Pandering to the masses’ seemingly insatiable appetite for the debate about porn’s effects on society, the CNN Headline News program “Showbiz Tonight” on Tuesday pitted AVN Senior Editor Mark Kernes against Morality in Media President Robert Peters in a discourse both too brief and too superficial.
Saying “after all, pornography is entertainment,” host A.J. Hammer put the question “Is Internet pornography dangerous?” to both guests. Peters, echoing countless editorials and position papers at MIM’s website, responded that porn is addictive and disrupts marriages and families.
“There’s a part of one’s brain that gets activated by drugs, alcohol, gambling, and pornography,” he said, adding that the so-called addictive nature of porn is no longer just a religious issue. “Secular communities are talking about it, too.”
Kernes disagreed, saying pornography addiction most likely is a symptom of an underlying health issue like obsessive-compulsive disorder, and there are effective treatments for such illnesses. “Obsessive-compulsive disorder can manifest itself in many ways,” he said. People can become obsessed with almost anything, Kernes noted, including “milk and roast beef.”
Peters pooh-poohed that suggestion and launched into a familiar MIM refrain.
“There are laws on the books to prohibit the sale of hardcore pornography,” he said. “I’ve been working at this for 20 years,” and based on that experience, he believes that when adult entertainment crosses the line between soft-core and hardcore material, it enters the sphere of illegality. He defined hardcore material as “explicit, graphic depictions” of sexual activity.
Kernes immediately disputed Peters’ take on obscenity law, saying in his opinion no adult entertainment is illegal because it all falls under the umbrella of free speech.
“We’ll see whether that’s true in the months and years ahead,” Peters broke in, predicting more federal enforcement actions – against websites, in particular – in the near future. The government has a vested interest in promoting public morality, he said.
Not so, countered Kernes, noting that the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas clearly indicated “public morality” – especially where it intersects private entertainment – is not something in which the government should meddle. Among other things, Lawrence v. Texas – which was initiated by a gay man who was convicted under Texas’ sodomy law after police witnessed him having sex with another man in the privacy of his own home – invalidated sodomy laws nationwide on privacy grounds. Previously, sodomy laws were predicated on a presumed need for the government to protect public morality.
“Most [obscenity defendants] will be found not guilty,” Kernes predicted, “because people like to watch adult material. It’s that simple.”
