In the name of all that is decent and good
by Jon Worley

Thursday morning, the Supreme Court struck a blow for decency by striking down large portions of the Communications Decency Act. In a basically unanimous opinion (one section of the ruling was 7-2 instead of 9-0), the Court said the CDA was too vague to be enforced. And more importantly, it supported an earlier Appeals Court decision which declared that the Internet deserved at least as much protection as print media.

The decision came down on the same day as the doctor-assisted suicide ruling, so fewer people paid attention. In fact, NPR's All things Considered didn't get around to discussing it until more than halfway through the show. And even then, top legal reporter Nina Totenberg didn't do the segment. Yeah, so we all expected this result (I picked up about $100 on various voting spread bets I laid during the past month), but still, this is a pretty damned important ruling. And when you consider the mealy-mouthed language of that suicide ruling (Ah think, ah sed ah think that thuh states shud deecide), the CDA decision was positively sweeping in scope.

Since NPR disappointed me so much, I clicked on the News Hour (minus the Canadian) and waited. It took a while, but at about 6:30 the report I had wanted to see was on. First, some law professor explained that this ruling stomped the CDA like narc at a biker rally (as Mr. Miller would say). Then, to add some drama, they brought on a guy from the broad-based coalition opposing the law (I can't remember his name, but he looked a lot like the NBA Commissioner) and a woman from an organization with a weird name like the "Family Research Council" or the "Family Defense Group" or "We'll Stick Our Heads in the Sand and Hope Our Asses Don't Get Blown Off". Her name was Cathy something, and she wore all black except for this bizarre multi-colored scarf that was so whacked out the cameras couldn't properly resolve the thing in focus. She wore her makeup just like Mary Kay taught her, wide and thick.

And she started off wailing that the Supreme Court had declared war on the children of this country, that now "pornographers" (I find this term rather indescriptive, but it seems popular, so I'll use it) like Playboy and Penthouse could send their stuff to kids without any legal recourse. In fact, a whole conspiracy theory seemed to be taking shape, whereby the "pornographers" bought off the court so that they could send lots of nudie pix to the innocent children of America.

Why would they do such a thing? The average child aged 10 or under isn't terribly interested in nudity or sexual acts, except for the inherent physical humor value. The implication that "pornographers" would want to target kids is ludicrous.

Adolescents, on the other hand, are probably the biggest potential market for nudie pix and other assorted goodies. Hey, there's not a guy I know that didn't work reasonably hard to find a store that would sell a horny 16-year-old a Playboy. Those places exist, and I'm not convinced any harm is being done there. I'm sure Cathy would disagree, but whatever.

Here's the deal: "Pornographers" don't have to work to sell their wares. Sexually aware people like the stuff. Not all of it, of course (I'm not real big into rainbow showers, or chunky showers for that matter), but most folks I know like a dirty story, a little Cinemax-style softcore, sex manuals, women amusing themselves with snakes, the large curve of Ron Jeremy's abdomen (not quite concealing his largest asset) or whatever. I mean, Clarence Thomas, Mr. Christian Coalition himself, papered his apartment with centerfolds. Not when he was in college, but when he was with the EEOC. I can see where this might make potential girlfriends uneasy, but it doesn't surprise or offend me.

People have always been interested in every aspect of life, particularly the pleasurable ones. And so sex has been discussed and portrayed all throughout history. Some of the earliest oral traditions (so to speak) concern sexual acts. And while the Bible may have been the first book printed, I bet Gutenberg made up a few special tracts for his close, personal friends. It only makes sense.

Do I think all of the stuff up on the Internet is cool? Of course not. I mean, the Wall Street Journal has a site, and if that doesn't contain obscene material I don't know what does. And I'm sure that a good amount of the "porn" on the Internet isn't what I'd consider exciting. But that's not for me to judge. If some lonely gal in Montana wants to download this month's Playboy centerfold, I'm not gonna stop her. Hell, if she wants to download a video still from the famous Dick Stockton/Leslie Visser homebrew tape, I'm not gonna stop her (though their lawyers might give her a call).

I'm getting the feeling that these "family" organizations are really in favor of couples having sex only to procreate, and even then only in one or two prescribed positions. Not only is this boring, it doesn't do much to propagate the species, which makes the whole argument run in an absurd circle.

Indecent to me means a society in which kids are taught that the good things in life (sex, music and the appreciation of fine beer among them) are actually bad. You might notice that we're getting pretty close already.

Perhaps the best response to this warped "Family Values" chick would have been saying that all she needed was a good stiff... . Jon's pretty sure that would have gotten him in a lot more trouble.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page