A Child's Garden of Vice [by Paul Krassner]

One Hand Jerking Column:
A Child's Garden of Vice

http://news.avn.com/articles/One-Hand-Jerking-Column-A-Child-s-Garden-of-Vice-400005.html

By Paul Krassner
Jun 26th, 2010

Fifty years ago, controversial stand-up comic Lenny Bruce kept
getting busted­ostensibly for obscene language, but really for
choosing the leaders of organized religion as targets of his satire,
but there were no laws against blasphemy. Referring to one such
trial, he told his audience, "Okay, now we're into the second day of
it, and the judge kept schlepping out his grandchildren. His
grandchildren. What if his grandchildren saw me perform? And I
thought, boy, am I that much of a despot? Is he sincere about his
grandchildren?"

That excuse, the protection of kids, continues to be used today by
those who would curtail free speech. The title character in the
syndicated cartoon strip Hazel­she's a combination maid and nanny­is
shown sitting in a movie theater, holding up a container of popcorn
to cover the eyes of the young boy sitting on one side of her, and
holding up her purse to cover the eyes of his little sister sitting
on her other side. Hazel sarcastically says, "Big deal! Family
feature, pornographic trailer!"

"Protecting the children" is also set up as a justification for
government action that curtails other civil rights, such as the
Patriot Act. In 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before
Congress that the Patriot Act had helped catch two internet child
pornographers, thereby enabling investigators to ask an internet
service provider for the names of the criminals, and then get a
warrant to search their homes. News sources later learned that
investigators knew who the pornographers were and where they lived
before they used the Patriot Act. Just as the 9/11 terrorist attacks
ultimately served as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq, kiddie
porn served as an enabler to help pass the Patriot Act.

The name of the game is creating fear, and then pandering to those
who internalized that fear, whether it takes the form of a TV
commercial or a totalitarian government.

The Chinese regime has been busy ramping up censorship on the web for
many months. Primary in this push is their crackdown on pornography.
However, critics claim that this effort is just a cover for
tightening the controls over the largest online community in the
world. Indeed, Chinese authorities announced that 5,400 people were
arrested last year for crimes related to online porn. Also, hundreds
of websites have been shut down, including file-sharing destinations
for pirated movies and music, as well as personal blogs.

Sometimes, this concern for the children is carried to odd extremes.
In England, a year-long trial at Manchester Airport of scanners that
reveal naked images of passengers was allowed to proceed only after
children were exempted. Moreover, British children's rights activists
contend that such imagery could be tantamount to child pornography
and thus illegal. A spokesperson for Action for Rights of Children
had warned that the scanners could breach the 1978 Protection of
Children Act, under which it's illegal to create an indecent
image­or, absurdly enough, even a "pseudo image"­of a child.

In Australia, Bart Simpson would fit that role perfectly. A judge has
ruled that an animation on the internet, depicting the Simpsons
engaging in sexual acts, is child pornography. His justification: It
could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of
children." Ironically, a recurring character in the actual Fox
series, the minister's gossipy wife, has a one-size-fits-all answer
to any question: "Oh, won't someone please think of the children?"

These days, though, the more interesting question is what the
children themselves are thinking. Jeffrey Douglas, a defense attorney
in Santa Monica, Calif., asserts, "When the legislation for child
pornography was enacted, no one was imagining minors taking photos of
their own bodies" and posting them on social media such as MySpace.
"People don't realize that prosecutors may not have a lot of leeway
in prosecuting these cases, and if kids are convicted, they could be
labeled as sex offenders. Kids don't think about this, because they
never believe they'll be caught. They don't even know what they're
doing is a crime."

Ralph DiClemente, a professor at the Rollins School of Public Health
at Emory University, has been studying how exposure to sex online
affects teenagers. He points out, "Kids are likely to believe more of
what they see in the media than adults are. They perceive people in
porn to look and act just like you and me. Many kids see nothing
abnormal about creating and/or starring in porn, and their
perceptions lead to behavior that is less than desirable."

According to Pamela Paul, the author of Pornified: How Pornography Is
Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families, "It's
pretty appalling. Among girls and boys, porn has become increasingly
accepted, even kind of cool. And with the American Idol-ization of
the culture, where everyone can be a star, it's almost inevitable
that kids would be tempted to cross the line into interactive porn.
Every form of media has become interactive. Why shouldn't porn be as well?"

And so it has come to pass that, during the last few decades, the
desire to protect children from pornographers and obscene comics has
evolved to a desire to protect children from themselves.
--

Paul Krassner is the author of Who's to Say What's Obscene? His
column appears bimonthly.

.