Why We Should Not Ban Pornography

Thinus Oosthuizen (“Freedom of speech vs destructive pornography”, Brief Points, July 14) questions whether freedom of speech applies to “irresponsible views” and lambasts the Argus for having “slipped up on your responsibility to prevent the promotion of the destructive evil of pornography” – as.

               
First off, freedom of speech applies to irresponsible, ignorant, arrogant and any other kind of opinion provided it doesn’t incite racial hatred or violence. People should be allowed to, if I may misquote Steve Biko, “say what they want”, no matter how misguided or narrow their views are. We can choose to ignore them if they are irrelevant or engage those views in debate if we disagree.

               
Secondly, the Argus has a responsibility to report the news fairly and accurately, without any bias or agenda. If they took a stance either for or against pornography without allowing us to hear all aspects of the argument then I’m afraid they would lose all credibility.

               
So should we welcome a ban on the viewing of pornography like we had pre-democracy? There is no question that to an extent pornography does objectify and exploit women, but I disagree with the belief that seeing a bit of boob on etv is more harmful to children than, say, watching WWE wrestling. And if I’m right, then would our next step in the fight to protect our “vulnerable children” be the banning of wrestling?

Is Oosthuizen’s objection really to this treatment of women as objects or does his outrage come from some old-fashioned belief that nakedness is shameful? His writing smacks of some sense of moral superiority and high ground; we see this in the way he attacks Jane Duncan’s character with words like “irresponsible” and calls her arguments “incomprehensibly stupid”.

               
In 2008 the ANC proposed a ‘media tribunal’ that was staunchly opposed by all in the industry. In that same year they also drafted a ‘Protection of Information Bill’ in order to muzzle the press on topics such as corruption in the name of state security. Any victory against freedom of speech would be welcomed by many in our government.

               
The genius in the government proposing a ban on pornography is the lack of public outcry as people tend to focus on the pornography aspect and not the limitation of our rights. Those who should oppose it will fear being seen as perverts and the image of a strong anti-pornography majority will falsely appear. If a ban of this nature is imposed on us it will open the door a little more for the limitation of our freedoms.

Ironically, with the scrapping of the adult content pay-channel, a victory for the conservatives, they may just have shot themselves unwittingly in the foot. Surely a better way would be to regulate this “evil” and only allow it on channels that are specifically subscribed to by choice. That way the protection of our children would rightly be the responsibility of parents and not the state, who are more concerned with controlling what we are allowed to see and eventually what we are allowed to think.

               
Oosthuizen is right about one thing, “you cannot be neutral – it is much too important”.