualty to free speech is the individual citizen’s right to make morality decisions and be able to speak freely to others in all regions of the globe. The CDA cannot legitimately allege any jurisdiction over the Internet as it might the broadcast media because software has enabled controlled access to minors. Most Internet service providers offer inexpensive or free access to child protection filters. Just as the government was publicizing the possibilities of the information superhighway, it was also moving to censor it. The Internet, at least for a short time, had provided many peoples of the world, including the U.S., genuine freedom of speech. The FCC has yet to shape a rational and consistent standard defining broadcast indecency. According to the FCC’s broad definition, indecency in the broadcast media is ascertained according to the discernment of the ‘average broadcast viewer’ but this is a meaningless concept. The tastes of the average viewer in Nebraska hardly correlate to the tastes of the average viewer in Las Vegas. In other words, the FCC determines what is indecent. The crafters of the CDA were influenced by legal precedence regarding FCC broadcast interpretations to craft its indecency standard. “It is possible for any court to string together words in an important sounding way, crafting phrases such as ‘prurient interest,’ or a mythical national consensus, and claim to have created a uniform definition of indecency. What it will have done, in effect, is to impose its tastes on the rest of the nation” (Huber et al, 1996: 385). The CDA’s version is no clearer than the FCC’s definition of indecency and applies similar reasoning to a different set of circumstances. The ethical and moral issues surrounding the use of the internet are in their infancy as are its communications capabilities. Society has been changed by the internet, a trend that will continue alongside the changing internet. The Internet is not the same form of communication as the broadcast media. No court, whether federal, state or local, can clarify or fully rationalize this Act that suppresses the freedom of speech on the internet by referring to a theoretical ‘average’ computer user. If the First Amendment protected only speech that was acceptable to the ‘average’ person, it would be rendered useless as it would provide no protection to unpopular minority opinion which is clearly not as the founders of the country intended. Works Cited Huber, Peter W.; Kellogg, Michael K.; & Thorne, John. “Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference.” Special Report: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.,(1996). Mason, Jeffrey D. “Mason Miller v. California (1973): The Court Confronts Obscenity.” The Millennium Fool. (November 27, 2000). “Olmstead v. United States.” Decided June 4, 1928. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. May 15, 2006 Read More