Second-Hand Porn
by Matt Kaufman on 11/12/2009 at 3:00 PM
Whenever something explicit or vulgar shows up in public, and some people object, you can always count on other people to come back with one line: "If you don't like to see it, just don't look at it."
But, of course, it's not that simple. Because it's everywhere now. So much so that even jaded media types are taking note. And they're not loving what they're seeing.
Take today's Washington Post story on "second-hand porn" -- AKA "drive-by porn" -- which is getting worse now that everyone carries video screens in public. Reporter Monica Hesse can't contain her revulsion. A sample passage:
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
That, and the general haze of gross that seemed to descend on the public space, the filmy yuckiness that made them wish the sprinkler system would spontaneously activate.
That, and the feeling that came with knowing exactly what was on their neighbor's mind.
"At some point," Hesse quotes an English professor/mother as saying, "we've completely lost the ability to tell when it's socially appropriate and when it's not."
How did we get here? Go back to that earlier line: "Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment...."
Well, they should oppose it. (And without using euphemisms like "adult entertainment.") Because that's where the problem started -- with a collective refusal to be "judgmental" toward "private" behavior. Once a society abandons the very idea of binding moral standards, the rampant pollution of "private" vice inevitably gets into the public air, and it keeps building till we're all choking on it.
So let's start a clean-up operation. Yes, I know: It seems hopeless. So what? Do it anyway. There are a countless everyday ways to make a start. I once saw an obscene T-shirt in the window of a Spencer Gifts. I urged the clerk to get it out of the window. He did. This hardly took a herculean effort: It took two minutes.
That's just one example. Any other ideas?
1. Novagirl in DC said the following at 3:40 PM on Nov 12:
I live in the DC area, and I'm a loyal Post reader, and I was APPALLED when I read this article! I had no idea people were watching porn in public. I don't ride the Metro (subway) to work so I had not yet caught on to this new trend. I can't believe how rude and brazen some people can be.
2. Jethro said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 12:
But what about free speech, the first amendment etc?
3. Sherri said the following at 4:10 PM on Nov 12:
My husband and I were repulsed by a sexually suggestive radio ad for a pizza restaurant. My husband called the restaurant and told them that if the ad wasn't removed, he would never frequent the place again. Not only that, he said he would tell everyone he knew to do so as well, with an estimate of at least 200 people he was sure he could influence. He then called the radio station, and told them he was making a list of other advertisers to avoid from the station along with the pizza place, and that he was sharing it with all of his friends. We never heard the ad again.
4. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Nov 12:
Ummm...how about watching a news channel that should (in theory) be family-friendly, but the featured guest, a former beauty queen, is talking about her sex tape in a new book...
I don't know how it is in every TV market, but sometimes in Los Angeles the news shows use the following format:
World Headlines
National Headlines
Sports
Interview with newest actress in Playboy
Weather
(SIGH)
5. New Bride said the following at 4:36 PM on Nov 12:
airports have been where I have encountered this before. I can't remember the actualy type of animae but something along those lines...and it was basically a comic book of sex.
I also was with my husband traveling, and we were both appalled as the family across the aisle with his wife and son next to him, had a "adult" magazine, and he was turning the full page pictures for closer looks. it was bothersome to see from my view, just for the moment I noticed of what was happening. I felt for the wife as she noticed too, and tried to distract her own son from her husband's "reading".
6. Lis said the following at 4:40 PM on Nov 12:
what sickens me is walking through the mall and seeing huge, nude posters of women, still posed so the necessities are covered, but barely, in store windows like victoria's secret as well as other stores i have seen. people take their families to the mall, and i would NOT want anyone, but especially kids being exposed to that. why should they be allowed to display porn in store windows for all to see?
7. John said the following at 4:41 PM on Nov 12:
Not sure how I feel about this.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to go around acting like the purity police. All this kind of behavior does is breed resentment toward the body of Christ.
When Paul walked in Rome, he didn't stamp around and protest the images of idols, he used them as an example in his ministry to bring people to Christ.
8. Novagirl in DC said the following at 4:53 PM on Nov 12:
Jethro (#2),
Yes, because of free speech/1st amendment, a person theoretically has the right to look at porn in a public place. But I would hope they wouldn't because of concern for others around them. Free speech gives me the right to say "take a hike" to my boss. But that wouldn't exactly be a wise career move. Just because one has the right to do something doesn't mean it is always is a good thing to do.
9. Pak said the following at 5:35 PM on Nov 12:
Jethro (#2),
Think of the person yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Sure, he has the right to yell it but I'm pretty sure he just trampled on the rights of all the patrons.
10. James said the following at 5:50 PM on Nov 12:
I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that we seriously should be concerned with. Are people really able to see someone's personal phone or ipod screen? If so, perhaps we should mind our own business. Sure we have a right to voice our opinion or boycott establishments...but I think this is a matter of picking our battles. To complain about some of this stuff seems pretty trivial and silly to me.
11. Stacey said the following at 5:58 PM on Nov 12:
My idea: At the checkout, put another magazine in front of the offensive magazine. This works for books, DVDs, and CDs as well. I don't do that often, but I will if it's really bad.
Jethro (#2): At which point do one individual's rights begin to encroach on another person's rights? I think I have a right not to see another person's porn. Also, I don't believe porn is included in the free "speech" of the First Amendment. The main intent of the First Amendment is to allow citizens to freely discuss, dispute, disagree with, and criticize their government. The Founding Fathers had seen all too many nations whose citizens could be punished with death for disagreeing with the government.
