Op-Ed: Morality in Media Bashes Verizon for Offering Porn Access

JESUSLAND—Ya gotta hand it to the big brains at Morality in Media (MiM). See, there's this massive communications company, Verizon—maybe you've heard of it?—that offers a consumer package that includes cable TV, internet access and phone, and Morality in Media was shocked, SHOCKED! to find out that subscribers can access sexually explicit movies through Verizon's FiOS system. And of course, MiM is hoping to make as much hay (read: mucho buck-aroonies) out of the "controversy" as possible. "Currently, Verizon FIOS offers for rent a hardcore pornographic video titled, Gang Bang Sex Slaves," reads one section of MiM's letter to Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, and a virtually identical one to the company's Board of Directors. "Are Verizon and their investors aware of the tragic nature of sex trafficking in America? If so, do they believe that Verizon should profit from pornographic films that promote sexual slavery?" Apparently, the crack investigative team at MiM missed the fact that Gang Bang Sex Slaves is apparently actually a Japanese anime feature, and as such contains exactly NO trafficked people of any kind, and anyone who thinks that such movies promote sex trafficking/sex slavery probably thinks Bugs Bunny cartoons promote carrot theft. But on the off-chance, since Gang Bang Sex Slaves is not listed in the Internet Adult Film Database, that someone's put together a compilation movie with a "gang bang sex slave" theme featuring live actors, the same reasoning still applies. Anyone remember what the Best Picture winner was at this year's Academy Awards? It was 12 Years a Slave by British director Steve McQueen. Is MiM seriously suggesting that merely making a movie about slaves and their treatment, using paid actors and based on a former slave's biography, is nonetheless "promoting slavery"? Or is it just the addition of the word "sex" that's driving them out of their minds? In a similar vein, MiM has a (pardon the expression) hard-on for explicit movies with "teen" and incest themes. "Currently, Verizon FIOS offers for rent numerous hardcore pornography videos with teen or child themes such as, Pigtail Teens Pounded, I Banged My Stepdad, Mom, Daughter, and Me, I Did the Babysitter, After School Panties, and Young Amateur Teens. Should Verizon profit from films that promote child sex abuse and incest?" MiM's letter to Verizon's Board continues. We dunno; should Morality in Media and similar organizations make a profit from websites, lobbying and "educational" conferences that promote censorship? Gosh! So now, making a movie about a particular subject is the same as "promoting" it? So, to name just a few current releases, Muppets Most Wanted promotes jewel robbery? Need For Speed promotes cross-country high-speed road racing? Non-Stop promotes airplane hijacking? Bad Words promotes cheating on spelling bees? The real question is, how silly does MiM want to get? Answer: Pretty silly: "Currently, Verizon FIOS offers for rent hardcore pornographic videos with offensive ethnic titles such as [M]assive Black Butts, Inside Asian Teens, Latina Teen Newbies. What is Verizon’s corporate policy on race relations?" Well, if those "offensive" titles—"Massive" is offensive? "Inside" is offensive? "Newbies" is offensive?—are any clue, we'd say, "pretty inclusive"! But apparently, Morality in Media has some problem with movies "promoting" people who aren't Caucasian having sex with each other and/or sex with Caucasians. So who's the racist now? But MiM's ire isn't limited to Verizon's cable offerings; there's also the company's non-censorship stance. "Pornography is available to all customers through Verizon’s Internet services unless a consumer takes affirmative action to block such material through parental controls and filters," MiM's letter continues. "In the United Kingdom and in other countries, an 'opt-in' proposal is being discussed and is very popular with consumers. Such a provision would require Internet service providers to block pornography unless a consumer exercises an option to 'opt in' for such material. Verizon should take the lead in this country in offering such a proposal. They would certainly we believe you would find very large customer base of support." [Quoted verbatim, so "huh???" to that last sentence.] Yeah, Verizon! Why not be the first large-scale internet service in the country to make people call you and tell you they want to watch porn? That should be great for business! Beyond that, we're less than sure that opting-in for porn is "very popular with consumers" in the UK or other countries. Almost needless to say, no one in the UK has done a peer-reviewed survey of the populace to find out what they think about losing their freedom to access adult content (and sex education sites, instructions for self-performed breast exams and info on homosexuality), but it's certainly clear that a lot of politicians and religous pro-censorship types are in favor of it. On the other hand, the inauguration of anti-porn activist Gail Dines' Stop Porn Culture branch in the UK was met with a 50-person protest organized by anti-censorship advocate Jerry Barnett, who asserts, "The British people, living in one of the democratic world’s most censored nations, welcomed internet porn with enthusiasm." And besides, do we really want the type of intenet censorship here that's practiced in such bastions of freedom as China, Iran, Turkey and Russia (to name just a few)? But MiM's trifecta of freedom-bashing wouldn't be complete without reference to Verizon's phone service offerings! "Verizon should enable parents and users to filter out pornography from handheld devices, such as smartphones and tablets," states MiM's press release on the "controversy." "We have been told by some Internet Safety Experts that Verizon does offer this service, however, when we asked Customer Support by phone and visited five different Verizon Wireless stores, Verizon Staff had no idea about such an offering. If Verizon does indeed offer this tool, they must promote it more!" Is there seriously any adult in America today who doesn't know that all modern television sets, not to mention all cable companies, offer the capability of parents to block programming/content they consider offensive? Is it possible that people who own smartphones are unaware that each phone has a "settings" app that, among other things, can be set to block