I keep hearing about people getting arrested for downloading child porn, such as this guy:
http://www.channel3000.com/news/stories/news-20000428-161100.html
What is porn? Have the courts come up with a legal definition? I always thought porn was something that was undefined, and therefore not illegal. Like Sen. Jessie Helms said, “I know it when I see it, but I can’t define it”.
por·nog·ra·phy
n.
Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence.
Pornography is any sexually-explicit material of which the authorities disapprove, as distinct from erotica (which they tolerate) and high art (which they admire). It is generally a class-based distinction. For more information, please see Bound and Gagged by Laura Kipnis.
So then are Madonna’s songs and CD covers porn? They certainly are sexually explicit? TV ads for Victoria’s Secret? Guess Jeans? Most of what’s on MTV? Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?
And for child porn, are high school cheerleader’s outfits child porn? They certainly are sexually explicit.
In the US, at least, “pornography” is not a legal term.
Actually that was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, and he wasn’t talking about pornography per se - rather, he was stating that he could not define the point at which porn crosses the line between (protected) expression and (unprotected) obscenity.
Personally I prefer a definition whose author appears to have been lost to history: “Erotica is what turns me on, pornography is what turns you on” 
BTW, there IS a legal definition of obscenity, and reading it you start to understand where Stewart was coming from:
In practice, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to declare ANYTHING obscene under this standard. The law seems to be mainly a case of them wanting to retain the option to do so.
Most of what I’ve seen is not about power or violence. It’s about a poke in the whiskers. It’s unfortunate that many people have this association, much in the same way that there is a false association between gays and pedophilia.
Where did you get this definition?
I would say pornography is any material consisting of words and/or images designed for sexual arousal that reach a level of explicitness whereby a given society deems they should not be viewed openly in public, with the possible exception of very specific allowable places (strip clubs, X-rated theaters). The decision is based on the generally accepted moral principles of the society.
Yeah, it’s full of holes and somewhat arbitrary. So is our current standard.
And by the way, Helms isn’t the one who said that. It was U.S Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who, in an opinion on a 1964 case, made this comment on obscenity: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”
A simulpost! Fie!
I got it from http://www.dictionary.com
That definition is mighty close to one that Bill Hicks referenced: “Pornography is anything that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought.”
Bill went on to say: “I got news for ya…that defines every television advertisement I’ve ever seen.”
I agree the dictionary definition given by Cosmin would mean a lot of what’s on the tv and radio is porn, so it doesn’t seem like a good definition.
The definition given by Milo and the def of obscenity given by ruadh seem better, but they are full of loopholes and interpretations. So, I still don’t see how anybody can be arrested for violating porn laws. It is just not well defined by the US legal system.
Sorry I got the quote’s author wrong. Maybe Jessie Helms was quoting Potter Stewart when I heard it.
If you wouldnt want your 18 year old son or daughter* to see it, then its Obscene… well, thats my definition…
*substitute whatever relative you wish here…
Heh. By that definition, obscenity includes the Spice Girls, Rikki Lake, Teletubbies, Pat Robertson, When Animals Attack…
Hmm… That doesn’t strike me as a very good definition. Let’s whip out the old Merriam-Webster’s and see what it has to say:
por·nog·ra·phy noun
[list=1]
[li]the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement[/li][li]material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement[/li][li]the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction the pornography of violence[/li][/list=1]
I think the key phrase here, as Milo mentioned earlier, is “intended to cause sexual excitement”. I would also argue that the introduction of a profit motive makes a big difference. I’d be a lot less likely to consider the naked pictures you take of your girlfriend pornography if you didn’t try to sell them.
So what was the purpose of this thread?..Are you suggesting that since pornography cannot be implicitly defined that people who exploit children for their own and others sexual gratification should not be held accountable for these actions? I’m wondering if that is what you were hinting. Perhaps then society needs to rename what it is these people are doing so as not to enlist the aid of well meaning wordsmiths like yourself that would even suggest the definition of what they are doing is not subject to legal recourse.
Needs2know
“Perhaps then society needs to rename what it is these people are doing…”
That’s part of what I was suggesting. To a bigger degree, I am saying that anti-porn legislation and attempts at it seem to be coming up a lot lately, such as the Internet Decency Act. However, the term porn is hard to define, which is why some of these attempted laws are failing. Child porn is an extreme case where people have strong feelings against it. However, even in this case it seems like the law is not well defined.
I see nothing wrong with me or wordsmiths questioning people getting arrested for violating laws that are not well defined or arbitrarily applied.
What would an appropriate term for this type of crime be called? You are not actually suggesting that people who beat off to pictures of children and pass them around shouldn’t be a crime are you? Perhaps we should call it child sexual explotation or something similar. Would that satisfy your need for clarification?
I have no problem with what an adult of legal age decides to do with his or her body. Pose for sexually explicit photos, bare your private parts on camera with multiple partners till your hearts content. But children should not be used in this manner, and it matters very little to me what it is called as long as it remains a crime.
Needs2know
Actually, I am not saying the term needs to be changed. I am saying the term needs to be clarified. If you change the term and call it ‘child sexual explotation’, it is still just as ambiguous as to what that means.
“You are not actually suggesting that people who beat off to pictures of children and pass them around shouldn’t be a crime are you?”
Actually, it ISN’T a crime to beat off to pics of children. Nor is it a crime to pass the pics around. As long as the pics are of kids that are not considered porn (clothed, etc.). It becomes a crime when a person posseses kiddie porn. So, the question is still, when do the pics become considered porn?
Yes, actually I would. People who rape children should be criminals. People who look at pictures of children are doing it all by themselves.
Not if they are obtaining nude or erotic pictures of children and circulating them. Isn’t that what we are discussing? That is and should remain a crime.
Needs2know