COLUMN: ACLU should focus of privacy
The panel discussion on pornography and free speech Thursday brought together three well-qualified representatives of differing schools of thought. Stephen Clark, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, represented the viewpoint of First Amendment Protection. Paula Houston, who occupies the controversial state office of ombudsman on issues regarding pornography, showed up to “educate citizens about contemporary laws relating to pornography.” And Barry Neese, a Lutheran minister, gave us a flavor for what God might think about all of this.
Most of my attention was drawn toward Clark, the ACLU lawyer. He was engaging, articulate, intelligent, impudent and condescending. He began by wishing Houston well in her new office: “I hope your position is short-lived, and utterly fruitless,” he said, after Paula had made it clear in her opening remarks that her position was to listen to citizens’ grievances about pornography and educate them about legal mechanisms to challenge media they find offensive. Then his tone became less combative, and he explained simply that any government regulation on the distribution of pornography amounted to nullification of First Amendment rights, except when involving minors. When questions were taken from the audience, one of the first was whether we could separate into Internet domains those Web sites with content and intent prurient in nature (defined in the discussion as anything that turns you on), something like a .sex or .xxx domain name. That way, people looking for pornography could find it, and those not seeking wouldn’t find themselves stumbling over bare-chested women when conducting a search on an innocuous topic.
It was a fair question. Categorization is in no way censorship, and does not infringe upon first amendment rights, so Clark would have no reason to dismiss the proposal on grounds of free speech. In fact, as a true civil libertarian, he might recognize it as a means of preserving Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, defined in the discussion as “the right to be left alone.” At the very least, I thought he might credit the idea for being conciliatory and constitutional, and leave a door open for its investigation. Instead, he dismissed the question out of hand with his usual erudite smugness, categorizing the idea as absolutely impractical given the global nature of the Internet.
In truth, the idea is not as impractical as Clark would have us believe. While it is true U.S. laws could have no effect on Web sites hosted in other countries, the influence of an initiative to categorize sexually explicit material would be felt worldwide. The vast majority of Internet standards and protocols originate in the United States, as well as the vast majority of Internet porn sites.
If Clark’s mantra was really the protection of all civil liberties, the Fourth Amendment would count as much as the First Amendment, and his comments would have indicated a thorough investigation of these types of solutions.
Discussion then turned to the legality of viewing pornography at public access terminals like library or university computers. Clark said he gets occasional calls from students and library patrons who are bothered because they don’t want to view pornography, but the person at the next computer does.
“Well, don’t look,” was Clark’s solution, which addresses the choices left to you after seeing the “sexually explicit material” the guy next to you is looking at, but does not address the fact that you got slapped in the face with it in the first place. Where is the resourcefulness and analytical talent that helped Clark pass the LSAT? It would be beneficial for the ACLU to pour the same energy into our right to privacy as our right to throw our most obscene tastes into public view.
Todd Humphreys is an electrical engineering graduate student. Comments may be e-mailed to todd.humphreys@usu.edu