certain content the user may find objectionable? Of course, since tablets link to the internet through the same ISPs that desktop computers do, the same filtering software that several companies sell to block porn could be used on tablets for the same purpose, if the user feels that censoring what he/she sees online is worth the few bucks most of them cost. But then, the MiM letter takes a turn to the, ahem, philosophical. "At Morality in Media we believe that all children, women, and men have a natural human dignity and thus a right to live in a decent society; and as the Supreme Court has recognized, obscene materials, which are inherently degrading, dehumanizing, and exploitive, violate this right," MiM claims. "Morality in Media exists to make society aware of the many harms of pornography; to equip individuals and families to overcome or protect against those harms; and, to advocate that all laws defending the right to be free from pornography are vigorously enforced." As is so often the case, MiM here conflates "pornography" with "obscenity," and while the legal definition of "obscenity" is so vague as to be unconstitutional (as everyone but the Supreme Court seems to understand), the real problem here is MiM's assumption that phrases like "natural human dignity" and "decent society," if they mean anything at all—a questionable assertion at best—somehow exclude all references to sex, as if sex was never meant to be part of the human condition—as if sex has nothing to do with the survival and propagation of the human race! "Not only does pornography exploit, degrade and dehumanize the people in the films and photos, but it exploits, degrades and dehumanizes the people exposed to it, teaching them to view others as merely objects for selfish pleasure," the letter continues. "Our nation is now suffering an untreated pandemic of harm from the widespread distribution of pornography and Verizon bears great responsibility for that harm." So: people who have sex in front of cameras and other people, who do so willingly and in fact are paid pretty well to do so, and in many cases get enjoyment out of doing so, are actually "exploit[ed], degrad[ed] and dehumaniz[ed]"—as if MiM had any idea what those terms really mean, as opposed their use here signaling MiM's religious philosophy that any sex outside of marriage, in a bed, in a room with the lights out, between two (and only two) opposite-sex partners is a sin? And Verizon is somehow responsible for that horseshit? The letter concludes with the usual garbage about how porn is addictive, leads to sexual harassment and violence, causes divorce and sex trafficking, and creates to a yen for child porn—and MiM has the (so-called) "peer-reviewed" studies to prove all of it! In other words, it's the same crap MiM has been spouting for years, and we're pretty sure that even Verizon's Board has heard more of that type of propaganda than they could possibly want. Verizon tried to be diplomatic in its response, essentially noting that whatever content MiM can find on Verizon's FiOS system can be found on every other similar system in the country; that Verizon offers "free, easy-to-use controls that enable consumers to manage viewable programming in ways that are appropriate for all family members"; and that Verizon incorporates "parental controls" in its Internet Security Suite, and content filters for all their mobile devices. "In sum, Verizon believes that consumers have benefitted tremendously from access to almost unlimited sources of content and from having the choice to access that content when, where and how they want it," the Verizon reply concludes. "Not all content is desirable to or appropriate for all consumers, however, and Verizon is proud to provide our customers with myriad tools to control the types of content that they and their families have access to through our services." Needless to say, that was far from sufficient for a "big daddy" organization like MiM, which wants to eliminate all sexual content from all forms of communication. "In it [Verizon's response], Verizon defends its distribution of child-theme pornography," MiM stated in an email to supporters. "The company believes that its 'explosion of choice' in pornography is a 'tremendous benefit' to consumers. Verizon did not address the illegality of their products or their promotion of and profit from child sex-abuse and racist fantasy pornography." Of course, Verizon never wrote that this "explosion of choice" had anything to do with "pornography," but rather to the "extraordinary choice in and control over a wide variety of devices, platforms and networks," and through its internet access, "a much broader range of services and content that is not owned, developed or controlled by Verizon"—like the movies MiM is so upset about. And as for addressing the "illegality of their [sic] products or their promotion of and profit from child sex-abuse and racist fantasy pornography," it should be clear by now that it's MiM who are the racists, and that none of the videos named in MiM's letter—or, likely, any available on Verizon's FiOS service—contain child sex-abuse. Even MiM president Patrick Trueman admits that. After blasting Verizon's offering of a "great number of child-themed pornography videos" to a "reporter" for American Family Association's OneNewsNow service, he back-pedals the comment with, "That supposedly depict children, but obviously they're older than 18. But they're meant to excite people who like to have sex with children." [Emphasis added] But MiM has never been an organization that let facts get in its way, and in a statement to a Fox affiliate from MiM president Patrick Trueman, the former porn prosecutor vowed to "continue to press and shame the board if no action is taken." "Shouldn't complaints be directed towards the millions of people paying for and enjoying this type of porn rather than a neutral party such as an internet provider?” asked pop culture expert Jenn Hoffman in response to Trueman's statement. "It would be pretty impossible for Verizon to satisfy every different view of morality while actually serving consumer needs." But Jenn: MiM doesn't want "every different view of morality" to be accessible, whether through Verizon or elsewhere; it wants its own view of morality to be the only one available—and if the religious right manages to get more of its supporters elected to Congress this term, they'll be a few steps closer to getting their way.