Unsupported by Evidence : Anti-pornography bill could chill dramatic expression in arts

Violent sexual crimes against women and children often are portrayed on screen and in print. Some people see such depictions as merely pandering to banal, even prurient popular interests; others instead see perpetuation of violence--the portrayal of crimes begetting actual crimes.

That latter connection--between what people watch or read and what they then do--is anything but certain. That’s why a bill now before the Senate Judiciary Committee is not likely to reduce the rate of violent sexual crime. But it is, instead, certain to profoundly chill dramatic expression of all sorts.

The Pornography Victims Compensation Act, sponsored by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), would allow victims of sex crimes to collect damages from the writers, producers and distributors of sexually explicit materials that victims allege were a “substantial cause” of the crimes against them. It means that virtually anyone who participates in the creation or dissemination of ideas through books, magazines, TV, movies, art posters or music recordings could be held civilly liable simply because the person who committed a sexual crime saw, heard or read their creation.

The standard of proof in lawsuits growing from this bill is indefensibly vague: A crime victim who sued would merely need to show that a defendant “should have reasonably foreseen that such material would create an unreasonable risk of such a crime.”

The legislation presumes a direct link between mere exposure to sexually explicit material and violent sex crimes. But existing evidence indicates that depictions of violence per se are more likely to lead to such aggression than are depictions of explicit sexuality.

This bill would do very little good to prevent terrible crimes. And it could surely do great harm.