Porn defenders are usually staunch advocates of the First Amendment, but when the issue is speech they don’t like, many can’t resist groping around in the legal code to find a way to shut down analysis and criticism. We encountered this last summer, when the owner of the website Cruising for Sex wrongly claimed that copyright law prohibited us from reproducing a small portion of The Gloryhole FAQ.
The latest gambit of certain pro-porn activists is to claim that 2257 Regulations apply not only to commercial pornographers but also to all noncommercial uses of material produced by the porn industry. Specifically, they want to suppress distribution of a slideshow produced by StopPornCulture.
According to Wikipedia, the 2257 Regulations “require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records”. The primary goal of the regulations is to prevent the employment of underage performers, such as Traci Lords.
The federal government has foreseen that requiring this recordkeeping from noncommercial or educational organizations would unduly burden their speech. The Code of Federal Regulations is careful to state that, with respect to the 2257 Regulations, “sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release” refer to
commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.
To apply 2257 to the StopPornCulture slideshow is clearly unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment, restrictions on explicit expression that is not “obscene” must be as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the government’s objective. Not only would application of 2257 to political critiques of the adult industry be overbroad, it would undermine the purpose of the statute–prevention of child porn–because the effect would be to severely impede criticism of the primary producers of pornographic material.
Application of 2257 would also be viewpoint discrimination because the record-keeping requirements would be so burdensome to nonprofit secondary producers as to shut down all multimedia presentations from that perspective. By contrast, the adult industry can far more easily absorb this inconvenience, both because of their wealth and because they are closer to the original production.
See also:
Pro-Porn Free Speech Lover Doesn’t Like It When We Reference Her Public Material in a Critical Context
Many things make no sense in Pornoland. The latest example is the position of Renegade Evolution,
a porn advocate, “a bit pathological about the rights of free speech,”
who objects to our linking to her public statements without permission
(even though she linked to NoPornNorthampton on July 8
with no prior notice) and our referencing her material in a critical
context. A key element of what free speech is about–truth emerging
from open debate–seems to have escaped her…
Ren Ev carries on her arguments here,
but the bottom line is she perceives referencing her speech to
criticize it to be an inappropriate use that amounts to “exploitation”.
I suppose you could characterize any critical examination of anyone’s
speech in this way, although I doubt this encourages the kind of open
debate the founders of our country prized. Free speech is not just isolated individuals spouting off without reference to each other.
Examining
pornography and pro-porn arguments is critical to understanding how
porn works, why it’s harmful, its addictive qualities, and the toxic,
narrow version of sexuality it sells. We appreciate that porn advocates
may be upset or embarrassed by having their materials used in this way,
but their interests must be balanced against the harms the sex industry imposes on third parties and its own participants. We will not cease to use the industry’s copious amounts of self-damaging evidence against it. This includes cases of commercial exploitation of other people’s likenesses without their consent, a far less defensible act than referencing material to make a political argument.
Adult Website Tries to Use Copyright Laws to Restrict Debate
The adult industry has advocated for robust free speech protection even
for works that some may find damaging, offensive or embarrassing. In
court, the balance of equities would strongly favor NoPornNorthampton’s
fair use claim over an adult website’s bad-faith attempt to preempt
political debate using the copyright laws.
Gail Dines Presents: Pornography and Pop Culture (explicit)
This video includes explicit still images. Some may find it painful to
watch, especially victims of sexual violence. Acknowledging this,
activists have found that presenting today’s porn in an unfiltered
fashion is “an effective and rapid consciousness-raiser about misogyny and male views of women”. We have seen our opposition claim that we should go easy on porn because it’s a form of “art”, that it represents the empowerment of women, or that today’s porn is no more harmful than paintings or century-old erotica pictures. We feel the best counter to these arguments is to show people what today’s porn actually is.
Free Book Download: Diana Russell’s Against Pornography, The Evidence of Harm (explicit)
Dr. Russell is Professor Emerita of Sociology at Mills College,
Oakland, California. She has been active in the women’s liberation
movement since 1969, and is author or editor of 17 books. She obtained
a Postgraduate Diploma (with Distinction) from the London School of
Economics and Political Science in 1961, and a Ph.D. from Harvard
University in 1970.
Against Pornography is unusual in
that it goes beyond abstract discussions of pornography to present the
raw material, so readers can judge for themselves. Dr. Russell reprints
and analyzes over 100 cartoons and pictures from publications like
Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and Cheri. She writes,
I have found that showing pornography is an effective and
rapid consciousness-raiser about misogyny and male views of women. It
helps to enhance women’s understanding of many males’ dangerous notions
of what it is to be a man. It often also succeeds in arousing women
viewers’ anger (and some men’s) at the contempt and hatred of women
they see in the pictures and captions. [File 1, p.16]
Why We Reproduce Pictures from Pornography
Renegade Evolution
and others who defend pornography have said it’s improper for anti-porn
activists to hold up actual examples of porn to public view. Unless we
get permission from the subjects to do this, we are exploiting them.
In
a sense this is true, and unfortunate. It’s the case anytime one holds
up another’s work for critical examination, but sometimes there’s no
other way to make a point but to show a picture. Describing scenes of
torture and misery with words is one thing. Pictures are more
compelling, less mediated. It was the photographs from Abu Ghraib that
made it such a scandal.
Pictures are important part of how porn
works. Countless images from porn show abusers what to do and help them
believe abuse is normal. Pornographic pictures are also used to season
victims–especially children. We want people to see the raw truth and
judge for themselves.
Intentions are important. Our purpose is
not to make a commercial profit, or stimulate ourselves with pictures
of others in pain. We are trying to get people to feel compassion for
their fellow humans in the pictures and stop feeding the sex industry
with money.