The Perverse Adult?

In a country obsessed with body image, it is so strange to me that the discussion of sex is so taboo. We love to look at “beautiful” people, but can we not look inward and discuss something that is innately human? For some reason, in the United States we are raised with the idea that sex is something not to be talked about, even something to be ashamed of if you do talk or think about it. It is imperative that we change the way sex is perceived in this nation, and that starts with the laws surrounding the protection of sexual speech.

With the new technology that is evolving every day, people are finding more and more ways to express their innermost sexual desires. What is so wrong with that? New mediums like webcamming and “sexting” allow people to express their sexuality in a different and less public way. It is ridiculous to me that people are being punished for things that they are doing in the privacy of their own homes, on computers, phones or other technological devices that they have purchased and own. The state has absolutely no right to intervene in the most private, and arguably one of the most important, parts of someone’s life. Indecency should not be banned on the Internet, rather it should be zoned, much as FCC v. Pacifica makes a “safe harbor” period for broadcast television and radio.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act, ruling them unconstitutional because they abridged First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The case held that the Internet is given the same protections that other mediums like the print press have. As long as the content posted does not fall into the hands of those under the age of 18, or the creator does not knowingly put the materials into the hands of a minor, there is no problem in my mind. I would protect the creator in any case unless they knowingly distribute the materials to minors. If adults are voluntarily posting such content, I see no problem. I would, however, say that such content needs to be much more difficult for minors to access. I agree with the idea presented by Justices O’Connor and Rehnquist, the need for some sort of ‘adult zone’ on the internet that would prohibit adult content from being posted where minors have access. If ‘adult materials’ were distributed outside of the ‘adult zone,’ the distributor should be punished. The creator needn’t be punished unless the creator is the one distributing the materials outside of the ‘adult zone.’

Sexual speech and expression on the Internet is not indecent and I would not punish it as such under FCC v. Pacifica. While I would protect sexual speech, I would advocate that there is a time and a place for it and it needs to be kept away from children as much as possible. That being said, I believe that it is extremely important that parents more closely monitor what their children are being exposed to. Parental controls were created for a reason. Parents need to take more responsibility for what their children are seeing and hearing. This country needs to, as a whole, start taking more responsibility instead of trying to find someone to blame when they don’t like something.

As I have said before, we need to change the connotations about sex in this country. People need to realize that speaking about sex isn’t something to be ashamed of, though it has been presented that way in this country. I find it ridiculous that people say such speech causes harm. Offense, maybe. Harm, absolutely not.

As far what is considered obscene, the case of Miller v. California lies out a three pronged approach. I agree that obscene sexual speech should charged criminally because it has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The problem that I have with the court ruling is that we are bound by what “an average person, applying contemporary local community standards” finds obscene. It is my belief that people in this country are offended entirely too easily. It is hard to speak at all without offending at least one person. Sexual speech is bound to offend more than what I would consider an “average” person to be. Also, the terms “average” and “contemporary local community standards” are completely relative and vary even from neighborhood to neighborhood. It is impossible to dictate what is average and what a community standard is.

I would absolutely advocate for a national standard for sexual speech, as there is with political speech. The idea of variable standards make this issue far more complicated than it should be. While there is a time and a place for sexual speech, I do not believe that it inflicts harm on anyone. Sex is the most natural thing in the world, talking about it is not going to harm anyone, even children. It can certainly offend, but it absolutely does not harm. The government should not assume that all materials are “harmful” or offensive, rather, they should be required to prove that the materials could “harm” or offend.