> "The term anti-pornography movement is used to describe those who
> argue that pornography has a variety of harmful effects, such as
> encouragement of human trafficking, desensitization, pedophilia,
> dehumanization, exploitation, sexual dysfunction, and inability to
> maintain healthy sexual relationships. Many of those involved in the
> anti-pornography movement come from religious groups opposed to it,
> feminists, and individuals who feel that pornography played a major
> role in the breakdown of their marriages and relationships."
>
> Dolf Zillmann asserts that extensive viewing of pornographic material
> produces many sociological effects which he characterizes as
> unfavorable, including a decreased respect for long-term, monogamous
> relationships, and an attenuated desire for procreation.[1] He
> describes the theoretical basis of these experimental findings:
>
> The values expressed in pornography clash so obviously with the family
> concept, and they potentially undermine the traditional values that
> favor marriage, family, and children... Pornographic scripts dwell on
> sexual engagements of parties who have just met, who are in no way
> attached or committed to each other, and who will part shortly, never
> to meet again... Sexual gratification in pornography is not a function
> of emotional attachment, of kindness, of caring, and especially not of
> continuance of the relationship, as such continuance would translate
> into responsibilities, curtailments, and costs...[2]
>
> Additionally, some researchers claim that pornography causes
> unequivocal harm to society by increasing rates of sexual assault[3]
> [4], a line of research which has been critiqued in "The effects of
> Pornography: An International Perspective" on external validity
> grounds[5], whilst others claim there is a correlation between
> pornography and a decrease of sex crimes[6][7][8], an issue discussed
> further in public health effects of pornography.
>
>
> [edit] Religious objections
>
> A protest against an adult bookstore in Uniontown, Indiana, USASome
> religious conservatives, such as the late Jerry Falwell, criticize
> pornography on religious-moral grounds. They say sex is reserved for
> married couples, to be used only in accordance with God's loving will,
> and assert that use of pornography involves indulgence in lust (which
> in Roman Catholicism is a sin) and leads to an overall increase in
> sexually immoral behavior.[citation needed]
>
> Many are opposed to pornography because of religious convictions and
> morals, as exemplified by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which
> states:
>
> "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from
> the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to
> third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the
> conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does
> grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the
> public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit
> profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of
> a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should
> prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."
> Section 2354[6]
>
> [edit] Feminist objections
> Feminist positions on pornography are diverse. Some feminists, such as
> Diana Russell, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Brownmiller,
> Dorchen Leidholdt, and Robin Morgan, argue that pornography is
> degrading to women, and complicit in violence against women both in
> its production (where, they charge, abuse and exploitation of women
> performing in pornography is rampant) and in its consumption (where,
> they charge, pornography eroticizes the domination, humiliation, and
> coercion of women, and reinforces sexual and cultural attitudes that
> are complicit in rape and sexual harassment). Many feminists
> differentiate between different sorts of porn and may see some as
> fairly harmless.
>
> Beginning in the late 1970s, anti-pornography radical feminists formed
> organizations such as Women Against Pornography that provided
> educational events, including slide-shows, speeches, and guided tours
> of the sex industry in Times Square, in order to raise awareness of
> the content of pornography and the sexual subculture in pornography
> shops and live sex shows.
>
> The feminist anti-pornography movement was galvanized by the
> publication of Ordeal, in which Linda Boreman (who under the name of
> "Linda Lovelace" had starred in Deep Throat) stated that she had been
> beaten, raped, and pimped by her husband Chuck Traynor, and that
> Traynor had forced her at gunpoint to make scenes in Deep Throat, as
> well as forcing her, by use of both physical violence against Boreman
> as well as emotional abuse and outright threats of violence (some made
> against members of her family), to make other pornographic films.
> However, in the documentary "Inside Deep Throat", directors Fenton
> Bailey and Randy Barbato interviewed several people connected with the
> filming of "Deep Throat", including director Gerard Damiano and co-
> star Harry Reems, and all stated that Lovelace was not forced in any
> way to participate in the film, and specifically that they never saw a
> gun on the set. Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Women Against Pornography
> issued public statements of support for Boreman, and worked with her
> in public appearances and speeches. Boreman's criticism focused
> feminist attention not only on the effects of the consumption of
> pornography (which had dominated feminist discussions of pornography
> in the 1970s), but also the effects of the production of pornography,
> which they claim is rife with abuse, harassment, economic
> exploitation, and physical and sexual violence. They point to the
> testimony of other well known participants in pornography such as
> Traci Lords, and expressed in recent feminist works such as Susan
> Cole's Power Surge: Sex, Violence and Pornography. MacKinnon applies
> the critical test to determine whether the production of pornography
> is exploitative: would women choose to work in the pornography
> industry if it were not for the money? Critics note that this test
> fails to distinguish pornography from any other industry.
>
> Some anti-pornography feminists -- Dworkin and MacKinnon in particular
> -- advocated laws which would allow women who were sexually abused and
> otherwise hurt by pornography to sue pornographers in civil court. The
> Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance that they drafted was passed
> twice by the Minneapolis city council in 1983, but vetoed by Mayor
> Donald Fraser, on the grounds that the city could not afford the
> litigation over the law's constitutionality. The ordinance was
> successfully passed in 1984 by the Indianapolis city council and
> signed by Mayor William Hudnut, and passed by a voter initiative in
> Bellingham, Washington in 1988, but struck down both times as
> unconstitutional by the state and federal courts. In 1986, the Supreme
> Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in the Indianapolis case
> without comment.
>
> Many anti-pornography feminists supported the legislative efforts, but
> others -- including Susan Brownmiller, Janet Gornick, and Wendy
> Kaminer -- objected that legislative campaigns would be rendered
> ineffectual by the courts, would violate principles of free speech, or
> would harm the anti-pornography movement by taking organizing energy
> away from education and direct action and entangling it in political
> squabbles (Brownmiller 318-321)
>
> Many anti-pornography feminists describing themselves as "sex-radical"
> such as Ann Simonton and Nikki Craft and other members of Media Watch
> have advocated working against pornography and been arrested for
> public nudity and apply civil disobedience against corporations by
> ripping up single copies of magazines that contained violent
> pornography that they insist glorify rape as sexual entertainment.
> They advocate rejecting corporate control of sexuality as exemplified
> in publications like Hustler and Penthouse, protesting particularly
> what they see as the dangerous conditioning practice of intermixing
> violence and sexuality for titillation and entertainment as in
> pornography and other mainstream media for the purpose of achieving
> orgasm.
>
> The Supreme Court of Canada's 1992 ruling in R. v. Butler (the "Butler
> decision") fueled further controversy, when the court decided to
> incorporate some elements of Dworkin and MacKinnon's legal work on
> pornography into the existing Canadian obscenity law. In Butler the
> Court held that Canadian obscenity law violated Canadian citizens'
> rights to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
> Freedoms if enforced on grounds of morality or community standards of
> decency; but that obscenity law could be enforced constitutionally
> against some pornography on the basis of the Charter's guarantees of
> sex equality. The Court's decision cited extensively from briefs
> prepared by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), with
> the support and participation of Catharine MacKinnon. Andrea Dworkin
> opposed LEAF's position, arguing that feminists should not support or
> attempt to reform criminal obscenity law.
>
> Controversy between anti-pornography feminists and their critics grew
> when the Canadian government raided and prosecuted Glad Day Bookshop,
> a gay bookstore in Ontario, in its first obscenity prosecution under
> the Butler criteria. The bookstore was prosecuted for selling copies
> of the lesbian sado-masochist magazine, Bad Attitude. In 1993, copies
> of Andrea Dworkin's book Pornography: Men Possessing Women were held
> for inspection by Canadian customs agents [7], fostering an urban
> legend that Dworkin's own books had also been banned from Canada under
> a law that she herself had promoted. However, the Butler decision did
> not adopt the whole of Dworkin and MacKinnon's ordinance; Dworkin did
> not support the decision; and the impoundment of her books (which were
> released shortly after they were inspected) was a standard procedural
> measure, unrelated to the Butler decision.
>
> In Britain, the late 1970s saw a wave of radical feminism. Groups such
> as Women Against Violence Against Women and Angry Women protested
> against the use of sexual imagery in advertising and in cinema. Some
> members committed arson against sex shops. However, this movement was
> short-lived. Its demise was prompted by counter-demonstrations by
> black women and disabled women. Pornography was seen by the latter as
> a very minor issue that had been prioritised by White middle-class
> women above the discrimination that black women and/or disabled women
> were facing.
>
>
> [edit] Feminist Criticism of the Anti-Pornography Position
> Other feminists support unregulated access to pornography; some
> describe themselves as sex-positive feminists and criticize anti-
> pornography activism. They take a wide range of views towards existing
> pornography: some view the growth of pornography as a crucial part of
> the sexual revolution and they say has contributed to women's
> liberation; others view the existing pornography industry as
> misogynist and rife with exploitation, but hold that pornography could
> be and sometimes is feminist, and propose to reform or radically alter
> the pornography industry rather than opposing it wholesale. They
> typically oppose the theory of anti-pornography feminism -- which they
> accuse of selective handling of evidence, and sometimes of being
> prudish or as intolerant of sexual difference -- and also the
> political practice of anti-pornography feminism -- which is
> characterized as censorship and accuse of complicity with conservative
> defenses of the oppressive sexual status quo.
>
> Additionally, many point to the hypocrisy of advocating a ban on some
> forms of communication which may often be sexist (namely sexually
> arousing/explicit ones) while not advocating a ban of other, equally
> or more sexist communications (albeit not sexually arousing/explicit)
> "It's a far different criticism to note that porn is sexist. So are
> all commercial media. That's like tasting several glasses of salt
> water and insisting only one of them is salty. The [only] difference
> with porn is that it is people making love, and we live in a world
> that cannot tolerate that image.." notes Susie Bright in her book
> Sexwise. Notable advocates of these and similar positions include
> sociologist Laura Kipnis, columnist and editor Susie Bright, essayist
> and therapist Patrick Califia and porn actress and writer Nina
> Hartley.
>
>
> [edit] By country
>
> [edit] United States
>
> [edit] U.S. Government Commissions on pornography
>
> Meese report coverIn the United States, a 1969 Supreme Court decision
> which held that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy
> of their own homes, STANLEY v. GEORGIA, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), caused
> Congress to fund and President Lyndon B. Johnson to appoint a
> commission to study pornography.
>
> In 1970, the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography
> concluded that "there was insufficient evidence that exposure to
> explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the causation
> of delinquent or criminal behavior." In general, with regard to
> adults, the Commission recommended that legislation "should not seek
> to interfere with the right of adults who wish to do so to read,
> obtain, or view explicit sexual materials." Regarding the view that
> these materials should be restricted for adults in order to protect
> young people from exposure to them, the Commission found that it is
> "inappropriate to adjust the level of adult communication to that
> considered suitable for children." The Supreme Court supported this
> view.[9]
>
> A large portion of the Commission's budget was applied to funding
> original research on the effects of sexually explicit materials. One
> experiment is described in which repeated exposure of male college
> students to pornography "caused decreased interest in it, less
> response to it and no lasting effect," although it appears that the
> satiation effect does wear off eventually ("Once more"). William B.
> Lockhart, Dean of the University of Minnesota Law School and chairman
> of the commission, said that before his work with the commission he
> had favored control of obscenity for both children and adults, but had
> changed his mind as a result of scientific studies done by commission
> researchers. In reference to dissenting commission members Keating and
> Rev. Morton Hill, Lockhart said, "When these men have been forgotten,
> the research developed by the commission will provide a factual basis
> for informed, intelligent policymaking by the legislators of
> tomorrow" [8]
>
> President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to set up a commission
> to study pornography.[9] The result was the appointment by Attorney
> General Edwin Meese in the spring of 1985 of a panel comprised of 11
> members, the majority of whom had established records as anti-
> pornography crusaders.[10]
>
> In 1986, the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, often
> called the Meese Commission, reached the opposite conclusion, advising
> that pornography was in varying degrees harmful. A workshop headed by
> Surgeon General C. Everett Koop provided essentially the only original
> research done by the Meese Commission. Given very little time and
> money to "develop something of substance" to include in the Meese
> Commission's report, it was decided to conduct a closed, weekend
> workshop of "recognized authorities" in the field. All but one of the
> invited participants attended. At the end of the workshop, the
> participants expressed consensus in five areas:
>
> (1) "Children and adolescents who participate in the production of
> pornography experience adverse, enduring effects,"
> (2) "Prolonged use of pornography increases beliefs that less common
> sexual practices are more common,"
> (3) "Pornography that portrays sexual aggression as pleasurable for
> the victim increases the acceptance of the use of coercion in sexual
> relations,"
> (4) "Acceptance of coercive sexuality appears to be related to sexual
> aggression,"
> (5) "In laboratory studies measuring short-term effects, exposure to
> violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women"
> According to Surgeon General Koop, "Although the evidence may be slim,
> we nevertheless know enough to conclude that pornography does present
> a clear and present danger to American public health"[11]
> In 1983, prosecutors in California tried to use pandering and
> prostitution state statutes against a producer of and actors in a
> pornographic movie; the California Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that
> these statutes do not apply to the production of nonobscene
> pornography (People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 41). Some speculate
> that this decision implictly condones pornography and was one of the
> reasons most modern American porn is produced in California.
>
>
> [edit] United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence
> In a line of cases beginning with Roth vs. United States 354 U.S. 476
> (1957), the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
> obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, or by any other
> provisions of the United States Constitution. In explaining its
> position, in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)the US Supreme
> Court found that
>
> The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our
> view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political
> debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the
> grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the
> historic struggle for freedom. It is a "misuse of the great guarantees
> of free speech and free press . . . ." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S.,
> at 645 .
> and in PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) that
>
> In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at
> stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming
> it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to
> juveniles and to passersby. 7 [413 U.S. 49, 58] Rights and interests
> "other than those of the advocates are involved." Breard v.
> Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951). These include the interest of
> the public in the quality of life and the total community environment,
> the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the
> public safety itself... As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a
> "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent
> society . . .," [413 U.S. 49, 60] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184,
> 199 (1964) (dissenting opinion)... The sum of experience, including
> that of the past two decades, affords an ample basis for legislatures
> to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence,
> central to family life, community welfare, and the development of
> human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial
> exploitation of sex.
> The Supreme Court defined obscenity in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S.
> 15 (1973) with the Miller test.
>
>
> [edit] United Kingdom
> The most concerted opposition in the United Kingdom comes from the
> Mediawatch group. This group wishes to criminalise possession of
> pornography.
>
> Possession of pornography has never been an offence in the UK (except
> for child pornography) but in 2006 the UK Government announced plans
> to criminalise possession of "extreme pornography" punishable by 3
> years in jail. The ban is proposed because of the campaign by Liz
> Longhurst after the death of her daughter, Jane Longhurst. Graham
> Coutts was convicted of her murder (although the conviction was
> overturned in July 2006 [10]). The campaign blamed his actions on an
> addiction to extreme pornography. Coutts had viewed extreme, violent
> internet pornography, particularly strangulation fetish sites. Liz
> Longhurst's campaign was backed by some MPs. A 50,000-signature
> petition was collected against sites "promoting violence against women
> in the name of sexual gratification". [11] The move is supported by
> anti-pornography groups Mediawatch and Mediamarch but resisted by
> umbrella group Backlash, who are supported by organizations
> representing the BDSM, civil rights and anti-censorship feminist
> communities. Many of those responding to the Government consultation,
> especially police organizations, felt that the proposal should go much
> further, and that tighter restriction on all pornography should be
> imposed. However, the majority of responses to the consultation said
> there should be no changes in the law. [12]
>
> The British government exerts a much greater degree of control over
> pornography than is common in other countries. Hardcore material was
> not legalised until 2000, almost 30 years after the United States and
> the rest of Europe. Filmed material still has to be certified by the
> British Board of Film Classification in order to be legally supplied.
> This makes the UK's media one of the most regulated liberal
> democracies.[12]
>
>
> [edit] South African Parliamentary Commission on pornography
> The South African government is reviewing the Films and Publications
> Act, which prohibits both virtual and real child pornography. Real
> child pornography involves the use of real children involved in sexual
> conduct while virtual child pornography is made up of a number of
> different types of erotic material that do not involve the use of
> actual children (including paintings, cartoons, sketches, digitally-
> created images and written descriptions as well as depictions of
> adults represented as under the age of 18). A recent submissionto the
> South Parliament argued that real child pornography ought to be
> prohibited while virtual child pornography ought not to be prohibited.
> The submission process, which involved discussion between members of
> the public, non-governmental organizations and members of parliament,
> was recorded by the Parliamentary Monitoring Group.
>