12. John said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 12:
Just want to add more.
Because the more I think about this, the more I disagree. Part of the reason the "religious right" is so hated right now is everyone's eagerness to jump on a phone or a street corner and proclaim a boycott or muscle in on the FCC or something.
I'm sick of the protesting.
Truth be told, yeah, you got that shirt down from the wall. But you know what? The clerk probably snickered behind you after you left.
13. Chris said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 12:
I don't think this is so much about pornography as it is about good public behavior.
It doesn't matter if it's adult material, swearing, being drunk in public, and so on. As the saying goes, there's a time and place for everything. There's no difference between a guy looking at an adult magazine at an airport and some guy swearing like a sailor on his cellphone in an airport.
Unfortunately, people fail to realize that as an adult, freedom comes with responsibility. If I want to protect my right to look at erotic materials, I'd best do it in the privacy of my own home and not tick off the parent of a 10 year old boy sitting next to me on a plane.
14. JB said the following at 7:00 PM on Nov 12:
This isn't a slippery slope at all. The availability of pornography in private spaces does not inevitably lead to pornography in public spaces, any more than sex in private leads to sex in public. These are simply inconsiderate people with boundary issues. The solution is to clarify the boundaries to these individuals, not to go on a crusade to ensure that all media everywhere is G rated.
15. Rachael said the following at 7:09 PM on Nov 12:
It's saddening how the woman's body is everywhere -in stores, in the media- even if it's not technically considered to be "porn".
Can't it be tamed down by now? Will it ever be...?
What about equality, respect, blah blah blah?
Where is it???
Forget freedom.
Women should stop being objectified.
16. Michael Fumento said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 12:
Society has ALWAYS held that certain activities are not appropriate in public, even if specifics vary in time and space. It was perhaps 15 years ago that I was in a Hamburg tourist shop with my wife-to-be and I gave her a little peck on the cheek. The old lady proprietor yelled at us in German, "Why don't you just bring your bed with you!"
Hardly called for. And especially given that she knew a lot of non-natives with non-native customs would be in her shop. Not incidentally, Hamburg has one of the most open red light districts in the world.
Conversely, northern Germans tend to be - how shall we say? - rather more uptight than Bavarians and other southern Germans. (Nothing to do with the north being protestant and the south Catholic.)
For all this, the point is the same. We do have a responsibility, whatever our desires, to curtail certain behaviors in public. It would NEVER have been appropriate to French kiss in a tourist shop, nor to look at porno unless the tourist shop actually sold the stuff. Heck, it wouldn't be appropriate to pick my nose.
The German Hexe (witch) did have the right idea, even if she applied it in the wrong situation and used overkill. The best way to deal with these things is usually social opprobrium, with laws reserved for extreme behaviors such as flashing or molestation.
It WILL vary. Don't ask me what Japanese men do on subways. But it's society's job to set limits and to enforce them. The bedroom and an airplane are quite different places and if we're not prepared to treat them as such we shouldn't be surprised if somebody else points out to us that we should.
17. Jethro said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 12:
Novagirl (#8),
I agree. I am not suggesting that something is advisable simply because permissible. However, it seems to me that many of the posters here (including Matt) are saying that free speech, in this form, should not be permissible. I have trouble reconciling that with the 1st amendment.
18. obewan said the following at 8:22 PM on Nov 12:
I have never seen the video thing happen in public but hate the audio thing with the loud rap music. Here in Jacksonville they passed a law against loud rap music and people can be fined - you know the stuff that vibrates the trunk lid while stopped at traffic lights?
Once I was channel surfing past a PBS show about a famous black female rock star. The video flashed a scene showing her topless. By the time I could change the channel it was too late. I was amazed though and wound up asking myself how PBS can get away with it with no fine when the superbowl incident resulted in such a big slapping fine from the government?
19. Marie said the following at 8:53 PM on Nov 12:
I once traveled 7 hours on a passenger bus, and there were "ride attendants" who kept movies playing for us- both were R-rated- for graphic sex scenes, graphic violence, and language. I was a teenager at the time and too scared to do anything about it. There were also little kids on the bus. I don't use that bus company any more.
20. Craig M. said the following at 9:04 PM on Nov 12:
I think it's a matter of taste and degree. I'm not likely to be offended by a sexually-tilted pizza commercial as long as the joke is subtle and unlikely to be easily understood by little kids. On one occasion, though, I was in a record store that had a bunch of eight and nine year olds. The music playing was loud, and full--chock full--of hard-core profanity and degrading slurs against women, as clear as can be. I grabbed the manager and suggested that he might want to consider his clientele. He thanked me respectfully but, I think, ignored me and laughed at me after I left. I wasn't that bothered personally, but I felt bad about the kids. It certainly says something when a major record store chain feels perfectly comfortable playing that stuff when kids are in and out of the store all day.
21. Larissa form Australia said the following at 9:32 PM on Nov 12:
One thing that I do is change the way magazines face in supermarkets... the front cover of some of them consists only of a picture of a practically naked woman... so I turn them around. I do not want to see that, nor do I want children seeing that.
I work in retail, so I know it can be annoying when people mess with the display, but I even do it in my own workplace.
22. Chris said the following at 9:38 PM on Nov 12:
Stacey writes (#11):
Jethro (#2): At which point do one individual's rights begin to encroach on another person's rights? I think I have a right not to see another person's porn.
