A
Wake-Up Call: Reflections on Media, Freedom, and Morality
Dr. Ahmed Afzaal
The pace of
Westernization in the Pakistani cultural scene has increased tremendously
during the last couple of years. The easy availability of explicit foreign
videos, novels, and glossy magazines, the increasingly bold and daring policies
being adopted by our own electronic and print media, as well as the leniency
with which all this is being tolerated and even encouraged by those in
authority — all these are signs of a serious decadence. Add to this the
liberalization of social norms that used to regulate the behavior of young men
and women, and you have a perfect recipe for societal degeneration.
Attempts to criticize and condemn
this trend are often brushed aside as irrational and dogmatic opinions of a few
narrow-minded fanatics, or as signs of an obscurantist mentality. Such
derogatory labels, however, do not constitute any logical argument, nor do they
prove anything. Instead, what we really need, in order to reach a rational
solution to the issue of whether or not we should adopt the Western and liberal
values, is an objective analysis of the whole problem.
Let´s start our discussion at the
very beginning.
Facts
of Life
Like all animals, the Homo sapiens
consist of two different genders: male and female. The biological urge to mate
ensures the sharing of different types of genetic material, so that greater
variation in form and function can be achieved with each passing generation. A
sort of Natural Selection is applicable here, because the animals who mate are
able to leave offspring to continue the race, whereas those who are not
interested in mating quickly become extinct. The strong sexual urge, therefore,
guarantees the continuation of species.
Throughout the animal kingdom the
male is always the sexual aggressor while the female remains passive. This
difference is based on a fundamental biological fact. The male reproductive
cells, the sperms, are small and motile, while the female reproductive cells,
the ova, are large and relatively immobile. A female produces far fewer eggs
than a male generates sperm. In other words, there are always more sperms than
eggs. This means that, from a purely biological standpoint, males of all
species can spread their sperm far and wide, impregnating as many females as
possible, but the females may get only one mating opportunity per season.
Therefore, the female must hold back and choose the best possible mate, while
the male can afford to be rather indiscreet.
Although this is clearly applicable
to the human beings inasmuch as they possess physical bodies and instincts
similar to those of the lower animals, there are a number of significant
differences. It is a self-evident fact that the intensity and vigor of sexual
urge in human beings is far greater than any other animal. Moreover, there is
no built-in mechanism in the human beings, again unlike other animals, that
would diminish or abate their sexual desire once its primary purpose —
reproduction — has been achieved.
The human race could easily have
been prevented from becoming extinct with only a fraction of the normal human
sexual urge. This implies that, as far as the human beings are concerned, the
sexual urge must have an important function in addition to that of biological
reproduction. What is that extra function?
The answer is quite obvious: Nature
wants us to live together, as families and clans and tribes and societies. That
is exactly why men and women not only crave physical union, they also yearn for
permanent relationships and love and commitment and spiritual devotion. That is
why the human infant is the most helpless and fragile creature in the entire
animal kingdom, and also the most dependent on his parents´ care and
protection. Again, that is why human parents are more loving and caring than
any other species. Clearly, Nature doesn´t want men and women to come together
just for the sake of their physical need, but she wants them to develop real
and lasting love and companionship that would, on the one hand, ensure the
survival and well-being of the helpless newborn and, on the other hand, become
the basis of a stable family life which would, in turn, give rise to close-knit
communities.
However, the strong sexual instinct
in man is a double-edged sword. On account of its remarkable intensity, human
sexuality has a potential for getting out of control and becoming an end in
itself. Thus, an essential prerequisite for establishing and maintaining a
stable and healthy civilization is to restrain the sex impulse by special
customs and social institutions, to allow its expression only within
well-defined boundaries, and to strictly prohibit and check any transgression
of those limits. Otherwise a chaotic expression of sex impulse will result,
leading to the decay of the institution of family, degeneration of morals, and
a culture of men exploiting women.
There is an undeniable link between
the sexual norms of a nation and its overall well-being. A famous study of
eighty primitive and civilized societies, carried out by former Cambridge
Professor J. D. Unwin, has proved the existence of a direct correlation between
increasing sexual freedom and social decline.[1] According to the results of
this study, the more sexually permissive a society becomes, the less creative
energy it exhibits and the slower its movement towards rationality,
philosophical speculation, and advanced civilization. Similarly, the eminent British
historian Arnold Toynbee has argued that a culture which postpones rather than
stimulates sexual experience in young adults is a culture more prone to
progress.[2]
Unfortunately, in our morbid zeal
of blindly imitating the West, we even ignore how a growing number of European
and American writers have been enlightening their own people about the
disastrous consequences of sexual permissiveness. While many of the secular and
liberal “intellectuals” among us are still waiting eagerly for the arrival of
the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960´s from the United States, the Americans
themselves are beginning to recognize the importance of traditional family
values and premarital abstinence. A new breed of writers and activists in USA and Europe
are forcefully presenting the case for decency in the media and a return to
traditional family system as the ideal way of life.[3] Their logical and sober
advice is often based on the recognition of inborn differences between the two
genders.
Gender
Differences
Although radical feminists have
long insisted that men and women are alike except for their reproductive
functions, and that all apparent differences are produced by a “repressive”
environment, we now possess evidence that proves the exact opposite. Authentic
scientific research has clearly demonstrated that such differences between men
and women are genetic in origin and have firm biological foundations.
The more protective and less
belligerent attitude of women towards others, their greater competence
regarding relationships and people, their tendency to sacrifice personal
interests in order to meet the needs of friends and relatives, their propensity
to avoid conflicts and confrontations, their anxiety to please others, as well
as their strong maternal and nurturing instinct — all these traits make women
ideal home-makers. On the other hand, men are physically stronger, tend to
excel in the logical manipulation of concepts, and are, in general, more
self-assured, self-sufficient, and independent as compared to women — all of
which make them well-adapted for their role as providers, protectors, and
supervisors of the family unit.
More relevant to our subject,
however, is the difference between men and women that is manifested in their
emotions and attitudes regarding sex. The basic biochemical mediator of sex
activation, aggression, and dominance — in both men and women — is the hormone
“testosterone.” The primary sources of this hormone are testes in men and the
adrenal glands in women. The distinctions occur because, unlike the female, the
male brain is exposed to testosterone right from its development in the
mother´s womb, and also because, after puberty, there is twenty times more
testosterone in a man´s body as compared to that in a woman´s. This makes men,
in relation to women, much more aggressive, dominant, and sexually active.
Also, the higher testosterone level leads to the well-documented male tendency
towards promiscuity.
Men, in general, tend to be more
interested in the physical aspect of sex as compared to its personal dimension.
On the other hand, women value companionship, love, commitment, attachment, and
affection much more than physical gratification. Research has shown that men
are likely to become irritable when deprived of sex, whereas women rarely
experience the same feeling of deprivation in a celibate state. Men have a
greater capacity for spatial-visual skills and are more responsive to visual
stimuli; that´s why they are so preoccupied with the shapes and forms of the
opposite sex, and that´s why over 90% of the consumers of pornography are men.
On the other hand, women are usually attracted towards the members of the
opposite sex due to the latter´s communication competence, social position,
confidence, or sense of humor, and only rarely because of their physical
appearance.[4]
Women frequently complain that men
see them as “objects.” Men complain that women are only interested in talking.
Both are correct because, for men, sex is largely a matter of objective things
and actions, whereas for women it has more to do with communication and
intimacy. No amount of protesting and grumbling can change the essential nature
of either men or women. Instead, women must keep in mind that men are very
easily aroused, and that they frequently misconstrue the slightest hint of
friendship as a sexual invitation. The old warning that men are only after one
thing is absolutely true.
The
Miracle of Marriage
Men are basically promiscuous. It
is only the institution of marriage that can convert their aimless lust into
constructive love, and divert their short-term preoccupation with physical
pleasure into long-term commitments for the care and protection of their
families. In the absence of any social and legal restriction on sexual activity
outside of marriage, men tend to revert back towards their instinctual pattern
of promiscuous and irresponsible sexual behavior. We can see how this
permissiveness results in a huge number of unmarried mothers who are left to
provide for themselves as well as for their children. Contrary to what Western
women have been led to believe, “One Night Stands” have nothing to do with
equality or freedom; this is only a modern version of the old deception — men
taking advantage of women.
Sexual permissiveness demolishes
the institution of family. Despite all attempts to portray “Single Motherhood”
as something desirable and trendy, the fact remains that the intact two parent
family offers much greater security and much better outcomes by providing ideal
environment for the proper growth and development of children. [5]Unregulated
sexual freedom, on the other hand, allows men to be indiscriminate in their
“adventures”, and since — in the absence of strong social conventions — nothing
and no one can force them to act in a responsible manner, their promiscuous
behavior results in a large number of illegitimate children who never receive
the care, protection, and love of their fathers. We certainly don´t want to
introduce this kind of social anarchy into our own society. Or do we?
Mistaken
Views of Human Nature
Some of us are indeed under the
impression that the sexual freedom now prevalent in the West resulted from the
much needed revolt against “unnatural” restrictions and prudish or puritanical
rigidities of the Victorian age, that a liberal life-style represents
enlightenment and rationality, and that we should also follow suit. However, it
may be pointed out that the culture of sexual permissiveness — which can be
traced to its origin about a century ago in the Anglo-American milieu — is in
sharp contravention to the true human nature, and that it actually represents
the unfortunate but inevitable outcome of two very misleading theories.
The ideas of Charles Darwin
(1809-1882) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) have played a decisive role in
changing the general conceptions and behavior of Western men and women. The
view of man as nothing more than a sophisticated animal has had devastating
effects on the entire societal and familial structure. Out went morals and
ethics and the need for self-restraint. All attention was now focused on the
satisfaction of physical needs and gratification of carnal desires. If I am an
animal and so are you, then why bother with religion and tradition and
convention? Everything and anything should be permissible, provided, of course,
that no “law” is broken. But the “law”, when it is formulated by majority vote,
itself becomes a most pliable and flexible institution.
Then came Freud, whose views
regarding the nature of human self are highly ingenious, but also, to a large
extent, inaccurate. According to him, the principal and primary urge of the
human “id” is sexual in character, and all social customs and conventions that
restrict the free expression of sex instinct are damaging to the mental health
of the individual and lead to different types of neuroses. Although his views
remained controversial among the scientific community, Freud quickly became a
popular figure and his name became synonymous with sexual freedom, especially
in the United States.
His ideas then infiltrated into art, literature, drama, and feature films,
thereby influencing whole generations. The effects of his theory on the Western
thought and culture are too numerous and far-reaching to estimate. However, it
can be safely argued that the cult of promiscuous sex owes its popularity
largely to the teachings of Sigmand Freud.[6]
How can we challenge the growing
trends of permissiveness when it is backed by “Science”? The malignant effects
of the materialistic version of evolution and the sexual view of the human
psyche can be neutralized only by appreciating that human beings, unlike all
other creatures, have a dual nature. A human being is composed of a physical
body as well as a spiritual soul. This implies that while man certainly
possesses the purely animal instincts for survival, reproduction, and
dominance, at the same time he also has a strong predisposition towards moral
virtue and an urge to love, adore, and worship a Supreme Being. Ignoring the
spiritual side of humanity results in the misconception that we are nothing
more than well-developed apes, and this, in turn, leads to a society where the
physical and carnal aspects assume ultimate importance. Instead, the
establishment of a healthy and balanced culture requires that the soul be
allowed to rule the body, and not vice versa.[7]
The
Myth of Unlimited Freedom
Once we realize the extent of the
damage that is caused by sexual permissiveness, it is easy to see how various
kinds of erotic images in the mass media contribute towards moral and social
degeneration, without serving any constructive purpose. The prevalence of such
images, whether suggestive and subtle or explicit and obvious, only accentuates
the already potent effects of sex hormones, especially among the adolescents
and young adults. The resulting preoccupation with sex consumes a lot of their
time and energy, leaving very little for healthy and positive pursuits.
Moreover, in view of the central
and pivotal importance of marriage and its constructive role vis-à-vis human
civilization, we can appreciate the significance of closing all avenues that
could lead, directly or indirectly, towards a relaxation of the restrictions on
non-marital sexual activity. Such a relxation is, of course, highly detrimental
to the institutions of marriage and family, and, therefore, to the fabric of
civilization itself.
Keeping in mind the
naturally strong human predisposition towards sex, we can also see that all
ways and means employed to intensify and heighten this instinct will only
result in unnecessary frustrations and mental conflicts, which will lead, sooner
or later, to the free and unrestricted expression of sexual urge, along with
all its disastrous consequences. Furthermore, the kind of physical
attractiveness and erotic appeal that is routinely depicted in the mass media
is so rare that most women cannot live up to such a high standard of
perfection; the resulting dissatisfaction in their husbands is insidiously
damaging to the institution of family. It may be pointed out that it is
precisely this myth of the ideal female body that has resulted in the menace of
what has been described as the “commodification” of women. The moral decadence
of the Western society clearly demonstrates that extremely adverse consequences
can result if a society remains tolerant or indifferent to the kind of images
that are presented in the mass media.
The easy availability of explicit
material in the form of books, magazines, films, posters, and even computer
diskettes and CDs, actually represents commercial exploitation of a human
weakness on a grand scale. No civilized and sane society should ever allow its
own destruction at the hands of a few entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, this is
exactly what we are doing under the guise of “progress”, “upward mobility” and
“freedom”.
There is a serious misunderstanding
prevalent among our so-called liberal elite. It consists of their tendency to
confuse the highly desirable values of equality and freedom with the equally
undesirable propagation of obscenity and vulgarity. The freedom to express is,
no doubt a basic democratic and moral ideal, but it can never be absolute and
unqualified. A society that values its stability and moral standards can never
allow a few of its citizens to express things that would undermine the societal
foundation and threaten to disintegrate its moral fabric. The democratic ideal
of freedom from censorship has more to do with the right to express dissent
against the government and to criticize its policies, and has nothing to do
with spreading licentious and immoral material. It is indeed amazing that the
state-owned electronic media in Pakistan,
while shamelessly denying the people their fundamental right to disagree with
the government, continues to insist on transmitting obscene and objectionable
material under the hypocritical banner of “freedom.” [8]
Indeed, the manufacture and sale of
salacious stuff can be justified neither on the grounds of free speech nor by
appeals to human psychology. All kinds of libidinous material are damaging to
public morality and social well-being, but, of course, the more explicit and
obscene they are, the more extensive will be their harm. Also, the younger and
more impressionable the viewers, the more permanent and far-reaching will be
the damage.
Sometimes people try to defend their
“right” to have access to such material on the grounds that sex is a natural
activity, and, therefore, it is unnatural to put any restrictions in this
regard. What they don´t realize is the fact that sex is essentially a private
matter; its open performance or depiction is not only repulsive to the
undefiled and pristine human nature, it also robs a beautiful act of its
personal, social, moral, spiritual, and esthetic dimensions, leaving nothing
but animal lust.
In the entire animal kingdom, we
find only a single “animal” that has a sense of privacy, and the capacity for
shame when this privacy is violated; that animal is, of course, the Homo
sapiens. Even in the most primitive tribes, men and women cover their private
parts and do not copulate in public. The sexual act is an animal activity that
also involves uniquely human emotions and ideals. But when sex is made into a
public spectacle, the audience cannot see the human element; they can only view
the animal coupling, and this is what debases a unique human experience into a
mere animal connection. Pornography, by making a gross public display of the
private physical intimacies of human life, degrades both men and women to a
subhuman level. That is why we describe such books and movies as “dirty”; not
that the sexual act itself is perceived as unclean, but because its public
performance and depiction in explicit detail is what debases and brutalizes and
insults our sensibilities.
The dignity of a human being is
derived not from the basic instincts or the physiological processes of his body
that he shares with other creatures; rather it is based on his higher faculties
— rational, moral, and spiritual — which are the real foundations of his
distinctive individuality. In our everyday lives, we partially hide our
instinctual and animal aspects under cover of social conventions, which help
keep their demands under control. Pornography, by depicting in explicit detail
the instinctual and animal aspects of human existence, removes this very
protection of social conventions, thereby degrading human beings and robbing
them of their dignity.[9]
Innocent
Fun?
Pornography has a well-documented
role in sexual violence. Rape and child molestation is on the rise in Pakistan, but
we are still choosing to ignore the most important causal factor in such
criminal and disgusting manifestations of deviant sexuality. Research has shown
that repeated exposure to pornography often results in compulsive and aberrant
behavior and in many cases leads to sex crimes. American psychotherapist Dr.
Victor B. Cline has done extensive studies regarding the effects of
pornography. He has described a four-factor syndrome in almost all of his
patients. The first stage is that of Addiction. After becoming involved in
pornographic material, people tend to become dependent; they keep coming back
for more and more. The material provides a very powerful sexual stimulant or
aphrodisiac effect as well as exciting imagery, which is frequently recalled
and elaborated into fantasies. The second phase is that of Escalation. With the
passage of time, the addict requires more explicit and more perverted material
to get the same amount of stimulation. He begins to prefer pornography and
autoeroticism over normal sexual relations, often resulting in divorce and loss
of family. The third phase is that of Desensitization. The addict reaches a
point where material hitherto considered shocking is now seen as acceptable and
commonplace. He begins to legitimize the sexual activity that he witnesses,
and, irrespective of how deviant, he feels that “everybody does it.” The fourth
stage is called Acting Out. This is characterized by an increasing tendency to
act out sexually the behaviors repeatedly witnessed, including compulsive
promiscuity, exhibitionism, child molestation, rape, and sadomasochism.
Evidence suggests that sexual deviations are always learned forms of behavior
and not inherited traits. The models for this type of learning most commonly
come from pornographic magazines and videos.[10]
Violent and abnormal manifestations
of sexuality is often the result of prolonged exposure to prurient material. In
our own country, a great and commendable effort is being made by various
Non-Governmental Organizations in educating the masses regarding the
seriousness of violence against women, especially its most despicable variety —
rape. However, the theme which is conspicuous by its absence in the whole
corpus of speeches, seminars, articles, and advertisements is the role played
by the breakdown of morals, free social interaction between young men and
women, and easy availability of sexually explicit material. While we should
certainly condemn rape, there is an equally important need to recognize and
eradicate the factors which promote and contribute towards this crime.
Unfortunately, whenever the role of
provocatively dressed women and their equally provocative demeanor is pointed
out as unnecessarily exciting the potential rapist, the immediate rejoinder —
often delivered sarcastically — consists of the counter-argument that this is
“blaming the victim.” It is undeniable that no man has the right to rape a
woman under any circumstances, but does it mean that young women should
deliberately place themselves in dangerous situations?
Why is rape so serious a problem
even in societies where non-marital sex is freely available? This has a lot to
do with the nescience and naïveté of women regarding the dynamics of male
sexuality. Women too often forget the basic fact that sexual behavior in men is
deeply intertwined with aggression. The leaders of the Feminist and Women´s
Liberation movements in the West have misled their sisters into believing that
men and women are exactly alike; that women can do anything, go anywhere, say
anything, and wear anything, without having to face any undesirable
consequence. They have also attacked and weakened the traditional morality
where women enjoyed the protection of their fathers and brothers. The
consequences of such misguided and essentially futile attempts to change the
basic human nature have been nothing short of disastrous.[11]The same thing is
now happening in our own society.
Moreover, feminists keep on telling
us that rape is not a crime of passion, but that it is a “hate-crime”, by which
men intimidate and threaten women and force them into subjugation. Based upon a
misleading and superficial judgment that all men are oppressors and all women
are victims (which itself betrays a hatred for men), the theory of rape as a
manifestation of misogyny is full of fallacious assumptions. A more plausible
explanation of the rising incidence of rape is as follows.
In an environment where non-marital
sex is condoned, the sexual “victories” assume an out of proportion importance
for men and their threshold for tolerating rejection is greatly diminished. At
the same time, the widespread availability of, and exposure to, pornographic
material puts an abnormal strain on male sexuality, and it makes men constantly
preoccupied with sexual performance and prowess. [12]Moreover, women are
depicted in such books and movies as always sexually ready, willing, and eager;
they are often shown as enjoying rape, physical torture, and humiliation.[13]
As a result, the viewers or readers begin to perceive various acts of sexual
violence and coercion as normal, everyday practices. All these factors, when
combined with the natural aggressiveness of men and also the naïveté of women
concerning the male obsession with sex, lead to the unfortunate incidents of
rape. In order to reduce the prevalence of this crime, therefore, something
more serious than mere male-bashing is needed.
In addition to rape, non-marital
sex, child molestation, and even homosexual practices are becoming more and
more common in our own society. Whenever citizens demand that media policies be
reformed in order to check the growing moral decadence, they receive the
condescending advice not to see or buy “what you don´t like.” One is simply
dumbfounded at such shallow and childish “solutions” of crucial moral and
social issues. Whether or not someone likes obscene and erotic material is
simply irrelevant. The point is that morally and socially damaging material is
being published, transmitted, imported, and openly sold in the market, and all
this has to be stopped. Not every one is mature enough to realize the damage
caused by such material, and even those who do understand are rarely able to
protect either themselves or their families. No one can live in a vacuum,
isolated from the rest of the society. Whether he likes it or not, every
individual is affected by what happens in his environment. Where the whole
atmosphere is polluted, only an imbecile can say: “if you don´t like smoke, just
stop breathing.”
If we want to avoid the predicament
that is troubling the Western world, then, obviously, we must curb our own
drift towards permissiveness before it is too late. The wise person is the one
who learns from other people´s mistakes. The spread of all forms of obscene or
pornographic material, whether indigenous or foreign, must be controlled. The
use of erotic images in both the electronic and print media must be effectively
prohibited. Those who are in charge of making our cultural policies must divert
their attention from music, dancing, and modeling to more constructive
endeavors. The time to take corrective measures is rapidly running out. If we
were to lose this time in our complacency and nonchalance, then the future generations
would need much stronger and more strict measures to control what would then be
a more serious decadence. As they say in Persian, fools do the same thing as
the wise, but only after suffering a whole lot of trouble.
Finally, there is another and more
sinister dimension to the whole issue. Note how utterly idiotic is the claim
that such liberal policies are being adopted because people “want” this sort of
entertainment. People want a just and equitable distribution of wealth; they want
a break from the devastating inflation; they want peace and security.
Obviously, they are not receiving any of these. All they are being fed is a
heavy dose of obscenity and vulgarity in the guise of culture and entertainment
and progress and liberty. It seems there is a deliberate attempt to keep us
occupied with these toys and, thereby, to divert our attentions away from the
real issues. Indeed, the whole entertainment industry is acting as “Opium of
the Masses.”
Let´s wake up for a change.
END NOTES
[1]Unwin, Professor J. D., Sex and
Culture, quoted in Christenson, Dr. Reo M., Censorship of Pornography? (The
Progressive, September 1970)
[2]Toynbee, Arnold., Why I dislike
Western Civilization (New York Times Magazine, May 10, 1964)
[3]Some of the most prominent persons in
this field include: Phyllis Schlafly, the author of The Power of the Positive
Woman (1977) and the editor/publisher of the newsletter The Phyllis Schlafly
Report; George Gilder, who has recently revised and updated his book Sexual
Sucide (1973) as Men and Marriage (1986); Donald E. Wildmon, who is the
president of The American Family Association; Pat Socia, who is a sex-education
consultant and teaches “Abstinence-Only” curriculum in High Schools; Janet Kid,
who is the author of The Benefits of Chastity Before Marriage; and Mary
Whitehouse, who is the founder of Clean-Up T.V Campaign, and has been described
as the “articulate voice of the silent majority raised in protest against
pornography.”
