Next to the apocryphal "snuff" movie, the favorite weapon of the anti-porn crusader is child pornography. Nothing provokes outrage like the abuse of a defenseless child, and rightly so. But when legitimate concerns about child abuse get coupled with the nearly universal sexual loathing that permeates American culture (at least heterosexual culture
Child pornography has been illegal in the US since 1978, and the Federal government has been tracking it down and stamping it out with a vengeance.
The ever-rightward moving Supreme Court continues to increase the Feds' power. In 1982, in New York v. Ferber, they ruled that non-obscene child pornography has no First Amendment protection. (One result: the acclaimed children's sex-education book, Show Me, ceased to be published, distributed, or sold.) In 1990, in Osborne v. Ohio, the Court ruled that laws criminalizing mere possession of child pornography were Constitutional. These Court rulings, of course, were noted in state legislatures, which added penalties of their own on top of the Draconian federal penalties.
There'd never been that much child pornography to begin with, since there aren't many pedophiles around to create demand. The actions of the Court, the US Congress, state legislatures, and zealous enforcement agents combined to make the risks of commercially producing child pornography far outweigh the economic benefits.
Nevertheless, anti-porn crusaders insist that child pornography is still a thriving multi-billion dollar a year industry. In the spring of last year, heard Gail Dines, a Boston-area anti-porn activist, publicly claim it was a $2 billion a year industry in the US. As with nearly all of her facts and figures, Dines made no attempt to justify her statement. According to Dines, every man, woman, and child
In 1983, the Feds' best efforts only resulted in three convictions for child pornography. New tactics were needed in the government's war against filth
Whenever one of these unfortunate dupes took the bait, of course, they were promptly arrested. Their homes were searched; their property was seized; their reputations were destroyed. They lost their careers, family, and friends. At least four committed suicide. All of this for agreeing to buy books or magazines openly displayed and sold on any newsstand in Copenhagen.
Fortunately, one courageous man
Another government tactic is harassing photographers. The most notorious case involved the internationally respected Jock Sturges, who has photographed families at nude beaches and resorts around the world. In April of 1990, FBI agents raided his home, seized 100,000 negatives and thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Agents contacted galleries that handled Sturges' work
Child pornography, according to the US Comprehensive Crime Act, is the visual depiction of persons under 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct, real or simulated, including lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas. Lascivious is a completely subjective term with no objective meaning whatsoever. Any picture of a child can potentially be labeled lascivious and prosecuted.
For example, the Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective, The Perfect Moment, contained two photographs that the religious right labeled child pornography.
One, "Jesse," was of a gleeful young boy sitting naked on top of an arm chair. The other, "Rosie," was of a little girl with huge beautiful eyes.
She wears a dress that she has quite innocently pulled up. I have three younger sisters, seven nieces, and two grand nieces. Also two younger brothers, three nephews, and two grandnephews. I'm familiar with normal childhood behavior and there's nothing unwholesome depicted in either of Mapplethorpe's photos. No rational person would find either "lascivious."
Anti-pornography crusaders, however, are not rational beings. In Cincinnati in the spring of 1990, child-pornography and obscenity charges were brought against the gallery exhibiting the photos, the Center for Contemporary Art.
On August 1, 1990, I attended a press conference in Boston, where Joe Reilly, former president of Morality in Media, ranted on about Mapplethorpe's "child pornography," fantasized about the photographer "enticing" the little girl to pull up her dress, and claimed that her slightly exposed genitals were the focus of the picture. (A non-sexually warped viewer would see that the focus is the child's eyes.) I found it hard to believe that an exclusively gay male would have a prurient interest in a small girl's genitals, and would reveal his prurience in the presence of Rosie's mother, who was present during the photographic session. Mr. Reilly further volunteered that none of his daughters had ever come out of the bathtub without their underpants on. Although Mr. Reilly convinced me that some adults have a prurient interest in the genitals of children, he also persuaded me of the dangers inherent in child-pornography laws.
The current moral panic extends north of the border into Canada. In 1991, Catharine MacKinnon achieved a great victory there, the Butler decision, when the Canadian Supreme Court accepted her argument that it was OK to ban degrading speech. Predictably, this led to a major crackdown on gay, lesbian, and feminist literature
And now
Solicitor General Drew Days first supported the circuit court ruling, and then reversed himself. According to a UPI story by Michael Kirkland, Day wanted the case sent back to the circuit court for a rehearing because Day was afraid the Supreme might declare the law unconstitutional. Which of course it is. Blatantly. The Supreme Court granted Day's request.
Dobson
Dobson's concerns about sexual abuse are coupled with a near indifference about the physical or emotional abuse of children. Dobson believes that small children should have the evil beaten out of them, preferably with sticks and switches. He considers 18 months a good age to start the abuse.
(If you have a strong stomach or a sadistic streak, read his Dare to Discipline.) Because Dobson claims to be an expert and calls himself Doctor, some of Dobson's readers abuse their children. A few years back, a librarian tried to pull his books from the shelves for just this reason. (Guess who screamed about censorship and the First Amendment then.) Dobson is also the one who interviewed Ted Bundy on the eve of his execution and discovered that porn made him do it.
Dobson's recent campaign had the predictable results. The cowards in the Senate passed a resolution 100-0 demanding that the Justice Department take a harder line against kid- die porn. (Thank you, Paul Wellstone.) Clinton got into the act by publicly chastising Janet Reno and demanding that she draft a new and tougher child-pornography law that will make it possible for the State to jail people for owning pictures of clothed children. She's done so and Congress will pass it without so much as one dissenting vote. Clinton will piously sign it.
The sad thing is that child-pornography laws are not only unconstitutional, they're also totally unnecessary. There is no First Amendment right to commit a crime. A crime does not cease to be a crime just because someone photographs it. Child abuse is a crime and should be prosecuted. Using someone's image for commercial purposes without their per- mission (which children cannot legally give) is a crime and should be prosecuted. Concealing evidence of a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted. But the people who pass laws against child pornography have no interest in preventing or punishing child abuse or any other crime. They are interested solely in advancing their own power and their own careers.
We learned during the McCarthy era that when the State gets behind a moral panic, no one is safe. So I suggest to everyone: go through your libraries.
If you have copies of Lolita, A Boy's Own Story, The Boy: A Photographic Essay, or collections of photographs by Mapplethorpe or Sally Mann, throw them out. Go through your family albums, home movies, and videotapes. If there's anything with the kids in swimsuits, burn it. (To be safe, get rid of all of the pictures of the kids. After all, underneath that snowsuit Junior is as naked as a jay bird.) And while you're tossing your books into the bonfire, just keep repeating: "Bill Clinton is our friend, Bill Clinton is our friend."