Pornography Law Goes Too Far
The first round of papers has been filed in a federal appeals court in San Francisco challenging the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. At the same time, the new movie version of Vladimir Nabokov’s book “Lolita,” starring Jeremy Irons, is opening all over Europe, even though it is not scheduled for release here.
These events are connected.
The United States long has had laws prohibiting sexual abuse of minors and trafficking in child pornography. The Supreme Court allows state and federal officials wide authority to protect minors from the sexual exploitation involved in making pornographic material with actual children. In 1996, Congress decided that this wasn’t enough, so it added prohibitions. The new law outlaws images that appear to be of children, even if they are not. So even if a movie like “Lolita” was filmed with an adult body double, it apparently would be prohibited if it contains simulated sexual conduct that appears to involve a minor. If you recall, that’s what “Lolita” is about: a man’s sexual obsession with a pubescent girl.
The theory behind the law is that such images encourage pedophilia. But sexual abuse of minors is already illegal.
Human motivation is complicated. There’s no persuasive evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to sexually explicit material and rape or sexual abuse or between viewing violence and committing violent crimes. Savage acts (sexual and other, against children and adults) have been undertaken under the influence and in the name of religion, but that doesn’t mean religion causes savagery.
Disturbing images cannot be prohibited because of the fear that they will induce someone to engage in undesirable or criminal conduct. Otherwise, legislatures could decide that movies about armed resistance might encourage disaffected people to take to the streets with guns or that pictures of lynching might encourage bigots to act on their racist beliefs. It is a basic tenet of our constitutional system that government can control people’s behavior, not their thoughts.
There’s no denying that words and images have power to affect how people think and act. But suppression of “bad” ideas or images, even if it were possible to agree on what those might be, does not result in the disappearance of those ideas or of acts premised on them. Ironically, some opponents of pornography who endorse censorship have had their own antipornography literature censored.
Silencing stories like “Lolita” will not eliminate pedophilia, which has existed throughout time, in permissive cultures and repressive ones. The film could help us understand something about sexual obsession. Will it? I wouldn’t know. I can’t see it.
Not every sexual image involving a minor should be suppressed. Some serve important and legitimate goals. In its indiscriminate approach, Congress may have opened the door to creating a whole class of taboo subjects. It could sweep away sex education materials, serious artistic work with sexual content and pictures about other cultures and eras. If it is upheld, Americans may have to go to Europe to appreciate fully the value of the 1st Amendment.