The porn effect

The government is to be commended for taking steps, through the Film and Publications Amendment Bill, to curb the availability of harmful media to young people especially.

Doubtlessly there will be those ready to argue that any encroachment on the freedom of speech is inadmissible.

Indeed, it is difficult to know where exactly to set the limitations on the right to free expression. Any kind of unreasonable censorship such as that reportedly exercised in the SABC’s news department is undesirable.

However, the freedom of speech, like all other rights, comes with the obligation that this freedom does not harm society. As the bishops’ Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office points out in its briefing paper on the subject, rights are not absolute and a degree of censorship is sometimes necessary in the interests of the common good.

The debate as to what material constitutes harm to society is certain to be animated.

The definition of pornography and its societal effects, for example, is far from settled. Where some would claim that the definition of pornography begins with the exposition of a bare breast on page 3 of a tabloid newspaper, others would regard only sexually explicit material as pornographic. And arguably a page 3 girl is not as corruptive an influence on society as is hardcore pornography (which is legal), or child porn (which is not).

The question then is where one ought to draw the line in the smut, without transgressing against valid arguments in respect to the right to freedom of expression.

Whatever form the amended Act will take, it will not solve the problem of the availability of pornographic material entirely.

While the government can seek to control access to printed material and the dissemination of some digital images, people wishing to obtain porn will find ways of doing so especially the youth, who often are more technology-savvy than their elders. The Internet in particular is an easily accessible source for pornography.

While all government efforts to curb the distribution of and accessibility to pornography are welcome, society also has a role to play in fighting its deleterious effects.

For one, the addictive properties of hardcore pornography must become better known. Porn addiction is much more widespread than commonly assumed (in the United States, a reported 10% of men have an Internet porn addiction), yet it remains a taboo subject.

In this regard, the Church can play a role by by raising awareness about the various dangers of pornography and by providing help to people trying to overcome their porn addiction.

It is virtually impossible to protect the youth from exposure to hardcore pornography, and many young people assume access to porn (especially via the Internet) to be a norm, lending it a creeping social acceptability.

The standard condemnations of porn as immoral and evil, while legitimate, will become decreasingly persuasive.

In addressing pornography’s detrimental impact on the individual and on society, our focus must now include issues such as the problem of porn addiction and the ways in which hardcore pornography can skew young people’s perceptions and expectations of proper sexual conduct.

Society and the Church must now drag pornography out of its sordid shadows and speak about it with candour.