Question

• How should we define pornography without inhibiting freedom of expression? How do we enforce such a definition without enforcing censorship?

Answer 1

Pornography

Pornography is the portrayal of a sexual subject for the purpose of sexual arousal. A variety of media has been used since ages to present pornography.

Freedom of Expression

Ability to express oneself without fear of oppression. When a person is able to express one's thoughts in words or otherwise and is not oppressed while doing so. The ability to hold an opinion even though it may not be popular or widely accepted. An equal plausibility to voice for moral opinions where the largely held moral opinion is otherwise. All these are freedom of expression.

Censorship

Definition as is: Censorship is the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by an authority established for the purpose. Usual authorities are governments, religious and activist groups, mass media. To put it in simple words, controlling or restricting access to certain materials by the general public or a group of people.

How should we define pornography without inhibiting freedom of expression? How do we enforce such a definition without enforcing censorship?

Censorship on pornography or sexually explicit materials come under 'Moral censorship'. Censorship itself is never spoken about without talking about freedom of speech. In this case, freedom of expression. There have been arguments for both sides of the coin as to why or why not pornography be banned (or restricted). The common reasons cited have been an infringement on a person's rights to do as they please in private, the need for government to enforce such a practice which in a way represents dictatorship rather than democracy, people losing their religious resolve and becoming promiscuous (which is largely frowned upon by religious groups) and other similar reasons. And the reasons cited for a need for such a censorship has been the degrading, violent and largely unnatural content being created the day in and day out in the pornography industry. It has become an industry in itself where just like in other industries there are causes to worry about exploitation. Arguments about how the minds of future citizens get influenced by pornography and how it changes the way women are viewed in general.

The need for censorship, in general, has come into existence due to the nature of harm it inflicts on a person, or a group of people. In the case of pornography, to what extent has 'harm' taken place? This will have to be studied. There has to be enough evidence to support the argument that pornography has indeed caused 'great harm' and it has to be proven beyond doubt. This should, in turn, justify the restrictions or censorship that pornography should be subjected to.

There's the other side, that defends that everyone has a right to moral privacy. This too is like freedom of speech (or) freedom of expression. Unless and until it is proven beyond doubt with sufficient evidence that the private consumption of pornography by a person is the cause of great harm to someone or the society as a whole, there cannot be restrictions put on porn by judicial authority.

The interesting case of child pornography comes up here: Everyone agrees that child pornography is inhuman and should be banned. This has been agreed by people who make both of the arguments - the need for or the lack of need for censorship because people understand that 'consent' is something that a child is incapable of, which is the crux of pornographic content. But, an act where consenting adults dress up like school kids and do an act of pornography is not banned. There has to be enough evidence to suggest that the consumption of such material has led someone to get into child abuse.

So how else does one define pornography without inhibiting or enforcing censorship? Public education campaigns, advertisements, meetings, plays, dramas, movies, print media, meetings and one on one discussions pointing out the ill effects of abusing the usage of pornography. All these can be used to drive the point home. Highlighting things such as a lack of forming real relationships or lack of holding any such relationships successfully for a long time, unreal expectations from the sexual partner, loss of virility - all these have been linked to excessive usage of pornography. Educating people without infringing on their 'choices' is important.

If a censorship comes into place, then, there are higher risks. It shall be a pandora box opened. Each one of us construes moral limits differently. What may be pornography to me, may not be pornography to you. So who decides what content should be banned and what should not? This will cascade to print media and slowly leach into things which we did not intend to censor in the first place. Which is why the state shall think long before enforcing such censorship.

Only when all other avenues of individual persuasion have been lost, the state can think of choosing to judicially restrict certain things, pornography in this case. 'Free will' is always important and an individual should be allowed to exercise it.

Pornography as such, cannot be defined. It is a matter of free will and as long as you and I are separate individuals with different minds, what you consume and what I consume shall remain different. It is important to highlight and discuss the pros and cons of consumption of pornography and the power that the pornography industry hold in moulding the minds of people. People who produce content should keep that in mind, so any such definition of pornography should begin with the 'creators' of pornography and not the consumers.