Think Progress Publishes 'War on Porn" Obituary

LOS ANGELES—ThinkProgress.org senior investigative reporter Josh Israel has published what can only be described as an extended obituary for the nation's long-running war on pornography. Titled This Is The Way The War On Pornography Ends, Israel's piece provides a detailed analysis of the historic and contemporary forces that have shaped the nation's cultural and legal approaches to pornography, but as the title amply infers, his clear take-away after investigating the current state of the war on porn is that it is basically running on fumes. Israel uses as one barometer of the increasing ineffectiveness of the organized anti-porn movement "the 52-year-old tax-exempt organization" Morality in Media (MiM), which he describes as "perhaps the nation’s loudest voice against adult pornography." Documenting the extent of MiM's recent decline, he writes, "In 2001 and 2002, Morality in Media received more than $1.2 million annually in contributions. By 2011 and 2012, that number dropped by almost half; it took in just $641,318 and $832,934. The organization’s reported federal lobbying has declined from $80,000 in 2003, to $60,000 in 2004, to less than $20,000 in 2005. By 2006, it had terminated its federal lobbying registration entirely. The organization’s funding appears to be heavily from socially conservative foundations, including the Knights of Columbus (at least $250,000 since 2010), hedge fund millionaire Sean Fieler‘s Chiaroscuro Foundation ($50,000 in 2012), and billionaire Philip Anschutz’s Anschutz Foundation ($30,000 in 2012)." In terms of its remaining political influence—which would of necessity be tied to its ability to motivate its base and attract funding—Israel is equally unimpressed, explaining that "while MiM still has enough sway to get politicians to take a stance—in a 2012 campaign effort to get presidential candidates on record saying they would crack down on 'the distribution of illegal, hard-core and obscene pornography,' the organization yielded commitments from GOP candidates including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum—it is impossible to know how sincere their pledges really were." He adds that MiM can still be counted upon to speak out "with glee" at a development such as the announced resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, who the organization has regularly accused of ignoring federal obscenity laws, the future of any obscenity prosecutions made in earnest, says Israel, will remain a low priority. "Regardless of who the next AG is," he writes, "MiM and other anti-porn advocates are very likely to be disappointed. The reason is simple: they have, for all intents and purposes, already lost their war. While public opinion remains divided on the morality of porn, the forces that would use the power of government to criminalize it have seen their cause become underfunded, usurped, unpopular—and quite possibly unconstitutional." As to why the so-called war on pornography, as it has been conducted via its various incarnations by various administrations—has been so thoroughly lost, Israel's sources in the article consistently mention the same culprit—the internet—everyone's favorite bogeyman. "Morality in Media quickly recognized this as a problem for their cause," writes Israel. "As the internet was gaining prevalence in the mid-'90s, the group called on Congress to 'control "cyberspace" to prohibit obscenity entirely, irrespective of a commercial purpose and irrespective of whether "consenting adults only" are involved, and to restrict indecency.' Congress struggled to find a constitutional way of doing so." Those legislative efforts, pushed mostly by President G. W. Bush's AG John Ashcroft, failed, of course, but on a larger socio-political level, the internet was seen as continuing to wreak havoc by hardcore and institutional anti-porners like Wheelock College professor of sociology and women’s studies named Gail Dines, who also spoke with Israel. "To Dines," he writes, "the Internet has made the problem of pornography, 'incomparably worse.' She told ThinkProgress that the web 'allows for anonymity, affordability and access,' and believes that was quite intentional. 'A lot of people believe the Internet drove porn,' she added, but, in fact, much of the research and development for today’s technology was 'driven by the porn industry.'" Ironically, other sources for the article agreed that the internet has had a profoundly disruptive influence on traditional methods of controlling access to sexual material, but assess its influence far differently that the Dines of the world, who filter everything through an ideological lens. Neil Malamuth, a professor of communications and psychology at UCLA, told ThinkProgress that in his opinion the anti-porn "battle has been largely lost" due to a “confluence of multiple factors… technological and political," and explained that the internet has "created something of a paradox for the anti-porn forces." He added, "One of the terrible things, from their perspective, about pornography was that if you have a lot of exposure to it, you start to see it as largely harmless. To them, that’s a very negative thing, because they see it as harmful. [But] people who are pro-porn look at the same phenomenon and data and say, ‘Yeah, people realize it’s not such a big deal.’” No matter why they might feel that way, for Malamuth “the conclusion is the same and it’s much more difficult to organize” coordinated campaigns against porn when there is already “so much exposure, virtually to anyone, at any time, in any way, in any context.” The global ubiquity of porn also makes it more difficult for obscenity laws to be enforced, a fact that Israel explores in a section of the article sub-titled "Three Prongs," a reference to the three prongs of the Miller test that must be satisfied for an obscenity conviction to be reached. As Israel notes, and close readers of AVN know well, "The first prong of that test means that, in order for something to be legally obscene, it must be outside of the standards in a given community. Nadine Strossen, former head of the American Civil Liberties Union and a professor at New York Law School, told ThinkProgress that in today’s world, it is increasingly difficult for a prosecutor to make the case that much of anything satisfies that requirement." Strossen explained, "It's harder and harder to get convictions" because “in the Internet age, people are able to look at this stuff.” Israel adds that as far as the ultimate goal of the anti-porners goes, "Strossen points to one other major factor that has made the war unwinnable for those who want to ban pornography in America: the nation is far less puritanical today than ever before. 'There is a pro-sex culture among the young,' she said, and 'Sex and the City is nothing compared to Girls, in terms of how sexually vivid it is. I think there is just a Will & Grace-ing of sexuality in all of its guises.'" That comment is especially ironic in light of the fact that Girls creator Lena Dunham has herself been publicly critical of porn in general. But perhaps it is the very surfeit of porn and the attendant opinions regarding it that makes it so difficult to assess any prevailing attitude toward it,  and ultimately adding to the emasculation of the anti-porn movement. It's not totally moribund, of course, and as Constance Penley, a professor of film and media studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told Israel, it has tried to retrench by “nibbling away at the industry through other measures," like requiring "condom use by pornography actors and expanded recording-keeping for producers." As well, supporters of efforts to suppress access to porn hold out hope that the pendulum will swing the other way. Israel writes, "John Foubert, a professor at Oklahoma State University and a self-described 'social conservative,' said that he is 'doubtful of an impending tidal wave of limiting the porn industry, but stranger things have happened.'" Another anti-porn advocate, Carolyn Bronstein, associate professor at DePaul University, told Israel, "They have more luck with consumer-oriented pressure campaigns, trying to pressure places like Walmart or 7-Eleven not to carry Playboy or Hustler. Their sweet spot is going after large retailers who are afraid of consumer boycott [and] they can organize a fair number of consumers. But they aren’t gonna be able to pass laws or get new laws enforced.” Strossen agrees, telling Israel that while the legal effort to kill porn is a fairly dead issue, Morality in Media won’t go away, but I don’t think they’ve gotten any traction.”