Sheperd, Stuart (17 December, 2001). “Teens Ambivalent About Internet Porn,” family.org.

Editorial (16 September, 2005). “Fence Off Internet Porn,” USA

Today.

 

Trueman, Patrick (16 September, 2005). “.XXX Would Legitimize Porn,” USA Today. 

Washington, Wayne (12 March, 2002). “FBI Sees Net Role in Child Porn Increase,” The Boston Globe.

 

 

Overview:

Teenagers who surf online run an increasing risk of being exposed to pornography. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 70% of 15-17 year-olds say they have “accidentally come across pornography.” However, 40% of these claim this exposure is “no big deal.” Is it a cause for concern?

 

According to Pat McGrath of Morality in the Media, pornographic images “can get implanted in your brain, scaled in by brain chemistry” such that they “will affect your vision of sexuality forever.” Steve Watters of Focus on the Family agrees, and notes that “If you begin to expose a child to all these obscene and inappropriate images of sexuality. . . they’ll process it as normal and healthy because they really don’t have the discernment to know better.”

 

But the Justice Department and parents, both agree, should know better. Stricter enforcement of obscenity laws would be one obvious step, they contend. The use of Internet filters at schools and libraries is also called for.

 

But exposure is just one concern among many. What about the increasing prevalence of online child porn? Or the question of how to label sites that contain pornography?

 

According to Washington, in 2001 the FBI’s Crimes Against Children Unit opened 1,541 cases against people suspected of using the Internet to commit crimes involving child pornography. That is up from 113 cases in 1996. And the motivations for posting child porn are more complicated than they might at first seem. “Deep down inside,” says Raymond Smith of the US Postal Inspection Service, pedophiles “know what they’re doing is wrong. But by communicating with each other and sharing experiences, it’s a psychological support base.” Obviously the Internet has answered and fed this basic appetite for communication.

 

In one case under federal investigation, the so-called “Spanking Club” consisted of online members who met through chat rooms and by phone, then shared videos of naked children being beaten. Members included a Catholic Sunday school teacher in Illinois, an Alabama teacher, and a former Boy Scout master from New York, reports Washington.

 

The rising focus on the sexual exploitation of children and the sharing of violent pornographic material is a relatively new phenomenon. And there is no question the Internet has catalyzed such sharing.

 

But the larger questions of tagging or labeling internet porn of all kinds remains a point of contention. In a 2005 USA Today editorial spread, the paper’s editors say that so-called ‘adult entertainment’ should be regulated via its own domain for the following reasons:

 

·        Blocking X-rated material outright is virtually impossible.

 

·        A virtual red-light district of a new Internet domain, such as ‘.xxx’ instead of ‘.com’ would provide individuals and families with a clear indication of the content behind the domain.

 

·        Providers applying for such an ‘.xxx’ domain could be required to pledge responsible business practices, such as no pushing to minors.

 

But Patrick Trueman of the Family Research Council offers an opposing view:

 

·        Even with the ‘.xxx’ tag purveyors of pornography could still operate ‘.com’ locations for turning their profits.

 

·        Courts could not uphold attempts to evict such operators from their ‘.com’ domains.

 

·        Pornographers could in fact respond by expanding their ‘.xxx’ sites and increasing their Internet presence.

·        Instead of protecting children, the domain label would also legitimize material that is likely to be illegal. Instead, in so far as a relatively small number of U.S.

pornographers own the numerous Web sites selling illegal material, it is wiser to vigorously prosecute them according to obscenity laws.

 

 

Questions for Reflection and Discussion:

 

1.      Have you or teenagers you know witnessed pornography on the Internet?

 

2.      Do you feel it is a real threat that must be dealt by the courts and/or online business community?

 

3.      Have any obscenity laws been enforced on companies/domain distributors in your city or state?

 

4.      What is the best way to protect children in the home, at school, or at the library, from such sites?

 

5.      Is the concern about ‘legitimizing’ such material persuasive for you?

6.      If domains bore the ‘.xxx’ tag would Internet surfers be less inclined to visit the sites? 

 

 

Implications:

The very features which make the Internet so successful – free speech, information access, networking facilitation – open it up as a place of moral grey-areas. Pornography and child molestation obviously predate the virtual culture, but when they enter the gate of households and private lives through the Trojan horse of information technology society finds itself facing the very grim realities of addiction, manipulation, and profitable illicit material. Controlling such things may seem a hopeless task. And yet, if deliberate efforts are not made to stem the tide of online pornography then we will allow the ‘progress’ of technology to eclipse the safeguards of morality and civic security.