“Bare it or Bar it?” Should the Government Regulate Adult Pornography? A Debate

By Elizabeth O’Brien

SELINSGROVE, PA, August 1, 2007 ( - In a passionate debate earlier this year, two specialists discussed whether the government should be able to regulate adult pornography or whether the issue should be left entirely as a personal matter, determined only by subjective choice.

The Susquehanna University’s Arlin M. Adams Center for Law and Society, a society that discusses the role of law in private and public life, hosted the lecture and debate this March, entitled "Bare It or Bar It: Should Government Regulate Adult Pornography To Prevent Exposure To Minors?" The keynote speakers were Professor Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Mr. Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

Michael Johnson, who has helped dozens of city governments draft restrictions for Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOB’s), began by pointing out the massive harm caused by the $13 billion dollar pornography industry. In a case in the late 70’s, for example, a study of the City of Detroit found that in some cases the rates of crime, sexual abuse and molestation were 400 to 500% higher in areas where pornography and sex shops proliferated than in other parts of the city. Many other cities and towns have reported similar results.

Johnson also cited cases in which adult pornography was a cause of grievous harm to children. In a certain study of 43 pedophiles, for example, every single one exposed the victim to adult or child pornography in order to lower the child’s inhibitions.

He stated, "Pornography is a major contributor and facilitator in the development of the sexual addiction and depravity, such as child molestation, and exhibitionism, and voyeurism, sadomasochism, fetishism, and rape and all the other perversions. And yet so called soft porn, we know it’s harmful. It can be a gateway to harder material and the societal ills that it brings, and yet it’s protected."

Many people argue that the First Amendment should protect an adult’s right to pornography. Johnson explained, however, that the First does not apply if something is considered obscene.

  Nadine Strossen, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of personal and parental responsibility when it comes to adult pornography. Her central argument was that "in our wonderfully diverse society we all have widely divergent ideas, values, and taste."

She continued, "Those divergent values certainly and especially extend to matters about sexual expression, what we find positive, what we find negative for ourselves and for our children. Therefore, we can’t responsibly delegate these inherently personal choices to anyone else, neither government officials nor our fellow citizens."

According to Strossen, the courts can’t objectively define obscenity because everyone sees the world subjectively. By giving the government more censorship power, people are opening up the door to erratic and inconsistent rulings on what is considered indecent.

She mentions many court decisions which ruled that the constitutional rights of adults to pornography cannot be contravened in order to protect minors. As one example she quotes the Supreme Court stating, "The level of discourse reaching a mailbox cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox." She also believes that people should spend more energy tracking and enforcing already existing laws against pedophiles than on cracking down on something that is for adults.

Quoting certain child safety organizations that oppose censorship, she stated, "We cannot put them (children) in a bubble and say, ‘You are never going to see anything that will disturb you.’ Some people will be disturbed by sexual images. Some will be disturbed by violent images. I am in that category. Some are disturbed by discriminatory images. Some are disturbed by antireligious images. We all have very different values."

"But the answer to speech that some of us may find harmful to ourselves or to our children is not to get rid of it, not to regulate it. If we went down that road, there would be no free speech at all."

Johnson agreed that the responsibility should be on the parents. Nevertheless, he vehemently disagreed with the basis of Strossen’s argument. He stated, "The problem is the basis and premise on which she brings the argument is moral relativism and it’s the idea that there is no moral absolute. There is no right or wrong. She ably described it, ‘all of us might define it differently.’

Appealing to the objectivity of moral conscience, he cited a 2006 Morality in Media poll that found that 73% of US adults know that viewing pornography online is morally unacceptable. On the grounds of natural law, therefore, he rejected her arguments.

Read full lecture and debate:

Share this article

Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon


Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.

I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:

Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.

Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.

After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.

The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.

So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.

When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.

Share this article

Featured Image
Paul McKinnon /
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien


Target boycott climbs to over 1 million

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms. 

The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.

“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans.  Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy.  Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable.  And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”

Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.” 

The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.

“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says. 

The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children. 

“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked. 

There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so. 

“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”

Share this article

Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben


Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.

Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.

At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.

“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”

The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.

“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”

“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”

Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.

But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.

The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.

Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.

“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”

Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:

The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook