An Issue of Consent

The new campaign against Playboy magazine raises disturbing questions.

We can understand the motivation of the religious groups, including both Protestants and Roman Catholics, that are sponsoring the campaign. They are offended by the nudity of the photographs, by the explicit sexuality of illustrations and text in this and other publications. They argue that there is an exploitation and degradation of the women whose pictures are published and an erosion of moral values in the emphasis on sexual relations unrelated to a deeper interpersonal relationship and responsibility. There is much that is beyond debate in what they say in support of their views. And they have an unchallenged right, perhaps even a duty, to influence those who share their views to choose other reading material, to refuse to buy or read Playboy.

But these groups have not been content with seeking to discourage patronage of Playboy by their own adherents. They are campaigning to impose their views on all people by denying access to any publication that they judge pornographic. They are using the threat of economic boycott and other pressures to drive Playboy from newsstands. And in so doing they place at risk some precious freedoms in this nation.

There are fundamental protections that must be enforced by the state. Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger M. Mahony is right in demanding the protection of children from deviant materials, and there is provision in the law for that. There are laws to protect children from being used in the preparation of sexually oriented materials, and those laws must be rigorously enforced. Adults also have a right to be spared the intrusion of sexually explicit materials into their lives if that is their wish. However, when the state or groups of individuals set themselves up as judges of what may and what may not be read by other adults, and when they seek to impose that judgment through legal or economic means to restrict distribution, a fundamental freedom has been placed in jeopardy.

One person’s pornography is another’s art. One community’s acceptable standard is scorned in another. So the courts wisely have made this an issue of consent for adults--they the best judges, their decisions the best arbiter of the marketplace of publications.