25 of 33

Regulate

Write now Article Tools

Regulate content? No. Regulate access? Yes.

Pornography is the recording and subsequent distribution of sexual acts. To be lawful, it must occur between consenting adults (age eighteen in the United States). What two or more consenting adults involve themselves in sexually is their business and their business alone. If they wish to record these acts and attempt to make money by distributing the recordings on the internet, they have every right to do so. Any objection to this, moral or otherwise, is regardless. In a free market capitalistic state, the production and sale of goods is legal and encouraged.

Access to these materials which have been deemed by law appropriate for adults-only should and must be restricted. Government regulation, then, is a necessary evil. Some internet pornography providers have opted to join forces with such content-control software companies as Net Nanny, CYBERsitter and others. Also, in an attempt to enforce the age requirement, 28 C.F.R. 75 was enacted (also referred to as the 2257 regulations) in order to force producers of pornography to keep extensive records and display a disclaimer about "sexual materials" which may be considered "offensive."

Strictly speaking, internet pornography is already subject to intense regulation, as the 2257 regulations and other laws make plain. As for the content of these images, sound recordings or videos, as long as no other laws are being broken, there should be no regulation in place. This position was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2002 when the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was struck down, stating that virtual (meaning a representation without an antecedent in reality) depictions of pornography involving children were constitutionally lawful, as it ''prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production" (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234). To the dismay of many, simply having the knowledge that this type of pornography is lawful does make one a victim. While morally objectionable to (I would hope) everyone, the creation and viewing of this sort of pornography is not illegal.

This is where the debate over pornography as free speech truly comes to a head. It is difficult for many people to realize that simply disliking or objecting to content does not make the viewing or production of that content illegal. Likewise, it is morally difficult for most (at least, I would hope) free speech advocates to stand up and say, "Yes, virtual child porn should be legal!" Still, advocating free speech means occasionally having to stand up for things that might seem unsavory. It's a microcosm of life in the United States in general: having the responsibility to say, "I might not agree with you or what you do, but you have the right to do it, just as I have the right to disagree."

So, should pornography on the internet be regulated? Yes, but only in the sense that it should a) be unavailable to minors as per the law, and b) not contain material that breaks another law or infringes on the rights of others. Aside from that, it's pretty much fair game.

Learn more about this author, R. Michael Straight.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Pornography on the Internet: Free speech or subject to regulation??
We want to hear your view. Write now!