Pubdate: Thu, 22 Sep 2005
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2005 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: David Harsanyi

LET ME BE THE JUDGE OF MY OWN GOOD

If the War on Pornography is as successful as the War on Drugs, we 
can look forward to the DVD "Booty & the Beast" being sold on street 
corners instead of out-of-the-way sex shops.

Prohibition doesn't work. Unfortunately, that never stops us from trying.

On July 29, Denver's FBI field office, along with the 56 others 
around the nation, received a message calling for recruits interested 
in working with a new anti-obscenity squad.

The initiative, as reported in The Washington Post, was "one of the 
top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director 
Robert Mueller.

Applicants for a new elite porn squad were cautioned, however, that 
they'll need some moral fortitude to deal with material that tends to 
be offensive to local juries.

You know what's more offensive than pornography? Blue-nosed 
bureaucrat crusaders limiting personal freedoms.

Unquestionably, pornography has no redeeming qualities. And 
certainly, there's nothing inherently heroic or patriotic about 
protecting it. But when government gets in the business of deciding 
what sorts of activities consensual adults engage in, we should take notice.

For social conservatives, the new War on Porn is a welcome 
development. Not only is smut on the radar again, but it's alleviated 
some of their skepticism about Attorney General Gonzales. The Family 
Research Council even declared that it has "a growing sense of 
confidence in our new attorney general."

When I spoke to Focus on the Family spokeswoman Carrie Gordon Earll, 
I asked her if they agreed.

"We concur with the message being conveyed by those other groups, 
yes," she explained. "This is exactly what federal government does. 
They have a responsibility to prosecute and it's positive: It shows 
the Justice Department is going to actively and aggressively 
prosecute obscenity."

Prosecute whom? Earll agrees there is a distinction between obscenity 
and pornography: "Community standards, the way things are depicted 
and the absence of artistic merit, as the Supreme Court ruling says, 
all play a role."

Perhaps we could use Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's 1964 "I 
know it when I see it" definition of pornography? Though Earll does 
admit "it is a tad subjective."

And by "subjective," does she really mean Focus on the Family would 
like to see a ban on all pornography?

"Obviously legally we are bound to abide by court ruling," Earll 
explains. "But our general message is that pornography is bad for 
families, sexually addictive, it objectifies women and children and 
commercializes the holy union between a man and woman."

It's a good message. But what about personal freedoms? The freedom to 
sully the holy union? The freedom to be a shut-in or a pervert?

"If anything, the danger is that this type of material is marketed to 
everyone. ... The pendulum right now is so far towards the personal 
freedom side, that laws are not being prosecuted."

Should activities harmful to society be enough of a reason to ban or 
prosecute? If so, we'd have to ban tequila, potato chips and Ben 
Affleck movies.

More important, how reasonable is it to allocate resources to 
fighting adult porn when we have terrorists, child pornographers and 
assorted other villains out to clearly harm society?

"It's very important," answers Earll. "The disintegration of our 
culture can come from an al-Qaeda, but it can also come from 
pornographers destroying your children through the Internet."

Wow. I never thought of it that way.

"All we're doing is saying we want to have a voice for the higher 
good," Earll says.

The "higher good" is a tricky notion. For environmentalists, for 
instance, the higher good entails me driving a toy car that plugs 
into my wall socket. For others, the higher good can mean banning 
people from smoking a cigar on their own property.

And while I may even agree that some of those things are for the 
higher good, I'd much rather decide that for myself.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elizabeth Wehrman