A weekly look at
a topic important to us
■
People will grow up and see adult images anyway
■■.■■
Ya gotta love America.
We’re probably the only nation
that is as open with gratuitous vio
lence as we are ashamed of nudity
and erotica.
For many months, the state of
Utah had a giant billboard on F-80
that read “Real men don’t use
pornography.”
Now, Utah is going one step
further, as the state has created a
“pornography czar.” His or her
whole job will be to “draft a new
state definition of obscenity, help
local governments ‘restrict, sup
press or eliminate’ pornography
and provide information ‘about the
dangers of obscenity,”’ according
to a story on http://www.CNN.com.
“The dangers of obscenity”?
Are you kidding me? Has the
whole state of Utah suddenly
decided to overreact to this?
Maybe it’s just that one phrase
that really gets me - “the dangers
of obscenity.” Seriously, no four
letter words will jump you in a dark
alleyway and take your wallet;
there are no four-letter words that
will break into your house and
twist your children’s minds at their
very exposure, turning them into
depraved juvenile delinquents.
It’s an idea that’s been around
for centuries, ever since we started
repressing carnal desire long ago.
Go ask Socrates about corruption
of the young.
Inis is something that never
ceases to amaze me, how much
people are disgusted by the very act
that continues the existence of the
species.
The 1960s were a revolt against
the stifling 1940s and 1950s. And
now it seems as if the pendulum is
starting to swing back the other
way. Pretty soon, we’ll be repressed
just like generations before us. I
quake in fear ahead of time.
I’ve heard all the arguments
before - they, too, are nothing new.
The main argument is that
pornography leads to loss of inno
cence in youth. This is just plain
stupid because the young grow up,
and we can’t do anything to stop
that. Along with the loss of inno
cence of youth, however, comes the
corruption of youth, according to
this argument. To put it simply, “I
can’t control my children, so I want
to make sure no one else can
either.”
The head of Utahchapter of
the conservative Eagle Forum,
Gayle Ruzicka, had this to say,
according to http://www.CNN.com:
“Pornography has suddenly
become a huge, huge business -
beyond anything we ever imagined
- and it’s as addictive as drugs.
People are asking for help.”
Suuuure they are.
I’d bet money that 99 percent of
the people asking for help are not
the ones using the porn. The people
who are asking for help are people
who are offended by pornography
for whatever reason and want to
“help” other people.
Swell.
Some of these people say
they’re uncomfortable with naked
photos. They say pornography
invades their houses, and that those
who use it are depraved, violent,
savage and despicable.
We love them right back.
.. The raw fact is that these people
are letting their children roam
freely on the Internet. It’s not a san
itized frontier, folks, and it hasn’t
been cleared for sensitive eyes.
If you want your children
exploring the Internet, be prepared
to cope with what they find. If you
don’t want that responsibility, don’t
let ’em on the machine.
Do you have the right to profan
ity? This is a tricky question, one
which the Supreme Court has bat
tled with over and over again. I
took a civil liberties course, and
I’m convinced there is no real
answer, according to the law.
Someone once said, “I’d rather
have my child watch a film of two
people making love than two
people trying to Kill one
another.” That’s one of
the best statements I’ve
heard on the matter.
But, more than that,
if you want to have
freedom, you have to J
be prepared to pay the 1
price. That price is :: J
being uncomfort- mam
able with seeing
and hearing things
you aon t agree •
with. It’s difficult
to take.
I love violent
entertainment
(I’m a John Woo
junkie). I’ve
looked at
pornography
before. (But
then again, who *
hasn’t?) I am not
a violent person,
nor do I think of
women as sex
objects.
If I did think
of women as
such, I’d blame
advertising
before I blamed
pom. You watch
a jeans com
mercial and
tell me
what
they’re
selling. You
watch a
Victoria’s
Seci
and
who
trying to
to.
Some of the measures in Utah
make sense, like banning porno
graphic Web sites at public
libraries, but the idea of having a
“pom czar” is going to lead to
encroachments on freedom of
speech. Utah has to know that
going into it.
America is changing, and some
people simply don’t want to change
with it. While the Puritan people
have every right to stay in their
houses and avoid seeing this kind
of thing, everyone else has the right
to buy into it wholeheartedly.
One man’s fear is another man’s
art.
Pornography is “dangerous”
only when it’s abused, like so many
things in our nation..Anything can
be used to excess.
Child pornography is already
illegal and rightfully so - the argu
ment that it’s hurting children only
holds water if the parents aren’t
doing their jobs.
If you can’t do your job as a
parent, you have no right to com
plain. If the person using the pom
is an adult, you have no right to tell
him or her that you know better.
So tell me again, why do we
need a pom czar?
Cliff Hicks is a senior news-editorial
major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
Scott Eastman/DN
of male Utah pornography czar
“We hold these truths to be self-evi
dent, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the con
sent of the governed.”
— Declaration of Independence
“I myself have never been able to
fmd out precisely what feminism is: I
only know that people call me a feminist
whenever I express sentiments that dif
ferentiate me from a doormat.”
— Rebecca West
I’ll keep it short.
Utah wants a pom czar.
The state Legislature approved the
czar position. The governor signed it
into law.
The czar is in charge of establishing
a definition of indecency in the state,
helping to repress pornography and pro
viding information on the dangers of
obscenity.
Not long ago, Utah had a big bill
board on its Wyoming border. It
screamed: “Real Men Don’t Use Pom,”
because men use pom exponentially
more than women.
The Utah Legislature is 79 percent
male. The Utah Senate is 84 percent
male. The governor is male. And make
no mistake, a male will be Utah’s pom
czar. And if it is challenged by the
American Civil Liberties Union, the
Supreme Court, on which seven of the
nine members are male, will preside
over the case.
Despite our advances in gender
equality, our Constitution remains under
the control of the alpha universe. The
powers that battle against pom are uni
laterally defenders of a patriarchal con
struct And those who would have their
pom rights restricted are largely male
users.
What do women think?
Do they care?
Or don’t they?
Do they mind being objectified?
Is this, really, any man’s business?
How can we reconcile the differ
ences in opinion?
And how do we differentiate
between a woman’s actual opinion and
one offered to her through paternal
edict?
Is freedom of expression the real
issue? Or is this really a juvenile battle
over whether or not men can jerk
off to the sight of a naked
woman?
Shouldn’t these questions,
of fundamental value to the
relationship between men and
women, be considered before
we defer to the forefathers,
who didn’t even allow
women to vote?
Samuel McKewon
is a junior politi
cal science
major and a
Daily
Nebraskan
senior
editor.