Previous Story
Where Porn is Concerned, Bill O’Reilly is not Conservative Enough for Morality In Media
Posted On 12 Mar 2007
NEW YORK, NY — In a column published and widely distributed last week, Fox News commentator and talk show host Bill O’Reilly criticizes San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials for the declaration of February 23rd as “Colt Studio Day,” in honor of the 40th anniversary of the gay porn production company’s operation.Among other things, O’Reilly states in his column that “San Francisco is one of America’s great urban showplaces, but the city has been hijacked by radical politicians who are destroying it.”
While the primary purpose of the column appears to be to call into severe question the judgment and character of Mayor Newsom, and to an even greater extent that of California State Assemblyman Mark Leno, socially conservative media watchdog group Morality In Media (MIM) is now focusing attention on a single line of the O’Reilly’s column – a portion of a single line, more accurately – to suggest that the Fox News commentator is “soft” on pornography.
In a press release issued Monday, MIM president Robert Peters critiques the following excerpt from O’Reilly’s column: “adults should be able to consume so-called ‘adult
entertainment’ without government intrusion.”
The original context of the statement from O’Reilly’s column was the following paragraph:
“I mean, think about it. Even if you believe, as I do, that adults should be able to consume so-called ‘adult entertainment’ without government intrusion, don’t children live in San Francisco these days? ‘Hey, Louie, the mayor just said it’s gay porn day. Do we have to go to school?’”
Having removed O’Reilly’s statement from its context, Peters then chastises O’Reilly for stating support for the right of Americans to view sexually explicit material without providing detail about the scope and character of the material he supports adults’ access to.
“In the real world, the term ‘adult’ (when used to describe pornography) encompasses everything from soft-core pornography (e.g., a Playboy magazine ‘foldout’) to hard-core pornography of every description,” Peters states in the MIM release.
Peters argues that even if “children and un-consenting adults could be shielded from the flood of hardcore pornography” the production, distribution and “addiction to” pornography would still contribute to the “epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS,” a decline in and breakup of marriages, an increase in “sexual harassment and a decline in worker productivity,” an increase in “sex crimes against adults and children,” and, finally, the “breakdown of morality and erosion of decency.”
While he adds that O’Reilly has a right to his own opinion, Peters provides a suggestion as to how O’Reilly should state that opinion.
Stating that “perhaps in the future you could express your support for ‘adult entertainment’ in a way that will enable your readers and listeners to more fully comprehend what you do support,” Peters suggests the following statement for O’Reilly:
“I usually disagree with the ACLU, but on the subject of pornography we think alike for the most part. I also believe the First Amendment should protect the right of adult Americans to produce and distribute hardcore pornographic materials that depict, among other things, adultery, the degradation, rape and torture of women, male rape, the sexual exploitation of children (as long as actual children aren’t depicted), the consumption of urine and feces, the sexual union of humans with animals, the sexual union of siblings and of parents and children (as long as they are all at least 18 years old), men exposing themselves to women in public places, prostitution, someone’s eighteen year old girl having sex with a dozen boys at a college fraternity, unsafe anal sex galore, and more.
“Furthermore, I choose to ignore the evidence linking pornography to sexual crimes against children and adults. I don’t care how many marriages pornography destroys. I don’t think it is all that bad if kids get their hands on this stuff. They have to learn about sex too. Nor do I care about morality or about maintaining a decent society.
“Nor do I care what the America people or their elected representatives in Congress think. Or what the Supreme Court has said about obscenity. With five Supreme Court Justices who think they can interpret the Constitution any way they please, the ACLU and I can set the pornographers and their customers free from government intrusion.
“This is what America is all bout (sic).”
For the full text of O’Reilly’s column criticizing Colt Studio Day in San Francisco, visit http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19745
For the full MIM press release, refer to http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-12-2007/0004544063&EDATE=
