Pornography (Written 1999)
By David Schneider
Do I have the freedom to view what I choose?
Office of Film and Literature Classification
In Australia all greeting cards, posters, magazines, books, films videos and computer games go to the OFLC for "classification" .The OFLC is a statutory body which reports to the Minister for Communication and the Arts. In Australia it is a criminal offence to sell of exhibit films, videos and computer games unless the OFLC has pre-rated them. It is also illegal to sell any publication which might be rated unsuitable for minors if it hasn't been pre-rated by the OFLC. Items that come to this Office are given a classification (eg: PG, M, X), any item that is "refused classification" is banned, or has to have scenes or sections cut out in order to receive a classification. A fee must be paid in order to obtain a rating. This fee is the same in all instances. This means that a X-rated video costs the same as say a video on rose pruning to have classified. The OFLC currently operates on a full cost recovery basis. Members of the OFLC Board are appointed by the government. At present all videos rated X (which contain non-violent sexually explicit material) are illegal to sell in all six states, though not in the two mainland territories. Sexually explicit publications are legal in all States and Territories, though pornography featuring children, bestiality and actual rape is illegal.
Is Porn Bad?
There are many people wandering about the place at present trying to tell us that porn is "bad". Reasons for porn being bad are that it is degrading to women, promotes sexual assault and violence against women, that it oppresses women, and that it is morally degrading. In general a moralistic tone is frequently adopted by those who wish porn to be suppressed. These moralistic reasons are generally related to religious interpretations ascribed to by the people concerned, and here is where I think that the crux of the matter lies. Current statistics from surveys indicate that 67%-83% of Australians are in favour of X-rated videos being available to adults, and there is ample evidence to show that women make up a very substantial percentage of the people who view pornographic material. Interestingly two of the largest organizations producing X-rated videos in Europe are headed up by women. The Eros Foundation, one of the largest suppliers of mail order X-rated videos in Australia, reports that 77% of their customers purchase videos to be viewed with their partner. This would seem to put the lie to the suggestion that porn is an exclusively male dominated domain, and that as such it is intended to denigrate women. Certainly some types of porn can portray women in a detrimental light, but then again, so can many other forms of media - porn has no exclusive mandate in this area. As far as porn contributing towards sexual assaults and violence against women, there is little actual supporting evidence. While it is true that sexual assault and violence is still at an unacceptable level in our society, attempting to lay the blame at the door of pornography is simplistic wishful thinking. The sad truth is that the people who commit these crimes would commit them regardless of the availability of pornography. This is more a case of the pro-censorship lobby using a convenient spurious argument.
Whose Morals?
What seems to be at issue here are the morals of the people in the pro-censorship lobby. In essence there is confusion, it seems to me, between the personal morals and ethics of these people, and the morals and ethics of society in general. Many within the pro-censorship camp are attempting to enforce their personal beliefs upon the wider community. Their position is that porn is wrong, so they decide to impose their own view upon the community in order to "protect" it. This is a dangerous attitude. Firstly it is condescending. It makes the assumption that we, as adults, are not competent to make decisions affecting our own person. Instead of taking a decision to view, or not to view, porn based upon our own ethics and morals, the choice would be removed from us, and instead someone else's moral opinion would be imposed upon us. This is a little bit like someone who chooses not to drink or to smoke attempting to remove your right to choose and to make their own opinion mandatory. Secondly, this is very paternalistic. Tasmanian MP Chris Miles, who also chairs the conservative lobby group The Lyons Foundation, has been quoted as saying. "We still have a long way to go to protect our daughters and our wives from a lot of filth which is available." This is a quite condescending thing to say. At which point did everyone's daughters and wives ask to be protected from this? His comments make it seem like women are too fragile to be able to make a decision about whether they wish to view porn or not. Rather, they must be screened from it for their own good. Thirdly, having decided what we are and are not permitted to view, where does it stop? History is full of quite unpleasant periods where a minority have attempted to do various things for "peoples own good", without bothering to consult the people concerned. Being for or against something does not give someone the right to impose his or her viewpoint on others. Access of adults to pornographic materials is no different. The irony here is that porn is generally enjoyed within the privacy of a person's own home. The pro-censorship lobby is not being asked to have it in their homes. No one is attempting to force or coerce them into doing so, yet these people feel that they have the right to dictate to others what they do in their homes, and have no hesitation in telling us what we may or may not do, because it's for our own good - really.
Competency
You will get no argument from me that some forms of pornography should be illegal, specifically child porn and bestiality. However the reason that these should be banned is not because they are porn, but rather because it is wrong to exploit children or animals in this way. Adults who perform in X-rated videos are competent to understand what they are doing, and what consequences may result from their actions. Children and animals are not, and so forcing them into such activities is clearly wrong. Those involved in the production of pornographic materials do not dispute this. The problem here seems to be that many within the pro-censorship lobby are unable to make distinctions between different types of porn, and tar it all with the same brush. Once again this demonstrates the oversimplification of issues in this debate.
Conclusion
Australia is a nation proud of it's multiculturalism and diversity. We, as a society, are supposed to be tolerant of viewpoints different to our own. Our laws are supposed to be founded on the concept that, as long as your actions are not harming anyone, you should be able to live your life as you choose. We are supposed to have freedom of choice and freedom of speech, these are two of the foundations that our country is built upon. Yet we see before us a situation in which some people are attempting to inflict their personal views upon everyone. This is wrong. Whether or not you, as an adult, wish to view pornographic materials is your decision. I have no right to inflict my personal beliefs upon you, nor does anyone have the right to inflict their personal beliefs upon me.