|
Pornography, free speech and
children
Efforts to protect children from Internet pornography
received a setback with last Tuesday's decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court. By a 5-4 vote, the court kept in place a federal district court
decision blocking the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act,
the New York Times said in a report the next day. The justices agreed
with the lower court that the law probably violates the constitutional
guarantee of free speech.
The law imposes heavy financial penalties on Internet
sites that allow anyone under age 17 to obtain access to pornography.
The law dates back six years, but has been blocked from coming into
effect by a series of court cases. Opponents argue, among other things,
that filters, and not criminal penalties, are a better way to resolve
the problem of access by minors to pornography. In fact, it is the third
time the law has been considered by the Supreme Court, and the latest
decision does not put an end to matter. The majority decision sent the
case back to the lower courts for further consideration on the merits of
the law.
In a comment issued the same day, Family Research
Council President Tony Perkins criticized the decision saying: “This law
does not impede the decisions of adults who seek to view pornographic
material. It merely recognizes what's common sense: We should
concentrate on making it difficult for children to access porn rather
than making it easier.”
In its arguments before the Supreme Court defending
the law, the Family Research Council maintained that the government has
a legitimate interest in maintaining a decent society and protecting
children by restricting pornography. “Permitting a commercial onslaught
of child obscenity to our children lacks any value worthy of
protection,” the group said in a statement.
Marketing sex and violence
The dispute over Internet and pornography is part of a wider concern
over the negative effects of a mass media that exposes children and
adolescents to large doses of ever-more explicit content. The toxicity
of popular culture was examined in the book “Kid Stuff: Marketing Sex
and Violence to America's Children,” edited by Diane Ravitch and Joseph
Viteritti, professors of education and public policy, respectively, at
New York University. In their introduction the editors noted that much
of what is available to children through the mass media is beneficial
and that television and the Internet offer access to a great deal of
educational information. Nevertheless, children and adolescents are also
“exposed to values that undermine good character.”
Media influence over young people has also grown due
to the declining influence of institutions such as churches and schools
in guiding behavior and forming young people. As well, many parents have
abdicated their responsibility over what their children receive via the
media. “When adults are reluctant to set norms concerning the difference
between right and wrong, youngsters get the message that there is no
difference,” note Ravitch and Viteritti.
Media exposure
In his chapter on the problems of teaching in a world dominated by
popular culture, Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at
Columbia University, observes that the media play an important role in
influencing young people's emotive states and aspirations. And even if
adolescents are not always paying full attention to what they are seeing
or hearing, they are exposed to the media for large amounts of time,
Gitlin noted.
A survey cited by Gitlin calculates that a child's
daily media exposure averages 6 and a half hours daily. This varies
according to age, with a peak of 8 hours in the age bracket of 8 to 13.
Not surprisingly, 65% of those aged 8 to 18 have a television in their
bedroom, 86% a radio, 75% a CD player, and 45% a video game player. And
42% of children from 2 to 18 live in households where the television is
on all the time. Gitlin comments that on the question of violence it is
difficult to prove a direct causal relationship between media content
and violent actions in real life. The violence seen in the media,
however, does form part of the cognitive and emotional experiences of
adolescents. “It may or may not teach the lesson that force pays or that
human life is expendable, but even if it doesn't, it teaches that
violence is a routine recourse.”
The chapter by Stacy Smith and Ed Donnerstein also
looks at the question of what blame can be attributed to the media. The
two professors, from Michigan State University and the University of
Arizona, respectively, admit that the media are only one factor in
socializing young people. They do note, however, disturbing elements in
the content offered. They cite an extensive study that showed the way
violence is portrayed. It is often glamorized, and the negative
consequences of violence are rarely depicted. Violence is also routinely
"sanatized and trivialized," with over half of the violent interactions
on television showing no physical pain for the individual. They also
cite numerous studies demonstrating the ever-increasing presence of sex,
and drug and alcohol use in the media, usually without any consideration
of their negative consequences.
Smith and Donnerstein are less reluctant than Gitlin
to attribute a link between the media and adolescent behavior, citing a
number of studies that establish a close relationship on the amount of
violent television programs seen and aggressive behavior. "Together,
over forty years of social science research reveals that exposure to
media violence can contribute to learning aggression, desensitization
and fear," they write.
Culture of obscenity
Smith and Donnerstein cite studies showing that up to 44% of teens have
seen adult Internet sites. Moreover, search engines make it easy to
access materials that were once difficult to obtain. With Internet,
obtaining sexual content “is easier, faster, more anonymous, and likely
to bring to your computer screen anything you want,” they comment.
Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, professor of history at
Syracuse University, deals with the increasing vulgarity of the media.
Sexual pornography is pervasive, she notes, and even popular culture
suffers from “a kind of fundamental offensiveness, vulgarity, indecency,
perversity and vacuity.”She also objects to the cheap way sexuality is
so often portrayed in the media. Sexual images are ubiquitous, and they
are characterized by crassness, uniformity, trivialization and often
bereft of any romantic element. Lasch-Quinn draws
attention to how women and girls are often portrayed in unrealistic ways
in the media. The images and behavior exalted have played a part in
promoting trends such as extreme thinness leading to eating disorders,
body piercing and tattooing, and plastic surgery.
Peter Christenson, professor of communication at Lewis
and Clark College in Oregon, takes a look at popular music in the lives
of youth. Styles such as rap and heavy metal, he observes, have come
under heavy criticism for demeaning women and glorifying violence, drugs
and racism. Regarding sexual content, Christenson notes that the
message, or images in the case of music videos, is not only provocative,
but is often characterized by elements of gratification and
exploitation.
Bringing up children, note Ravitch and Viteritti in
the book's introduction, “involves a conscious commitment to elevation
of the mind, body, and spirit, not their degradation.” Parents should
cultivate an appreciation for good literature, music, film and art, they
recommend. Regardless of the law, it's time parents took this
responsibility more seriously.
5 July 2004
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=56301
home /
Previous
viewpoint
|