The problem with your logic is that a right "not" to see/view/hear something can be used to silence everything else. Sure I have a right to protest something, but you have a "right" not to hear it. Therefore, I can be silenced in public. Sure I have a right to publish a story about the government, but you have a "right" not to read it, therefore my publication can be shut down.
Your "rights" to not hear/see/view something means that you can not listen/look/read it. You can get up and move. If I force you to listen/view/read it, then that's harassment and I have no right to force it upon you.
The solution to this problem is not to claim rights to not be exposed to things. The solution is to confront people who do these things and say they're unacceptable in public. At some point, we can get the government involved, but if we need to, it needs to be done with the least restrictive means that minimize infringement upon free speech rights. And your "right" to not view/see/hear something doesn't cut it.
If you believe so, then it's my "right" to not hear about religious organizations/belief and they should be prevented from speaking out in public or handing me literature.
23. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:04 PM on Nov 12:
Comment 15 stated "Forget freedom."
I think that may be the most dangerous statement I've ever read in my life.
24. michael said the following at 10:11 PM on Nov 12:
another poster mentioned this- but as a parent of young children (one who is learning to read) I want to underscore the point- if it's a public space then I think there should be some kind of protection for my kids. We do change the channel, and otherwise direct them away from material we find objectionable. But the porn and near porn are getting pretty aggressive. All it takes is one time and my kids learn something that I can't erase. And yes, porn is harmful to kids. I don't have the research in front of me but it's been done. Also, there's the public acknowledgement that some material should be viewed only by folks above a certain age.
So freedom of speech should not be used for permission to expose my kids (or any kids) to porn. I'd like to see us all taking into consideration "the least of these" when it comes to behaviors like this.
25. Sara said the following at 10:13 PM on Nov 12:
I will admit, when I saw the title of this blog I was sure that you were writing on artsy advertisements being too revealing or something like that.
However, I was SHOCKED to read people actually do this. I am so glad I have not encountered this (and I ride only public transit, and fly fairly often, so it could have happened to me), because I doubt I would have dealt with it well. You know, full of Christian Love and all. I probably would have been like, "What kind of perv watches porn in public???".
Seriously, most people I know watch porn and find nothing wrong with it. However, none of them would even consider watching porn in a public place... Hand-drawn or not. This is completely unacceptable, and I would think that if kids were accidentally around they could be charged with something... after all, you can't watch porn with underage children privately, so why would you be allowed to risk showing it to kids in public?
26. khalil said the following at 10:33 PM on Nov 12:
I agree with Chris (13) and I don't think I would have no problem making some sort of comment or stand on the issue should I encounter it in a public place. While I may not agree with their choice of viewing material the minute they start viewing it publicly they begin to infringe on the rights of others and have acted selfishly. I don't need to play the religion card either I just think that calling it out as inappropriate for families and children should be enough, not to mention how degrading it is to those being portrayed, cartoon or not.
I might even be tempted to be a little loud if the person doesn't reconsider their actions after being spoken too...thinking aloud, "I WONDER WHY THIS MAN NEXT TO ME IS SO INTERESTED IN WATCHING [CARTOON,GAY, HARDCORE, ETC] PORN IN PUBLIC..." Loving?, not exactly, but his freedoms end when they begin to negatively affect the freedoms of others, in a libertarian sort of way.
27. Alexandra said the following at 2:38 AM on Nov 13:
Where did modesty go to? I sometimes wished I lived 50 or 100 yrs ago - now I see women jogging in only sports bras and tiny shorts then wonder why some are snatched and raped. It makes me sad b/c the Christian community is holding up a woman who posed in nearly nude photos and had a sex tape made - this is who's suppose to represent us?? No wonder male Christian seem to be going extinct!! They can get the milk for free everywhere.
28. twilley said the following at 3:30 AM on Nov 13:
So Matt, your suggestion is to be judgmental towards private behavior, and to let everybody know about what you think about their private behavior, in order that they might not bring things that bother you into the public sphere.
That's actually a nice compromise, I think. If evangelicals would stick to that I'd be happy, instead of trying to make or change laws to make some peoples' private behaviors illegal. That way, everyone's first amendment rights are protected, since people still have the freedom to look at porn, and evangelicals still have the right to say they don't like it and they think you are wrong for doing it, but nobody tries to pass laws restricting where and when you can use your own personal devices or read your own books, which would get pretty messy to enforce, of course.
I mean personally I haven't got a problem with porn, and if I saw somebody reading some in broad daylight in full view of me I'd just think "loser" or "super-sketchy" and forget about it.
Of course, it is already illegal to publicly display obscene materials, which is why those racy magazines are always covered up. But does this apply to private citizens?
If I were to sit in the mall, for instance, with ten playboys all around me, set up and open so everyone could see what was going on--wouldn't I already be arrested for that?
29. Lia said the following at 6:39 AM on Nov 13:
John (12):
So what if the clerk snickered when Matt asked him to take the shirt down? All that means is that the clerk is immature. Matt had every right to ask that something which he found offensive be taken down, especially in a public place.
30. Adam Sloope said the following at 7:39 AM on Nov 13:
@ John #7: I think we are drinking the same punch here! Good stuff...
I do not see where we are called to enforce our morals on others. We cannot expect to walk into a third world country and become angry when no one speaks English or thinks Nike shoes are cool can we? I think the same principle is true in society. Christian princples are not the norm for society, we live in the world. We cannot expect to change the environment we live in because we disagree with things. I do not support porn or anything the writer talks about.
