The Porning Report

Holy Porn!

Israel's High Court of Justice unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the Playboy channel can continue to be broadcast in the holy land, thereby ending three years of legal sparring over the legality of its broadcasts. The special 11-justice panel rejected two petitions against the adult channel on cable and satellite television in Israel, but, amazingly, the judge decided to uphold the freedom of expression and even noted that the pornographic content of the channel was "relatively light."

One hundred and seventy five other countries broadcast the Playboy channel, with 25,000 homes subscribing to the channel in Israel alone. So obviously there is a demand for their soft-porn content. The people have spoken. They want flesh and they want it now!

Despite the outcry of women groups and religious sectors, Justice Dalia Dorner noted that while she realizes that their programming may be offensive to some members of the public, "no one is forcing them to watch."

Wow! You go, girl!

I can remember the last time a Judge said something in regards to freedom of speech that protected it, instead of restricting it. Especially in conservative Israel!!!

Pope on a Pulpit

Recently, Pope John Paul II addressed the issue of sex on television in his statement in honor of World Peace Day. The theme of the speech was "family and the media: risk and richness," and he did not have kind words to say about the media and the proliferation of sex on TV and the lifestyles they appear to be promoting.

"The family and family life are too often represented inadequately in the media," said JP2. "Infidelity, extra-martial sex, and the lack of moral vision are shown without criticism, while divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are supported."

"These representations are damaging to the common societal good," he went on to say in a lecture that quite clearly drove home his main point: there is too much sex on television.

"The media has the capacity to do great damage to families, presenting them with a distorted view of life, family, religion, and morality," he continued. "Without looking to censorship ... it is essential that public authorities promote regulations to assure that the media doesn't show programming that goes against the good of the family. Family advocates should take part in the creation of such regulations."

Ouch! Heavy words. One hopes that a man who has formed such a strong opinion must know of what he speaks, right? I mean, why would he talk about how much sex is on TV unless he watched it? Do you think he's a "Big Brother" fan, or more of a "Gilmore Girls" guy? Think he digs "The OC"? And, like, how could the pope chime in on the evil of pornography unless he himself had watched some porn? I wonder what the pope's most disliked porn movie is? Is he a "Space Nuts" (SFW) type of dude, or does he object more to "Naked Hollywood - Faking It" (NSFW)?

The man must have done some research about the subject before spouting off about it, right? He wouldn't just take the word of some of his advisors and denounce an industry that employs millions without some hard proof (forgive the pun) that it is indeed damaging to society, would he? Or, is it possible, that like many in the sex-obsessed media itself, he's simply spouting off based on what he's been told, not what's he's seen, and he doesn't have studies or specifics to back him up. Personally, I'd like to hear the pope describe exactly what it is that is so offensive, to whom, and how it is actually damaging before damning a whole method of creative expression, that is both a vocation and an avocation for many in the TV industry. Not that I don't agree the media are all immoral bastards, mind you. It's just that since I'm one of them, I'd like the pope to have some proof before he goes and ruins my afterlife, if ya know what I mean...

Peeping on Porn Purchasers

With the current backdrop of child molestation at the hands of religious leaders, if you heard that a pastor was installing digital cameras with zoom lenses around his church, would you be a little worried? Well, here's the twist: The members of Pastor Jim Norwood's Oakcrest Family Church are breathing a sigh of relief at the installation of five cameras around the church parking lot, because his cameras are for snooping out sexually deviant behavior, not instigating it.

Norwood spent $1,500 on five cameras to photograph license plates of vehicles parked at adult businesses (sex shops, strip clubs, etc.) down the street with the intention of blowing the whistle on these pervs to their family and friends. Here, the time-honored tool of public embarrassment is being used to combat the development of pornography commerce in small town life. The church will be sending out postcards with the identifying photos on them, alongside a schedule of church services, to the car owner's address (obtained through the license plates). The goal? To get the smut shoppers to stop patronizing the adult shops.

Steven Swander, an attorney who represents one of the strip clubs, says that his free speech-protected clients take offense to the snooping, calling it a "Scarlet Letter tactic." On the other hand, ACLU attorney Roger Albright says Norwood isn't breaking any laws by taking the pictures and sending postcards.

So, is it a violation of privacy to take pictures of people and send them as postcards? Or do the same laws protecting free speech and association that protect sex shops and strip clubs make Norwood's actions permissible? And isn't spying on people a form of sexual deviancy in itself? It's called voyeurism, folks. Does this make Norwood a peeping Tom?

In the long term, these tactics will likely lose effectiveness. Assuming porn becomes available from more outlets, and purchasing of such material becomes less stigmatic overall, embarrassment will fade -- or Norwood will run out of stamps.