by Sandi Crain

Created on: August 28, 2009

Internet Pornography: Not a First Amendment Issue

I supported Larry Flynt's fight for free speech in regards to his Hustler magazine. Sure, it's raunchy, but no one was forcing me to buy it or even to look at it. In a free country any person who can walk up to a cashier and prove that they are a legal adult should have the right to buy a pornographic magazine or video it that's what they choose to do. It doesn't interfere with my rights as a free citizen.

Internet pornography, however, has made an art out of forcing themselves upon the unwilling. They hijack common site names and change them slightly so that an innocent typo can introduce an unsuspecting viewer into the world of on-line porn. They use programs that send that unsuspecting viewer into a loop of pornographic images that is nearly impossible to get out of. And, once this mistake has been made, the viewer is picked up by other programs that send out eternal e-mails with links to other pornographic sites. This is not free speech-it's home invasion.

Our rights exist not only to protect the things we choose to do but also to protect our right not to choose. I choose not to view pornography. I think it objectifies women and promotes unhealthy relationships. I don't want it in my home. But, every time I upgrade or replace a computer and have to replace my news and research sites into my "favorite places", one mistake from typing dot com instead of dot org starts the whole porn cycle over again. It can take months of not visiting another porn site before they stop inviting me to their new and improved live feeds.

Pornographers and their viewers may argue that one can always use parental controls to keep these sites out of the home but these do not work. When I have tried to limit content I am refused entry into educational and research sites and, still, pornographic sites make it through. For parental controls to be effective there would have to be regulation that required all sites on the internet to rate their content and there would have to be an oversight committee making sure that all sites rated themselves accurately. This type of regulation will lead to large scale protests because any regulation that has no specific target would limit free speech for all of us.

We might ask the pornographers to be more ethical in their practices. We might even get Larry Flynt to help out. In January of 2009 he sued his own nephews for using his name while publishing "inferior" porn. It's obvious he has boundaries. If we explain that the internet pornographers are threatening the First Amendment rights of all internet users by overstepping their bounds of decency perhaps his reputation as Porn King can convince them to self-regulate.

Internet pornography the way it exists today needs to be regulated. Its forceful practices restrict our right to choose and allows minors access into places they should not see. But, in doing so, we have to be extremely careful. The internet is the best thing that has happened to free speech since the Bill of Rights and we cannot afford to lose what we have gained. We need to keep clear in our minds that the problem with internet porn is not a free speech issue but an issue of unethical business practices. Just as we have rules against fraud for financial institutions we need to focus on rules against unsolicited access to internet porn.

Learn more about this author, Sandi Crain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.