I think the issue is if our right to choose something different is being affected. If we have no choice but to watch that then there is a problem that should be addressed, but if there is something else or the option to not watch is available then we do not say anything.
I think we seperate ourselves from the world as if we were called to live not in the world sometimes. Again I do not agree with some of the things that go on in the world, but I have no right to run around telling people what they can and cannot do or show. I think it is very tempting to want to tell someone they are wrong because we naturally become arrogant in our morality, but we need to always be careful to understand without Christ we would be in the same boat (in one way or the other).
31. Laura said the following at 7:59 AM on Nov 13:
When you consider that something like 3/4 of women "adult" film stars were raped, molested, or otherwise sexually abused as girls, it sorta takes the impact out of the free speech argument, doesn't it? When people watch porn in public, they are broadcasting, to any casual onlooker, including children, the grotesque spectacle of strung-out women re-enacting their abuse.
Why do you suppose drug abuse and alcoholism are so rampant in the porn industry?
The idea that first amendment rights are supposed to protect perverts from the "oppression" of conservatives is utterly absurd.
32. George said the following at 8:34 AM on Nov 13:
There is a balance between free speech and public decency. There are decency restrictions on what can be broadcast on public airwaves, it is reasonable to ask people to follow the same when they are in public.
33. ryan said the following at 9:49 AM on Nov 13:
has boundless done an article on what is often called "fringe porn?" Stuff that isn't necessarily porn, but they serve the same purpose.
I.E... a man who struggles with porn may make him feel better by looking at pictures of women on facebook who are in their bathing suits... or the such.
He can justify in his head he wasn't looking at porn per se, or that if she is dressing in that and putting pictures up of her then it should be ok.
Meanwhile his heart is wicked in that moment.
I was just curious about whether you guys have written an article on it or not. It is a very dangerous mindset and can easily be justified in ones mind and easily be kept hidden from others.
34. Dan Gill said the following at 9:53 AM on Nov 13:
The founding fathers never envisaged pornography as "free speech". The first amendment was intended to protect political discourse. It is one of Satan's biggest victories that our courts have allowed pornographers to hide behind that facade.
Porn is a pox upon our nation and the world. Porn displayed in a public place is child abuse.
35. RB said the following at 9:54 AM on Nov 13:
There is a good C.S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity . . . something along the lines of "we are far to easily pleased". I think this issue is part of a great societal issue that's not neccessarily even related to Christianity. There is just not a standard of public behavior anymore. People can't even take their kids to a professional sporting event any more - there are always extremely drunk fans or those who swear and yell other horrible things at the team members and/or other fans. I think that people really want some standard of decorum and modesty to return. That's why books like the Twilight series are so popular. Young "tweens" have become obsessed with these books in record numbers yet the characters are chaste by modern standards. We are far too easily pleased with sexual, violent and tasteless content. Deep inside, I think we are all yearning for something more. After all, it is "written on our hearts".
36. Michelle (of Kansas) said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 13:
How does one get Victoria Secret out of the malls??...
37. Kathleen said the following at 11:26 AM on Nov 13:
So, is the author saying that the government should have the power to determine what materials people view in public? That the government should ban anything the author finds offensive? If so, count me out.
If, however, the author is merely saying that we all have the right to object to things we don't like -- of course we do. That's a statement of the obvious. Personally, I'd rather sit next to a guy quietly watching a porn film on his iPod than sit next to someone picking his nose or trying to sell me his religion.
38. JB said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 13:
Dan #34,
One person's pornography is another's art or politics. Both political works and artistic works have been banned under the heading of "obscenity." The intent of the founders was to allow adults to judge for themselves what information they wish to be exposed to. Government has no place in telling you what you may or may not see. Retreating from that principle invites tyranny. A government that regulates what you can think and share with others has claimed nearly unlimited power for itself.
RB #35,
When was this era of decorum and modesty to which you'd like to return? I guarantee you that even then there were plenty of people who were yearning for the good old days.
39. A.M.C. said the following at 11:40 AM on Nov 13:
[Warning: Long post.]
Matt:
The word choice in your post got me thinking. If anything, it seems to me that you took the term by analogy of second-hand smoking. So, the question is: can we frame this as a public health issue so that we can actually use its police power to curb this phenomenon (which is arguably detrimental to society as a whole)?
==> For the sake of argument, I'll cite a framework proposed by the public health law professor Lawrence Gostin for determining whether an intervention can be justified. Here, a possible intervention is a legislation that would ban second-hand porn in public places. [Obviously, "public places" and "second-hand porn" would have to be defined in addition to the penalty to the individual or organization that sets it up. For simplicity, I'll skip the details for now.]
According to Gostin, the following requirements must be met for a public health intervention to be justifiable:
1. Existence of significant risk from objective evidence
2. Effectiveness of intervention (does it work?)
3. Reasonable economic costs (cost-benefit analysis, etc.)
4. Burden on human rights
5. Fairness (does it place the extra burden where it belongs, i.e. those who are causing the risk?)
==> Obviously, I am definitely NOT an expert in this area, plus that a lot more research would have to be done to check each of the five requirements. So I'll just point out the kind of information that is needed to complete the analysis for each criterion:
==============================
* Criteria #1: Existence of significant risk
Since the United States is officially secular, the "significant risk" caused by second-hand porn has to be demonstrated with something that most people can agree with. For example, do studies in peer-reviewed journals show that an increased exposure to porn causes a increase of violent crime and divorce rates? [Both have been shown to reduce life expectancy.] In other words, all we need is sufficient scientific evidence that exposure to porn has a causal relationship with an established risk factor to make the argument that second-hand porn can, more or less, be detrimental to population health. Once that's done, then we can start discussing the details of a possible intervention.
==============================
Criterion #2: Effectiveness of intervention
As far as I know, while there is some research on the connection between exposure to pornography and violent crime, there is much lesser information on the possible effectiveness of a "ban on second-hand porn in public places." One could theoretically use the case of second-hand smoking analogy to argue that it might work; however, we still can't make that assumption until the data comes out.
==============================
Criterion #3: Reasonable economic costs
The same issue as in #2 comes up again: insufficient data. (Cost-effectiveness analysis can't be done unless an actual intervention, or at least a proposed intervention, is analyzed.)
==============================
Criterion #4: Human rights concerns
This raises the "First Amendment" issue mentioned in several of the previous posts. Is a ban of second-hand porn in public places a violation of the freedom of speech? My impression is that the interpretation is ambiguous. The Miller test established by Miller v. California, for example, cites the opinion of the "average person" as one of the standards-- but it has the problem of being potentially unenforceable due to the variability of public opinion.
In addition, the penalty for circulating second-hand porn in public can raise human rights concerns as well. What should the penalty be? A fine? Revocation of license for businesses that are repeating offenders? To justify the penalty, its harshness has to be appropriate for the extent of risk to population health caused by second-hand porn... which could essentially turns the issue into another philosophical discussion among lawmakers.
==============================
Criterion #5: Fairness
In theory, the ban on second-hand porn in public places would only affect those who violate the rule. So, at first glance, it's fair in the sense that an individual would not be subject to the penalty without committing the offense. The problem, however, is that one theoretically could commit this "crime" unknowingly it due to differences in culture or personal views (cf. Miller test). What happens if someone argues that the material they distribute in public is not obscene, while others say that it is? Do we decide by a vote from locals? Or consider another tricky case: what happens if the offense is committed by a government agency? (Although seemingly unlikely, it's a theoretical possibility.) Is the law still enforceable in this case?
Bottom line: While I cannot make the argument that the ban is unfair, I cannot state beyond a reasonable doubt that it's fair either.
==============================
* With all of the above in mind, the tentative conclusion to the analysis is as follows:
While one could argue for the existence of risk to population health caused by second-hand porn, justifying a ban of second-hand porn in public places would be difficult unless the issues of definition and enforceability can be resolved.
==> Of course, personally I would support such a policy on moral grounds provided that the concerns of practicality are resolved. But as things now stand, I just don't see such a ban becoming law any time soon. So, perhaps it is as you've said: what we can do in the short term is to start the clean-up operation through personal effort.
40. Nancy said the following at 12:05 PM on Nov 13:
I think it is totally okay to ask someone to stop doing something -- with zero concern for their 1st ammendment rights. There are laws about indecent exposure, and I think public porn viewing falls into that category. I'm not worried about hurting the image of Christians either -- there's no need to yell or be mean about it.
I've asked people to stop swearing at a baseball game and in a store, and just said that I didn't want my sons learning those words just yet (with a smile). Aside from drunk or violent people, most recognize that their behavior in innappropriate and are a little embarassed to have a nice mom ask them to stop.
I would certainly do the same thing for porn on a plane or train, if my kids were in close proximity (and the seats are so small that they likely would be!). And I wouldn't feel bad about politely asking a flight attendant to back me up either, if the person didn't respond well.
I'm tired of allowances being made for things that are harmful, with no return tolerance for wanting to protect myself or my kids from it.
41. Elizabeth (from Canada) said the following at 12:06 PM on Nov 13:
I honestly don't really see this as a "rights" issue (I actually don't like the idea of everything being considered a "right", but that's a whole other issue). It's more of an issue as to what society as a whole sees as acceptable in public. And that is better enforced, not by laws, but by people telling others what they think of their public behaviour. In the past, people would have been told if their behaviour was considered unacceptable; you'd find out pretty quickly! Now, I think people are hesitant to say anything, because they might be sworn at or so on. But really, if we politely let someone know that we don't appreciate the behaviour and/or are concerned about children nearby, we do our part to make the public sphere a friendlier place. The person might or might not listen, but he will know that at least one person doesn't like it.
42. Chris said the following at 12:19 PM on Nov 13:
Alexandra writes (#27):
Where did modesty go to? I sometimes wished I lived 50 or 100 yrs ago - now I see women jogging in only sports bras and tiny shorts then wonder why some are snatched and raped.
How would you feel if the Olympics were performed in the nude today? That used to be the custom many moons ago.
If you lived 100 years ago, you'd be a product of that time and culture and would probably complain about "revealing" things that you saw at that time that today would hardly raise an eyebrow.
43. Sunny said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 13:
John (#12) said: "Part of the reason the "religious right" is so hated right now is everyone's eagerness to jump on a phone or a street corner and proclaim a boycott or muscle in on the FCC or something.I'm sick of the protesting."
I think your issue with the'religious right'runs a lot deeper than protesting. If liberals were protesting pro-life than I think you would be fine with that boycott. I think it's cool that you're reading a site like Boundless though. If I were you I would ask myself what really bothers me about this topic.
44. John said the following at 12:39 PM on Nov 13:
Lia (29)
That clerk you judged as being immature is actually most likely a lost soul. Someone who needs Jesus Christ.
Will you show him love? Or will you get all huffed up because you were offended by a t-shirt?
45. BDB said the following at 1:21 PM on Nov 13:
Adam Sloope (#30) wrote:
>>We cannot expect to walk into a third world country and become angry when no one speaks English or thinks Nike shoes are cool can we?<<
I know missionaries who go into those countries and rescue children out of sexual slavery. Are you saying that's OK because it's part of their culture? Or because most of the customers are Westerners?
46. BDB said the following at 1:33 PM on Nov 13:
As far a the clerk "snickering..."
Remember that there are often individuals in these organizations who don't want to be displaying that stuff, either.
They can't necessarily push back against executives based on their own beliefs - they'll be told that their job is to take care of the customer, not impose their beliefs on them.
But they CAN say, "Well, I took it down after a customer complaint." There is a big exception for "community standards" in most of the 1st-Amendment cases where things can be blocked if the violate community standards. Customer complaints are a great way for employees to make that claim.
When I worked for the cable company, sometimes "gentleman's clubs" would want to advertise. We had several times when we pulled the ads immediately on the 1st complaint just because we didn't like to do business with them. (The didn't always pay their bills, either.)
Which reminds me a of the times when the psychic companies would call and ask when we were sending them their invoice. We wanted to say, "Don't you know?"
47. Laura said the following at 1:36 PM on Nov 13:
What would you do if you were on a transatlantic flight and a man next to you occupied his time on the flight by watching porn?
48. twilley said the following at 2:53 PM on Nov 13:
Laura, #31:
Not all porn is produced by professional porn stars. There is also porn produced by regular people, starring regular people, on home video and posted on the internet.
So not all porn is the product of child abuse, sexual abuse, or of environments which are degrading to women.
Just some food for thought :o)
49. Aeryn said the following at 4:14 PM on Nov 13:
This post gave me an interesting conundrum. With digital technology, it is quite possible for a Christian married couple to make porn of their own married sex life, without the need for another human being to work the camera, and share it only with each other. Is this sinful? Why or why not?
50. Matt Kaufman said the following at 4:24 PM on Nov 13:
Interesting to see where these conversations go. I had no government action in mind when I wrote my post. I was focused on an informal approach. First and foremost, we (both as individuals and as communities) need to be willing to say what's right and wrong. We talk: We let it be known when we approve and when we disapprove. That's how society works. Government plays, at best, a supporting role: Standards are best enforced mainly by people in everyday life.
That said, some government action here is perfectly legitimate. As one or two people said earlier, the First Amendment was written to protect political debate and the like. You couldn't find a single Founding Father who'd apply it to sexual "expression," or a single state that would have ratified it if it had.
Moreover, the First Amendment says simply that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech. They didn't use the word sloppily. Most government was understood to take place at the state and local levels. Modern federal courts have seized powers the Constitution never granted. (Don't get me started on that.) But the real First Amendment is irrelevant to what (say) the state of Ohio or the city of Cincinnati do about (say) a sleazy billboard. And again, you'd be hard pressed to find a Founder who'd say otherwise.
The question of how much the law should do to uphold standards of public decency is a prudential one -- how much is wise to do. And serious people can make serious arguments about that. But let's not imagine that the law can't legitimately do anything. It just ain't so.
51. Katrece said the following at 11:04 PM on Nov 13:
#6,I also cringe everytime I walk past Victoria's Secrets.
#18, I guess the FCC turned a blind eye since some government funds help keep PBS on the air. Conflict of interest?
:/ Unfortunate.
Another interesting thing to consider: people (I'm not just referring to posters on this blog) talk about Vickie's Secrets frequently; but what about Abercrombie and Fitch? Have you seen the monstrous photos plastered at the front of their store? I don't think the male models' jeans can go any lower.
52. twilley said the following at 3:12 AM on Nov 14:
Matt, #50:
It seems that with that post you would like to revive governmental intervention in our speech and in our sexual lives, just on the local level. Honestly, I don't think you're going to get very far with that one. I think that ship has sailed.
And it hardly needs to be said, but I'll say it anyway: We don't govern America based on the actual day to day views of individual founding fathers, but rather the spirit behind those views. You couldn't have found a single founding father who'd approve of, say, women wearing pants either. Or many who considered blacks and whites to be equal. Etc. Etc.
53. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:57 AM on Nov 14:
Do I have a right to look at pornographic material in the privacy of my own home?
I am the only person is residence here.
Discuss, please.
54. twilley said the following at 8:48 AM on Nov 14:
Matt, #50:
Hang on... are you referring to the atheist billboards which were just moved due to threats of violence against the landowner of the property they were posted on? Or is there some other Cincinnati billboard I'm missing?
55. JB said the following at 10:35 AM on Nov 14:
Matt #50,
I have two points about your comment.
First, you say that, "the First Amendment was written to protect political debate and the like." I don't have any documentary sources concerning the nature of the discussion surrounding the First Amendment (nor do I think that kind of investigation is particularly appropriate), but I find it hard to believe that there was never any intention to protect artistic expression which is nonpolitical or maybe even social criticism. It would be fundamentally inconsistent to treat free speech rights as being a mere instrument for the refinement of the political process. We are supposed to have "inalienable rights" bestowed by "nature and nature's God" which exist regardless of the political need for them. The right to free speech is intrinsic to us as humans because it is part of the dignity inherent in our nature. It seems bizarre to treat free speech as a right bestowed to meet certain social ends. To talk about free speech as being solely political in nature is to miss the entire point of the Founders' philosophy of rights.
Second, you say that "...the real First Amendment is irrelevant to what (say) the state of Ohio or the city of Cincinnati do about (say) a sleazy billboard." I'm not a lawyer, either, but my understanding is that the First Amendment is applied to the states because of the Fourteenth Amendment which reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me, and the 14th is every bit as valid as the 1st.
56. Matt Kaufman said the following at 9:32 PM on Nov 14:
Twilley (# 52 and #54),
Re: "are you referring to the atheist billboards which were just moved due to threats of violence against the landowner of the property they were posted on?"
Nope: I never heard of that case. I picked Cincinnati because it's a city with a history of limiting pornographic entertainment. And I picked the billboard example at random. I could as easily have mentioned a strip bar.
Re: "We don't govern America based on the actual day to day views of individual founding fathers, but rather the spirit behind those views."
If we let judges seize powers they were never granted, then we don't govern America at all: They do. And when judges substitute their idea of "the spirit" of the Founders' views for what the Founders actually thought, they become a law unto themselves. (Exhibit A: The Supreme Court's discovery of a "right" to abortion based on a "right to privacy" its members claimed to discover in "emanations and penumbras" from the Constitution.)
57. Father's Daughter said the following at 11:08 PM on Nov 14:
The thing about pornography public or private is that it is sin.
We'd surely be in serious trouble if everyone were to "mind their own business" as many are prone to say.
I'm glad someone cared/care (because slavery still goes on) about their neighbor having slaves or their neighbor beating a child.
Besides...you never know what's going on in the "business" behind closed doors of people who decide that they are even going to have the audacity to "read" pornography in the public.
People just don't care anymore AND people just don't care.
Seems to me that we definitely need to make sure that our eyes are free of planks before we speak to people...
But we still need to do something...because GEE...speaking is what Jesus did.
He didn't just hideout and stay out of people's business and HOPE upon hopes that people would become a Christian via sprinkly Christian-Dust...He got up in it and dusted his feet when they weren't feelin' it.
But he at least did something.
Christianity is a gettin-up in somebody's business kind of thing...if it weren't then I surely wouldn't be one.
Oh yes...if we do try to step out and make some kind of change...we definitely don't need to care if a vendor laughs at us...they hated on Jesus, too.
Love to love ya and Praise the Lord, Amend and Amend.
58. Father's Daughter said the following at 11:24 PM on Nov 14:
Oh yes...anyone who thinks that pornography is okay...
Well...if I eat too much...I'm sure to get fat...
If I look at pornography...I'm sure to lust.
Actually, if I've already thought to get a pornographic book...I've probably already lusted.
By the way, I'm an adult who was sexually abused during childhood due to someone's lust...There were even pornographic materials (magazines and videos in our home...easy for the children to get to).
Will I call my parents stupid for not locking down their "adult entertainment" (I grimace--because that's one of the most lamest titles ever...like the "mature" rating for "adult programs" on tv). No, because I'm a sinner just as they...No...I call the Devil out for what he set up to try to destroy.
Don't let lust rule you.
Allow the Lord to rule you.
Don't make excuses for your sin.
You know you are making excuses for your sin when you get angry when others call others or you out for it.
You don't really care about other's sin and what people say against them. Sin causes us to be selfish and in our sin we speak as though we really want people to stay out of other's business when in reality we don't want people to get in our sinful way.
Own up to what you've done and allow the Lord to take control.
I get mad sometimes when someone tells me not to eat all that chocolate...but they are right! Own up to it...and do something Godly about it.
Amend and Amend.
59. Father's Daughter said the following at 11:46 PM on Nov 14:
Oh yes...everyone has the "right" to do anything they want...even read pornography in the privacy of his/her own home.
But it's sin...and not everything is beneficial.
On the first day of school, I always tell my elementary students...you can curse me out if you want to. They always gasp and look around...like they really want to try it. I'm quiet for a moment...and then say...but there are consequences.
There are many consequences to feeding a pornography addiction (from being caught looking at it all the way up to prison)...and the latter is not even the worst. Pornography becoming your FIRST love is. Can you truly say I love pornography AND I love God. It was kind of difficult to even write that in the same sentence, seriously.
By the way...I have a wonderful group of elementary students in the inner city. And oh how I love to discuss and hear them talk about consequences with me and each other.
I like to get them past just thinking about rights and get them in the consequences mindset that is not all about what it will do to me me me...but how it affects others as well.
And married people probably know how it affects "others". People in jail probably know how it affects "others." Sexually active teens or pregnant teens probably know how it affects "others."
Anyone that says pornography is BOSS...has already been affected and it will only get worse.
But God is BOSS and it's so amazing to watch the Christian testimony of ex-porn stars brought out from something so evil.
60. Matt Kaufman said the following at 11:50 PM on Nov 14:
JB (# 55),
To keep this answer brief (and relevant to the point of the post):
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say what you think it does. Modern courts invoke it to claim broad powers over state and local governments. But it doesn't say what they claim it does any more than many other parts of the Constitution jibe with modern courts' claims. It had a much more narrow meaning tailored to protecting freed slaves. So it was understood at the time, and so courts widely held for about 80 years thereafter.
Re: The First Amendment's meaning, I spoke of "political debate" and added "and the like" so as not to get bogged down in a side discussion of exactly what was covered. For our immediate purposes, the important thing to understand is that it's not about porn. Appeals to lust were the antithesis of anything the Founders understood as "freedom of speech."
If you want to discuss the Constitution, you must study much more than what modern courts have said about it. Good summaries of constitutional history are available. If you want something in digestible, college-textbook form, one of my personal favorites is Forrest McDonald's A Constitutional History of the United States.
I'll leave it to others to address the idea that spreading pornography is a right based in "the dignity inherent in our nature," bestowed on us by "nature and nature's God."
61. JB said the following at 10:43 PM on Nov 15:
Matt #60,
Clearly, we'd disagree pretty strongly about the nature of legal interpretation. Personally, I think it's a little silly to be so preoccupied with the "original intent" of legislators, assuming, in the first place, that they had one discoverable intention among them. We know, for instance, that they weren't interested in protecting the free speech rights of people who were not land-owning white males and that they had no intentions of protecting free speech on the internet. I also think we shouldn't care about either of those things except as pure history. I suppose I could frame an argument about the validity of literal textual interpretation, since "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." seems to pretty clearly bind states by the Bill of Rights, but I don't believe that language is deterministic enough to really support that kind of theory (though you might.)
Instead, I think what we can look to are the implications of the philosophy underlying the Bill of Rights and what that means for the regulation of pornography. For example, I think it's perfectly valid to say that free speech applies to the internet, not because the Founders intended that but because the thinking of the Founders about speech is such that variations in medium should have no impact as to speech's freedom. I think we can locate the political philosophy from which the First Amendment stems in John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (see, I do know a little history), the second of which describes the origins of legitimate social institutions like property and government. The essence of this description is that government is valid only inasmuch as it protects the intrinsic rights of people better than the state of nature. We accept as legitimate only those governmental encroachments on freedom which serve to ultimately protect liberty more than they are an infringement of it. Our right to free speech, then, arises not because speech is good and ought to be promoted but because government has no right to limit it. Under this thinking, it's clear that the content of the speech being protected, except under extreme circumstances, has no bearing on whether it can be restricted. So whether I want to publish a political work, a satirical novel, a religious tract, or a pornographic film, my free speech claim in each case is identical. And this logic applies to all governments: national, state, local, or international.
Whether or not the Founders intended to protect pornography (and, let's be honest, with Jefferson and Franklin in the picture are you sure they didn't?) their foundational political principles would obligate them to support such a protection, just as they would obligate them to protect internet speech.
62. Adam Sloope said the following at 8:09 AM on Nov 16:
#45 BDB:
No I am not saying it is ok.
I just think we need to stop trying to change cultures behavior and focus more on being people who love and can have people ask about our hope so we can talk about Jesus. Morality is not what will save anyone.
63. Becky said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 16:
It's touching that so many of you are concerned about what these sorts of materials and publications do to children.
Have we forgotten that we, as adults, are called to still have the faith of a child? "Guard your heart with all vigilance for from it flow the springs of life."
Yes, it's important to guide and protect our children, but that doesn't mean that once we reach adulthood we should immerse ourselves in popular culture expecting to be able to withstand the pressures and sinful demands of the world!
We shouldn't tolerate this kind of thing at all...innocence and purity are to be cherished, not despised.
64. Daniel B said the following at 3:37 PM on Nov 16:
#49 - why would it be wrong for a married couple to see themselves naked?
now, if one of them was watching it alone as a way of satisfying his/her own desire for the other without having to go through the steps of actually interacting with the other, that's probably a problem.
65. Scott Volltrauer said the following at 9:15 AM on Nov 17:
Have you seen the latest ESPN "The Body" issue?
Some would say art, other might justify science or beauty, I felt exploited.
I choose not to objectify others. I threw it away unread.
mysilentscream.com
66. twilley said the following at 8:58 AM on Nov 18:
Matt, #56:
I don't think anyone actually wants us to govern the country anymore by what the founding fathers actually thought. We moved to governing based on the spirit of the documents they worked on long, long ago.
Our abilities, our culture, our knowledge continues to evolve, and our laws and rules need to evolve with them. Like I said, my mother wasn't even able to wear pants in public when she was in college... And if you want to make rules based on what the founding fathers actually thought then that's completely kosher. But if you want to govern by their spirit, through the medium of current knowledge and cultural practices, then it's pants for all who wish them :o)
67. Matt Kaufman said the following at 3:37 PM on Nov 19:
JB (#61) and Twilley (# 66),
Trouble is that you're projecting modern notions onto the Founders, as if they were merely logical extensions of the "spirit" or "philosophy" of the Founders. And that's fiction. You can't take modern usages of words written earlier and graft them onto earlier meanings without doing violence to the authors.
Laws and customs can legitimately change (up to a point) in accordance with changing times. But those are decisions to be made either by elected officials or, in the (usually) more important realm of customs, outside politics altogether. Courts have nothing to say about it. Judges have no business imposing their ideas of enlightened policy on society. It's outside their delegated powers, and it is thus, by definition, tyranny.
Let me anticipate a response to this last part. No, the deference of elected politicians to unelected judges doesn't legitimize the judges' action. Elected officials' job is to vote on controversial issues and face the public, not to pass the buck. Passing the buck is dereliction of duty. Just as it is when, say, members of Congress shirk their responsibility to vote on whether to go to war and instead let the president decide. Their duty is to take the vote and take the responsibility.
Bottom line: Morals and customs have changed -- sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, and sometimes in ways that don't matter. But the people must work that out among themselves, formally or informally. Their elected representatives have some say in those questions, within the bounds of the real Constitution. Judges don't.