On morality and censorship ...

I'm competing in a law school competition in Minneapolis in February. The topic? Whether or not limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is constitutional. I feel like I'm on Prop 8/Gay Marriage overload. Multiple speakers, panels, and education conferences about this issue have been hosted by the law school over the last few months. It is, after all, the great constitutional and legal question of the decade. So I should be thrilled I get to be part of the discussion. And that I'm required to analyze and argue both sides. But for now, I'm weary of it. There's only so much inner conflict this student can handle. So I was a bit disappointed when I was assigned that particular competition, and not the one discussing immigration reform or student speech rights. I mean, really, who wouldn't want to argue on behalf of a hypothetical 14-year-old blogger who made critical comments about her principal?

Anyway, researching different viewpoints about sexual morality led to finding one blog post that led me to THIS blog post and then finally to THIS web site.

I like this idea. I've always felt a sort of tension between my own standards of what I choose to view in my own home and my support of the First Amendment. I've also defended the rights of people to look at whatever they want as long as it doesn't involve crimes against children. And I don't just mean in theory. In college I got called just about everything you can think of (I think liberal slut was my favorite -- especially because I was working on my mission papers when I got that e-mail) for allowing a lingerie ad to continue to run in the college paper I was editor of. By opposing censorship and protecting the rights of people to look at what I might consider smut, I believe I am protecting my own right to view things that other people may disagree with -- like minority religious or political viewpoints. I also concede that while some of what I consider porn is absolutely trashy, some of it is in a context others may consider art. And I'm not about the government getting involved in telling me or anyone else what is, and isn't, art.

So this approach ... reducing the demand for porn by talking about the effects it has instead of calling for reduction of supply through censorship ... appeals to me. It's felt like I've either had to accept pornography as "healthy and positive" or join ultra-right-wing groups calling for the prosecution of Playboy. I wasn't comfortable with either option. Providing an additional voice into the "marketplace of ideas" discussion (rather than trying to drown out someone else's) while simultaneously providing support for those that are seeing pornography use damaging their real life and human relationships. Sounds like a win-win to me.

I'm not totally sold on this organization. They look pretty new and upstart. And I'm just enough of a skeptic to withhold endorsement until I know who exactly is backing and funding them. Where exactly does the money from their "Donate Now" button go?

I did like these talking points from their site: "We are fighting against the demand for pornography. Through education, we believe people will no longer want to use porn and those with addictive behavior will seek help from professionals. AND "[W]e want to infuse more sexiness into the world. Two committed people together, that is sexy. A lonely, addicted person sitting in front of a computer is not sexy."

I am not on board with government censorship. I am, however, totally on board with creating a culture that doesn't demean women into sex objects and celebrates fidelity in both thought and action.

Thoughts?