There has been much controversy about the availability of sexually explicit material on the Web. Some web pages display blue ribbons and/or black backgrounds to protest the Telecommunications Act of 1996, claiming it violates the First Amendment right to free speech. Politicians who support the bill insist that unrestricted access to pornography will contribute to a breakdown in morals in our nation. In my opinion, both sides are missing the point.
Those who stand on First Amendment rights forget that with freedom comes responsibility. Americans have traditionally allowed some restrictions to be placed on our freedoms for the sake of a greater good. For instance, we do not drive all over the street, but stay on the right side and obey traffic controls in order to make driving safer for everyone. We cannot spead lies about another person without being held accountable (in court, if necessary) for the damage those lies may cause. And, in public establishments, we do not provide alcohol, tobacco products, or sexually explicit material to minors. To their credit, a number of adult-only web sites now support restricted access, either passively (by including information that parent-installed software can detect) or actively (by requiring prospective clients to register with a service, presumably checking for valid age information in the process). But many more sites are unrestricted. Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect voluntary compliance.
Those who worry about moral decay are also overlooking an obvious fact: the decay had started long before the Web became popular. It seems likely that interest in pornography is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a lowering of moral values. As with the content of movies and popular songs, web content reflects the prevailing mood of the country. There are certainly a number of possible reasons for the decline in moral climate, but one that should not be overlooked is the example set by public leaders themselves. In the last Presidential election, one major candidate had been divorced and the other had admitted to an extra-marital affair. Neither of these are unforgivable sins; but the interesting thing is that the American public did not seem to care about either aspect of the candidates' lives. It's as if life-long faithfulness to one spouse is no longer important. Add in other relevations about ethics violations, abuses of power, and various sex-related scandals within all branches of government, and the speeches about moral breakdown lose much of their validity.
What, then, is the point in this controversy? I believe it is this: sexually explicit material should be avoided, not because of what it is or might do, but because of what it is not. It is not real! A meaningful relationship is not easy to establish or to maintain; those of us fortunate enough to have found one know that it takes commitment, trust, and lots of "forgive and forget". By contrast, pornography is undemanding -- it is available any time. But it is, at heart, shallow; breeding a similar shallowness first in emotional response and then in interpersonal skills. Ultimately it leads to a decline in perceived self-worth, because it is ultimately unsatisfying. We sense that we are intended for something better. So the battle over web pornography is, like its subject matter, more shadow than substance. Those on either side would do well to reach a reasonable compromise, building on the access mechanisms being developed now, and then move on to more important issues. Or, in the vernacular of today: "Get a life!"