[4]For details of recent scientific
evidence regarding gender differences, see:Evatt, Cris., He and She,
(California: Conari Press, 1992), Moir, Anne & Jessel, David., Brain Sex
(New York: Dell Publishing, 1991), and Begley, Sharon., Gray Matters,
(Newsweek, March 27, 1995). The issue of gender differences is also covered in
Davidson, Nicholas., The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books,
1988), Levin Michael., Feminism and Freedom (New York: Transaction Books,
1987), and Stein, Sara Bonnett., Girls and Boys: The Limits of Nonsexist
Childrearing (New York: Charles Scribner´s Sons, 1983)
[5]Cf. Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe., Dan
Quayle Was Right, The Atlantic Monthly, April, 1993.
[6]Cf. Torrey, Fuller E., Freudian
Fraud: The Malignant Effects of Freud´s Theory on American Thought and Culture
(Harper Perennial, New York, 1992)
[7]For a refutation of Freud´s theory
from an Islamic perspective, Cf., Rafiuddin, Dr. Muhammd., Ideology of the
Future (Lahore: Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1946)
[8]The Supreme Court of the United States of America
has repeatedly given the verdict that the Freedom of Speech clause (in the
First Amendment of the US Constitution) does not apply to obscene and
pornographic material. For example, the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States
(1957) ruled that the First Amendment´s concept of Free Speech is not absolute
and that obscene material has no expressive value. The court explained:
[the] protection given to speech and
press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing
about of political and social change desired by the people.
In Miller v. California, the Court ruled:
in our view, to equate the free and
robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of
obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its
high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.
In Paris Theater v. Slaton (1973) the
Supreme Court ruled:
The sum of experience, including that of
the past two decades, affords ample basis for legislatures to conclude that a
sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life,
community welfare, and the development of human personality, can be debased and
distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex. Nothing in the Constitution
prohibits a state from reaching such a conclusion and acting on it
legislatively... We categorically disapprove the theory that obscene films
acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are
exhibited for consenting adults only. The rights and interests other than those
of the advocates are involved. These include the interests of the public in the
quality of life, the total community environment, the tone of commerce, and
possible, public safety itself.
For details, cf. Kirk, Dr. Jerry. R.,
The Mind Polluters (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), and Parker, Thomas., The
Impact of Pornography on Marriage, in Christian Life Commission (CLC) Annual
Seminar Proceedings (1989)
[9]Cf. Kristol, Irving., The Case For
Liberal Censorship, and Clor, Harry., Obsenity and Freedom of Expression, in
Cline, Victor (Ed.) Where Do You Draw the Line? Explorations in Media Violence,
Pornography, and Censorship (Brigham Young University Press, 1974)
[10]Cline, Victor B., Pornography´s
Effects on Adults and Children (New York: Morality in Media, 1993), Zillman and
Bryant, Pornography and Sexual Aggression (New York: Academic, 1984), and
Zillmann et al (Eds.) Media: Children and the Family (New Jersey: L. Erlbaum
& Associates, 1993)
[11]Cf. Paglia, Camille., Sex, Art, and
American Culture (Vintage Books, 1992)
[12]Cf. Brod Harry., Pornography and the
Alienation of Male Sexuality, Social Theory and Practice (Fall 1988)
[13]Gordon, George N., Erotic
Communications (Hastings House, New York, 1980), and statements by Johnson,
Hilarry., in Pornography: A Humanist Issue, The Humanist, July/August 1985. It
may be pointed out that many radical feminists — like Susan Brownmiller and
Andrea Dworkin — are also active against violent pornography, but the target of
their opposition is restricted to the portryal of women as inferior and
subordinate to men, which they believe to be derogatory and a causal factor in
violence against women; they are not against eroticism in the media as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment