Our Government: Powerless to Outlaw Guns, Able to Outlaw Movies

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the government has virtually no right to regulate guns in Washington, D.C.

You may also have read about yet another obscenity bust in Florida, which ended in a deal that puts more people in jail for selling videos of adults having (consensual, enthusiastic) sex with adults.

If you expect logic from America about sex, the juxtaposition is bewildering. If you’re more realistic, it’s simply enraging.

Our Constitution says (2nd Amendment) that
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Our Constitution also says (1st Amendment) that
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

To put it simply, Americans can own guns, and Americans can express themselves as they wish.

So if the government can’t restrict the first, why is it allowed to restrict the second? Oh, for a similar decision affirming our unrestricted right to free expression!

The right to watch what we want on TV without FCC interference; to buy adult porn without FBI or Andy-of-Mayberry sheriffs busting producers; to see strippers close up and nude without county ordinances requiring tape measures and pasties; to enjoy swingers clubs without city councils closing them by inventing health emergencies out of thin air.

We’re used to reasonable limits on our rights of free expression, embodied in the famous prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded theater. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the analogy in banning (for better or worse) anti-war leaflets during World War I as presenting a “clear and present danger” to the Republic. A restriction on speech was legitimate if and only if it prevented an obvious threat to public safety.

So why can’t you show a picture of a fire in a crowded theater? What about yelling “fuck” in a nearly empty theater? Or your home theater?

Obscenity law started centuries ago not focused on sex, but on power: as a tool to prevent people from making fun of their ruler, opposing religion, or inciting resistance to the state. Censorship protected rulers from the people.

In this century the goal of censorship has become protecting people from themselves and each other. But inevitably, when government attempts to protect people from each other—or from themselves—it’s an expression of political ideology.

Our government has decided what’s not good for us—our sexuality. Sex is the political agenda of our federal, state, and local governments. And so they continue prosecuting business people, large and small, who provide adults with sexually explicit images of other adults.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the government is powerless to regulate something demonstrably dangerous, something provably implicated in tens of thousands of deaths each year. The very same government, however, can regulate pictures and words used in the privacy of one’s home, in an activity that hurts no one.

George Carlin said, “I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn’t selling screwing legal?”

We demand an answer to the same question about sexual imagination: selling is legal. Imagining sex is legal. Why is selling someone’s imagination about sex illegal?

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

George Carlin’s 7 Words The Government Couldn’t Handle

George Carlin died this week at the age of 71.

Most people would call him a comedian, and indeed he was—22 albums, 14 HBO specials. In 1975, he was the very first host of Saturday Night Live.

But his legacy involves something much darker and more serious than that, affecting every American alive today.

In 1973, one of Carlin’s routines (“Seven Dirty Words”) was broadcast on a non-commercial FM station—WBAI, known for its lefty politics and progressive artsy ideas. After a listener complained to the FCC about the “dirty words” (one listener!), the FCC reprimanded the station owner. The Pacifica Foundation appealed, and won in federal court. But in 1978 the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the government in the now-famous FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.

Carlin’s words were declared “indecent”—an astounding concept when used even today. The year the Cold War raged, the year China lifted its ban on Aristotle and Shakespeare, the American government declared certain words dangerous.

The decision suddenly gave the government the right to decide that certain words couldn’t be said on the radio at certain times of day—and to decide which words (and which times). Apparently, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights didn’t apply at all times of day, or to all words.

It still doesn’t.

You are allowed to say that “Jesus hates gays” on the radio 24 hours a day. You aren’t allowed to say that “anal sex and eating pussy are gifts from God” any old time you like. Is the government protecting God, itself—or you?

George Carlin spent his half-century career hilariously pointing out life’s absurdities. One was that the most powerful government in the world was so obsessed about the power of a few non-violent words that it was willing to damage the Constitution to protect society.

The words that required stifling by the Supreme Court were shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Click here for Carlin’s intensely funny routine about these words. Of course, they’re harmless—until they’re banned, when using them constitutes a political act.

For 10 minutes, the clip shows Carlin skewering the whole idea that words are dangerous. With an orator’s skill and an athlete’s daring, he uses the words over and over until they lose their feared meaning, and gain a new one: the words become symbols of power. Banned, the words reflect government power. Spoken, they reflect Carlin’s. And, by extension, ours.

Beyond chanting the Sacred Seven, Carlin reminded us that words alone couldn’t be bad, that context is everything. It’s a subtlety mastered by most adolescents. Our government has yet to catch on to this.

Carlin believed that censorship was wrong and dangerous. To fight it, he ridiculed it so effectively that everyone within earshot laughed at it. When people realize that censors are ridiculous, small, stupid, and selfish, censorship is less likely.

And so Carlin was an alchemist. He took banned words he knew were harmless, and by using them to expose government malice, he made them dangerous.

“You can say you pricked your finger, just don’t say you fingered your prick,” he said.

To honor George Carlin, tonight you can salute him with any appendage you wish.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Porn, Penn & Teller—and Me

The War On Porn is featured on the season opener of Penn & Teller’s show. You can see a brief preview here.

The show airs on Showtime every evening from this Thursday through Monday, and is also available On Demand. Oh yes, the episode features me!

The guys are staunchly anti-censorship and pro-sexual expression. The episode is about debunking common ideas about porn—ideas many people think are facts, but which aren’t.

The most common, of course, is that consuming porn causes men to destroy their relationships, commit crime, and hate themselves. The supposed proof? Your local rapist, child molester, unfaithful husband, and low-desire boyfriend all look at porn.

The response to this logical fallacy?
* All of these problem guys also drink coffee. Co-occurrence doesn’t prove causation.
* Your non-rapist, non-molester, faithful husband, and lusty boyfriend also look at porn. You can’t draw conclusions from one sub-group (those who hurt others or self-destruct) without looking at a matching sub-group (those who neither hurt others nor self-destruct). Turns out the two groups (problem guys and non-problem guys) look at porn the same amount.

Interestingly, the show itself is the target of censorship attempts, starting with its name (“Bullshit!”), and continuing with its language and its subjects. The irony of attempting to censor a show that complains about censorship is completely lost on groups like Morality in Media or Parents Television Council. It’s especially wrong to claim that shows like this “victimize” innocent American viewers when people have to pay a fortune to subscribe to channels like Showtime and HBO.

Penn & Teller are free speech advocates, supporters of sexual rights, professional magicians, and sarcastic libertarian skeptics with a bad attitude. What a privilege to be associated with them.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

A Judge’s Porn: America’s Latest Obsession

A judge owns a car and drives it legally. Should she be allowed to preside over a trial that will determine if a car was used illegally?

A judge collects guns, even displays his collection on his website. Should he be allowed to preside over a trial that will decide if a gun was used illegally?

A judge belongs to a religion which believes that masturbation is a sin, using pornography is a form of infidelity, and sexual purity is the battleground between God and Satan. Should he be allowed to preside over a trial that will establish if something’s obscene?

Answers: Of course, of course, and of course—if we believe in the integrity of the judicial process.

So why can’t a judge who owns a porn collection preside over an obscenity trial?

Answer: Because when it comes to “obscenity,” the judicial system isn’t fair.

Obscenity is the only crime you can’t know in advance that you’re committing. Only a jury can decide if you’ve created or sold something obscene, and juries across America keep disagreeing with each other.

More to the point, local, state, and federal prosecutors across America keep demanding that juries decide this. Now that’s obscene.

You may have heard that Judge Alex Kozinski was asked to run a trial about four DVDs the feds claim are obscene. Apparently the judge has a website that contains essays, legal writings, music files, personal photos—and oh yes, sexually explicit material, including images of masturbation, women’s crotches in tight clothes, naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, and a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.

