Ranking Their Positions: Obscenity/Pornography

This is the fourth post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians. The content of this series mainly consists of the platforms presented on the candidates' official sites, but, occasionally, other resources are utilized when necessary.

In my opinion, conservative Christian activists and politicians should speak about pornography (and obscenity in general) much more than they presently do.

Pornography exploits the women involved in its production, making them nothing more than sexual objects—veritable visual prostitutes. It endangers all women by objectifying them in the site of some men—usually those already predisposed to be dangerous. It ends marriages, shatters families, harms children, robs their innocence, chains men’s minds through addiction, and creates unrealistic expectations in young men.

And for what? All this destruction and depravity serves only to pad the wallets of a few perverted entrepreneurs and feed the animal lusts of some sex-crazed and/or addicted consumers.

Is this what America stands for? Is this what we pride ourselves in? I sincerely hope not.

Now, I do not intend to sound like I am against the First Amendment. Those foundational freedoms found therein have allowed me to freely believe what I believe, to freely speak about it, and to freely write about it. But you can’t blow yourself up in the name of Allah. You can’t, technically, libel or slander someone. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are limitations on our rights, and the Supreme Court, in 1957, ruled in Roth v. United States that obscenity (which encompasses pornography) is not protected under the First Amendment. The problem is that the Court went on to define “obscenity” so narrowly that it practically rendered the ruling void, and actually overturned many obscenity laws. The burgeoning pornography movement found its genesis in this major event.

The dilemma that faced the “Warren Court” (named after Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served from 1953-1969) still festers today. How should “obscenity” and “pornography” be defined, who should get to define it, and how far should restrictions and punishments go? I won’t begin to pretend that I know the answers to those questions, but I do know that we need to be discussing them.

We must very cautiously hammer out this issue. Expanded government jurisdiction is not something to be granted flippantly. But free reign for the most perverse in our society to produce their fruits is not exactly hunky-dory, either. Think about a harsh, impartial weed-killer: it can kill your flowers, if you are not careful, but, if you don't use it, the weeds will take over the garden.

Realize that any number of things can be used for evil, as well as for good. Someone, somewhere, will undoubtedly find or design a way to corrupt just about anything. But notice that pornography lacks a "good" function. At its core, pornography is nothing more than a tool for lust and sexual fantasies: thought-adultery (Matthew 5). There is no redeeming value. It has not been corrupted: it's corrupt. Thus, it is part of an intrinsic cause-effect relationship. Its byproducts are really main products. We are simply reaping what we've sown.

To this point, I have avoided the topic of profanity and violence in entertainment. I have done so because these areas of "obscenity" are much more "gray," if you will, though I hate to use such a morally relativistic term. Nevertheless, where pornography does not have redeeming value, an expression of violence can in certain circumstances. But can it for young children? That's a different question. And though I see little to no redemptive elements in profanity, it seems that it would be just as (if not more) difficult to define as pornography, with less severe repercussions.

Because of these complications, I have deduced that, concerning the latter two segments of obscenity, the government should primarily endeavor to empower parents.

Getting back to the presidential race, I should point out that only a few of the presidential candidates address the topic as a part of their platforms. The ones that do focus on the child-aspect of the problem. But we must recognize that child porn (and pornographers drawing children into pornographic sites) is only the next logical step in a sequential moral descent. Yes, such child exploitation is an even greater depravity. But it results from lowering the bar and blurring the line of what’s acceptable according to our culture’s morality. Once we begin to move the benchmark, the standard-bearer, someone else will continue to push it and push it to detestable places. Eventually, it disappears altogether.

Case in point: in a “free love” society, who’s to say that the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” is despicable?

We must be careful not to behave “holier-than-thou” about child pornography, if we are not willing to condemn adult porn also. We must avoid rebuking those who try to attract children to pornography, if we will not condemn producers of pornography in general. After all, whose standard are we using? God’s, or our own?

I’m not claiming that God views adult porn and child porn with equal indignation, or that punishments for the two misdeeds should be the same. What I am saying is that they are both reprehensible, even if not equally so. The mistake in condemning one and not the other is that a faulty standard of measure is being used--our own. Although, admittedly, this mistake very well may be one of omission, not of conscious decision.

Having said that, when we recognize the major obstacles of eliminating pornography in general--defining it, controlling it, and convincing the morally weak American people to prohibit it--and also realize that obscenity is multifaceted and thereby even more complex, providing ways to protect children from being exposed to porn and exploited through it is probably the best course of action to take at this time, especially since it is readily doable and likely most urgent.

In closing, let me leave you with this thought: Remember that in every public policy battle we encounter—be it about abortion, marriage, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or pornography—it is more important to change hearts and minds than to change laws. In fact, it is necessary to change hearts and minds before changing laws. We must cultivate a respect for language, life, and proper sexuality. That is our first and main priority.

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Concerned "with the questionable material our children continue to have through the Internet and other entertainment products," Hunter believes that "those distributing harmful material to young people should be held responsible." Also, he drafted the Parent's Empowerment Act and voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. The Parent's Empowerment Act "will allow parents to sue any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors, empowering parents to protect their children from the predatory practices of pornographic distributors."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes addresses pornography very intelligently and relates it to the whole crisis of the family and wrongheaded theories of sexuality. He cautions against too much fervor in censorship, but declares that "Society is...entitled to establish clear standards and define the kinds of behavior or things permitted in a public place, so that we won't need to fear that our children will be polluted in a such an environment. We proceed to set up barriers in public libraries, on the Internet, in bookstores, and in movie houses and segregate the things that we don't want to give our children access to." He explains that this doesn't restrain free expression, but "simply requires society's delegated representatives to organize the distribution of the results of that expression, so that we can keep public places free of what are regarded as offensive influences or materials. This kind of approach doesn't, itself, involve censorship and abuse — it simply involves maintaining basic standards of public decency, so that we are able to act and work and live in such a way as to avoid those things we believe to be offensive, and can also act on the assumption that our children will, by and large, likewise be able to avoid them. That's what responsible parents and citizens have a right to ask for, at least at the state and local level. Such legislation of public standards is less a federal responsibility, except regarding such broad influences as the Internet."

T1. Mitt Romney

Romney wants to make sure all new computers have optional "Software Filters To Guard Children From Online Pornography." Furthermore, he wants to "promote and increase awareness of available parental controls filtering products for existing computers."

Along with that, "Romney will require the Department of Justice to enforce our existing federal obscenity laws."

Key Quote: "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. And if we get serious about this, we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and our grandkids are swimming."

T1. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Thompson says that he is "committed to...Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities." He explains, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet."

>>Hillary Clinton

Not that this is going to convince you to vote for her (punch me if it does), but Hillary does seem to warrant a mention, saying that she would prioritize "Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children's cognitive, social, and physical development."

>>Mike Gravel

You may be wondering, "How on earth could Mike Gravel be worth mentioning?" Well, it's not because he qualifies. Rather, it's to illustrate that there are those militantly on the other side. Gravel believes in "Net Neutrality," supporting "a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites regardless of content. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your internet usage and promotes free speech."

Here are the updated rankings, without Tom Tancredo, after four issues. Any candidate who did not mention obscenity/pornography as part of their platforms is considered to be ranked sixth in this category, which, by the way, is the best thing to happen so far for Rudy Giulani in this series:

Hunter: 1.75
Keyes: 1.75
Huckabee: 2.25
Thompson: 3.75
Paul: 4.25
Romney: 4.75
McCain: 6.25
Giulani: 7.5