opinion

Another Attempt to Blame Pornography

And round and round the censorship wheel goes.

Utah state Sen. Todd Weiler is just the latest to try and shape the marketplace of ideas to his own superstitious views of morality. Weiler proposed S.C.R. 9, seeking to have pornography declared a public health hazard.

And round and round the censorship wheel goes. Utah state Sen. Todd Weiler is just the latest to try and shape the marketplace of ideas to his own superstitious views of morality. Weiler proposed S.C.R. 9, seeking to have pornography declared a public health hazard.

The resolution is hilarious — or would be, if it did not take aim at our most important civil liberties, in the name of promoting a narrow view of morality. A favorite target of mine.

This Resolution:

  • Recognizes that pornography is a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms; and,
  • Recognizes the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

Pause for a moment as you recall that Utahans consume more online pornography than any other Americans. After the laugh track plays, you might want to be just a little concerned.

Weiler’s theories are not exactly novel. In the late 1800s, Anthony Comstock convinced Congress to pass an Act for the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.”

This later came to be called “The Comstock Law.” Comstock devoted his life to defending the world from the plague of “immorality,” from contraceptives to works of art. Comstock went after all forms of sexual education, nude paintings by French modern artists, and even masterpieces like George Bernard Shaw’s play “Mrs. Warren’s Profession” and James Joyce’s “Ulysses.”

Before we laugh at the memory of the uptight Victorian moralizer, we should remember that Comstock boasted that he had convicted more than 3,000 people and destroyed “160 tons of obscene literature.” 3,000 lives ruined because it chafed someone’s narrow view of “morality.”

The Comstock Laws began to crumble as the light of the First Amendment began to shine on them. In a landmark decision, U.S. v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” judge Woolsey wrote “If one does not wish to associate with such folk as Joyce describes, that is one’s own choice. In order to avoid indirect contact with them one may not wish to read ‘Ulysses’; that is quite understandable.”

Unfortunately, this did not exorcise Comstock’s ghost. He continued to haunt freedom of expression — with anti-pornography propaganda becoming the stuff of today’s comedy.

The Oregon Historical Society just uncovered a campy “Reefer Madness”-style video, “Pages of Death” telling the fantastic tale of Paul Halliday, who “hung out reading pornography at Baker’s Variety Store until he couldn’t stand it any longer and murdered a girl in a whipped up frenzy of smut-inspired rage.” It ends with a call to action, imploring parents that the next victim of a sex-crazed pornography consumer could be their little girl.

Clearly Comstock and “Pages of Death” peek at us from behind “conservative” positions. But, the very theories that they espoused came back, yet again, in the 1980s, when feminist academics began to ironically resurrect the Comstock laws.

I say “ironically” because the Comstock laws were used not only to punish smut, but to punish distribution of information about birth control, abortion, and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

But with no sense of irony, the Left picked up the torch of the Right and in Indianapolis, they passed a law that said that the mere existence of pornography (as they defined it) was a civil rights violation.

Fortunately, the First Amendment did not permit these laws to remain on the books, at least not in the U.S.

In American Booksellers v. Hudnut, a court threw them out as clearly content-based restrictions on First Amendment protected content, writing “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message [or] its ideas.”

When John Ashcroft came into office, his Justice Department was tasked with “cleaning up” pornography, and it dutifully complied — prosecuting, and jailing, Americans for no worse crime than producing movies that the government did not like.

The crime was “obscenity,” which is the only crime you can commit without your conduct being illegal. All books and films are presumptively First Amendment protected. That protection is only stripped away if a jury watches the film and determines that it appeals to the prurient interest, that it describes sex in a patently offensive way, and “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Once the jury makes that determination, then the work is no longer protected — but the American who made it or sold it is carted off to prison.

And now, we have this “obscene” tradition being taken up by Weiler — again from the conservative side of things. His proposed law sounds almost as if it were lifted right from “Pages of Death.”

It blames pornography for stunted brain development, emotional and medical illnesses, deviant arousal, harmful sexual behaviors and even biological addiction. He did leave out “and it will definitely make you murder little girls,” but if you read the resolution enough, you can hear that in the background.

Even if you don’t enjoy pornography — even if you despise it — this should trouble you. If you think not, remember that when the government tries to interfere in the marketplace of ideas, we all lose.

Remember the Indianapolis ordinance discussed above? Its proponents were rabid feminists, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. They saw it defeated in court here in the U.S., but they also pressed for such laws in Canada, where they remain on the books.

However, rather than ending hardcore pornography north of the border, they have primarily been used to suppress gay material. This was a far cry from the mission these feminist moralizers sought to promote.

And if you think you don’t like “obscene,” material, you need only look at 18 U.S.C. § 1462, which provides that even talking about abortion is, technically “obscene.” (Although no conviction under that would ever stand).

The lesson from that is to be careful when you call for, or even acquiesce to, restrictions on free expression. You never know when that will backfire on your point of view.

In Abrams v. U.S., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a passage that ultimately became the cornerstone of a liberty-based view toward free speech, and which became the dominant theory in First Amendment jurisprudence.

In Abrams, Holmes gave us “the marketplace of ideas.” And what a brilliant theory it was.

Holmes noted that if someone was completely confident in the belief that they were right, then it would seem logical that they would want to suppress dissenting views. “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.” Those who wish to wipe out pornography have no doubt that they are right, but they are precisely wrong.

Holmes, on the other hand, was right when he wrote: “[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market .... That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.”

Weiler’s proposal is directly at odds with our theory of the Constitution. It belongs in that discredited junk pile of ideas right on top of the rotting pages of Comstock and MacKinnon’s warmed over dreck, as it even lacks the campy humor of “Pages of Death.”

Marc J. Randazza is the managing partner at Randazza Legal Group. The firm has offices in Las Vegas and Miami, both specializing in intellectual property, First Amendment and Internet law. He can be reached at info@randazza.com.

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More Articles

profile

WIA Profile: Laurel Bencomo

Born in Cambridge, England but raised in Spain, Laurel Bencomo initially chose to study business at the University of Barcelona simply because it felt familiar — both of her parents are entrepreneurs. She went on to earn a master’s degree in sales and marketing management at the EADA Business School, while working in events for a group of restaurants in Barcelona.

Women In Adult ·
profile

Gregory Dorcel on Building Upon His Brand's Signature Legacy

“Whether reflected in the storyline or the cast or even the locations, the entertainment we deliver is based on fantasy,” he elaborates. “Our business is not, and never has been, reality. People who are buying our content aren’t expecting reality, or direct contact with stars like you can have with OnlyFans,” he says.

Jeff Dana ·
opinion

How to Turn Card Brand Compliance Into Effective Marketing

In the adult sector, compliance is often treated as a gauntlet of mandatory checkboxes. While it’s true that those boxes need to be ticked and regulations must be followed, sites that view compliance strictly as a chore risk missing out on a bigger opportunity.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

A Look at the Latest AI Tools for Online Safety

One of the defining challenges for adult businesses is helping to combat the proliferation of illegal or nonconsensual content, as well as preventing minors from accessing inappropriate or harmful material — all the more so because companies or sites unable or unwilling to do so may expose themselves to significant penalties and put their users at risk.

Gavin Worrall ·
opinion

Know When to Drop Domains You Don't Need

Do you own too many domains? If so, you’re not alone. Like other things we accumulate, every registered domain means something to us. Sometimes a domain represents a dream project we have always wanted to do but have never quite gotten around to.

Juicy Jay ·
opinion

Understanding 'Indemnification' in Business Contracts

Clients frequently tell me that they didn’t understand — or sometimes, even read — certain portions of a contract because those sections appeared to be just “standard legalese.” They are referring, of course, to the specialized language used in legal documents, including contracts.

Corey D. Silverstein ·
opinion

5 Steps to Make Card Brand Compliance Easy

It’s February, the month of love. Just once, wouldn’t it be great to receive a little candy heart asking you to “Be Mine” instead of more forms to fill out and documents to submit? Of course, regulatory compliance does have one important thing in common with romance: Fail to put in the work, and your relationship is likely over — your relationship with the card brands, that is.

Cathy Beardsley ·
opinion

Protecting Your Business With a Data Backup Strategy That Works

If the subject of backups sounds boring to you, maybe this will grab your attention: Without properly implemented backups, your business is vulnerable to partial or even catastrophic data loss, which could screw your company and tank your income.

Brad Mitchell ·
profile

WIA Profile: Paulita Pappel

Raised in Spain, surrounded by a predominantly Catholic community, Paulita Pappel grew up being told porn was bad. When she became a feminist, she was told her fascination with porn was not in line with her desire to empower women. This inner conflict made her feel like there was something wrong with her.

Women In Adult ·
opinion

Complying With New Age Assurance and Content Moderation Standards

For adult companies operating in today’s increasingly regulated digital landscape, maintaining compliance with card brand requirements is essential — not only to safeguard your operations but also to ensure a safe and transparent environment for users.

Gavin Worrall ·
Show More