The judge is a highly respected scholar appointed to the Federal bench by President Reagan over 20 years ago. But when the L.A. Times reported on His Honor’s website, the blogosphere lit up: an adult man (who happened to be a judge) who looked at porn! It was a real dog-bites-man story, but so-called morality groups saw their opening and pounced.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council proved that he needs a basic lesson in American civics when he brayed, “Kozinski not only defended the rights of people to sell revolting—and potentially illegal—smut, Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness” as a chief judge.”

We expect extremist “decency” groups to undermine American democracy on a weekly basis, and here the FRC didn’t disappoint: “potentially illegal”? “The definition of obscene”?

But we expect better from Kozinski’s own senator. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, intoned “If this [website content] is true, this is unacceptable behavior for a federal court judge.”

So this is the latest pinnacle of America’s porn hysteria: being interested in the (legal) stuff now disqualifies someone for a federal judgeship. An interest in porn affects a man’s mind so deeply—or reflects a pathology so deep—that he can’t be depended upon to think about legal principles or fairness.

So are divorced judges now unwelcome in family court? Are judges who drink now unacceptable in DUI cases? What about judges who are 20-year sober members of AA? Must judges in bankruptcy cases be rich or poor, stingy or generous?

Demanding Kozinski’s recusal from the Ira Isaacs obscenity trial—indeed, questioning his fitness to be a judge altogether—is a fundamental failure of faith in American democracy.

While most people tried on criminal charges are assumed innocent unless the government can prove their guilt, people arrested for the creation or distribution of “obscenity” have to prove that their material has some merit—artistic, scientific, or political. Kozinski’s real sin is believing that the government has to justify censorship, rather than believing that the burden of defeating censorship falls on arrested Americans.

Americans would howl if the government tried to criminalize pictures or stories about anything other than sex. As it is, the public—uncomfortable with their own sexuality, easily frightened about others’—is complicit in destroying their own rights. Instead of damning Kozinski, we should be questioning why we care so much about his sexual fantasies, and so little about the terror our neighbors feel about ours.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Returning the TV Clicker to Parents

Now that a court has told the Texas child welfare authorities that the parenting rights of even polygamists are paramount, I suggest we use that same principle about what kids can watch on TV—instead of letting the government decide, let’s put parents in charge.

That means letting parents use methods like the V Chip, ratings system, and cable TV lockout system. Parents can even decide not to own a TV if that’s what they want. The important things is that we get the government out of the business of deciding what TV shows kids OR adults can watch.

The FCC was originally established to monitor the technical details of broadcast operations. It slowly evolved into the morality watchdog it is today—which necessarily means it will favor one worldview over another.

This is outrageous and un-American.

Our precious Constitution is clear: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What part of this is unclear?

As part of the expanding Executive branch of government, the FCC has simply seized power it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—have. Today’s “decency” groups say “the people” should decide about broadcast content. OK, let ‘em. So memo to individual members of the Parents Television Council and Morality in Media: shut your sets, or change your channels, if you don’t like what you see. That’s how “the people” can decide for themselves, without deciding for ME.

And that’s how democracy works—each of us has an enormous range of rights, and can make whatever private decisions we like. But when “morality” is dragged into governance, those in charge aren’t satisfied with making their own choices—they want to limit OTHERS’ choices as well. They say “since we believe you SHOULDN’T watch that show, we want to remove your RIGHT to watch it.”

Members of groups like PTC, MiM, and the Family Research Council don’t want their neighbors watching porn, The Sopranos, or South Park. That’s why they want such things off the air.

Incredibly, these groups claim that it isn’t the American public that demands “trash” on TV. No? Who’s paying for HBO, Showtime, pay-per-view porn? Those things are EXPENSIVE. You gotta really want them if you volunteer to pay those bills.

These groups ask “when it will stop,” as if there’s some unwanted sewer pipe pouring sexual crap into our TVs. I can tell you exactly when it will stop—when consumers stop wanting it. Then it’ll be off the airwaves in a second. Whether it’s Howard Stern or Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club, the market is exquisitely sensitive to people’s tastes.

Ah, the market—where people vote with their dollars, and everyone believes in its wisdom—until some Americans notice what the market says about their neighbors’ eroticism.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography