NEW YORK, NY — Morality in Media’s ObscenityCrimes.org website passed a milestone Saturday when it recorded the 70,000th obscenity complaint registered by a user.The website, which serves as a rallying point for the religious right and other concerned citizens determined to eradicate pornography from the American landscape, was launched in June 2002.
“ObscenityCrimes.org was intended to provide a link between citizens whose homes and children are assaulted by Internet obscenity and federal prosecutors who enforce federal Internet obscenity laws,” MIM President Robert Peters explained in a statement. “The site was patterned after CyberTipline.com, which allows citizens to report possible violations of child pornography laws. MIM forwards complaints submitted to ObscenityCrimes.org to the Justice Department in Washington and to local U.S. Attorneys.”
The site also employs two retired law-enforcement officers to follow up on selected complaints and to prepare investigative reports that provide information about pornographic websites, Peters said.
“From one perspective, ObscenityCrimes.org has exceeded our
Expectations,” Peters noted. “Prior to launching the project, we wondered whether citizens would make complaints and whether the [Justice] Department would welcome these complaints. We now have more than 70,000 complaints, and after [the website’s] launch, the Justice Department expressed appreciation for the project on several occasions, including in testimony before a Senate Committee. In 2005 and 2006, Congress also earmarked funds for the project.”
Still, MIM isn’t satisfied with the progress to date — and it blames the Justice Department.
“ObscenityCrimes.org has not achieved its laudable purpose for the reason that the Justice Department and FBI have prosecuted very few Internet obscenity crimes,” Peters said in the statement. “Rather, with the apparent blessing of President Bush and Congress, they have focused almost exclusively on curbing sexual exploitation of children and now trafficking in women and children.
“These, too, are important battles, but ‘adult’ obscenity (hardcore pornography that does not depict actual children) also causes great harm.
Among other things, addiction to hardcore pornography contributes to sexual harassment and violence against women and to the breakup of marriages. Evidence also abounds that large numbers of children stumble into and seek out hardcore pornographic materials on the Internet. At this time, ‘adult’ obscenity laws are the main legal weapon that society has against websites that allow children to view hardcore pornography free of charge and without proof of age.”
In other words, MIM’s argument seems to be “The government should crack down on legal adult pornography to protect the children.” Peters — who is fond of substituting the word “obscenity” for “pornography” even though the two are defined quite differently — confirmed MIM’s argument explicitly in continuing his statement:
“The explosion of ‘adult’ obscenity on the Internet contributes to sexual exploitation of children,” he said. “Many sexual predators use ‘adult’ obscenity to arouse themselves and to arouse, instruct and desensitize their victims. Many sexual predators also begin their downward spiral by looking at ‘adult’ obscenity.
“The explosion of ‘adult’ obscenity also contributes to sexual trafficking in women and children. Supply typically follows demand, and as the demand for ‘adult’ obscenity grows, so does the demand for women trafficked for the purpose of creating obscenity. Many men who become addicted to pornography also act out their fantasies with prostitutes of all ages, helping create the demand for prostitutes.”
The reason for Peters’ deplorable wordplay is quite clear in his closing paragraph.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, and opinion polls indicate that adult Americans support enforcement of federal obscenity laws.”
