Every once in awhile the ACLU defends actual civil liberties and makes me think that maybe they aren’t so bad after all. But it doesn’t take long before they go and do something to remind me why the organization is deserving of contempt:
The American Civil Liberties Union is pushing for porn at a detention center in Moncks Corner, South Carolina.
The move came after reports surfaced that the facility only allowed inmates to read the Bible. But prison officials said that isn’t true and inmates have a wide variety of reading material at their disposal.
The ACLU said it wants prisoners to be able to read and view pornography. Lawyers for the jail said that just won’t happen.
UPDATE: The ACLU says that it is not supporting pornography in prisons:
“We are not trying to suggest that jails must permit pornography,” Matthews told the Star. “Any accusation that the ACLU is trying to get porn into any jail is patently false and a gross fabrication. It’s a ridiculous statement.”
“It’s totally fine to a have a rule against pornography, as long as you are also at the same time not trampling on core constitutional principles,” Matthews said.
June 2nd, 2011 | 10:41 am
On the other hand, the ACLU explains on their web site:
“3. Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad or offensive” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, “one man’s art is another man’s pornography.” As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.”
So this is not a new issue for either the ACLU or conservatives.
The ACLU would, I’m sure, oppose censorship of the opposite view, namely, that porn is not a societal good, and that critics are often on solid ground.
Some things which could be used as porn by some, but not all men: lingerie ads, Sports Illustrated (not only the swimsuit issue), steamy romance novels. There are examples of literature as obvious as Mark Twain’s use of the n-word.
Yes, this is a difficult one. Libertarians would probably side with the ACLU. I’m not sure either one would go far enough with those in possession of child porn.
Thanks for the sex post of the day, Joe. I predict 30 comments by midnight.
June 2nd, 2011 | 10:58 am
Todd So this is not a new issue for either the ACLU or conservatives.
Let’s not make this a “conservative” thing. I think it’s offensive to liberals to assume that they are somehow all in favor of pornography. While the “don’t censor obscenity” is indeed a popular position among many liberals and libertarians and even some conservatives) it has not historically been a liberal position.
By the way, I’ve been intending to ask you: Why does someone who has a blog called “Catholic Sensibility” so often defend positions that are antithetical to Catholicism?
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:27 am
Here’s how upside-down we are. We effectively censor in our classrooms and our newspapers the one form of speech that the First Amendment was specifically written to protect: political speech. That is the context of the amendment. It was never intended to protect dirty pictures.
I’d challenge anybody to find a single example of anyone in the United States during the time of the writing of the Constitution, and even for a hundred years after, who believed that dirty pictures are a form of “speech.” You won’t find one. And you’ll also find that people assumed that there is a difference between the expression of an opinion, even vehemently expressed, which is subject to reason, and offenses against the peace and the common good that happen to use the mouth as an instrument (public obscenity is an example).
It is not reasonable to say, “Well, if you don’t want to buy dirty pictures, you don’t have to.” Here I invoke what I call the Principle of the Nude Beach. You can’t say to people, “Well, if you want to keep your bathing suit on, you’re free to do that, so you’re not affected one way or another if other people decide to bathe in the nude.” That is obviously not true. A nude beach is a different sort of place from a beach where people have to keep something on.
Whether to legalize dirty pictures, and what will qualify as dirty pictures, are political questions regarding the common good. What the ACLU would have us believe is that we MUST become a certain kind of society, whether we like it or not — namely, a society wherein pornography is freely dispensed, and, as a result, is alll over the damned place.
The question of censorship is a red herring. The ACLU itself acknowledges some uneasiness regarding child porn. Well then, the question is not whether to draw a line, but where, and why.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:29 am
Joe, my point is that there is a small body of work dedicated exclusively to sexual gratification. There is a somewhat larger body of work, including things like advertisements, graphic novels, and even literature, that can be used as means of gratification. But clearly had other purposes as they were originally conceived: to sell product, to entertain, and even to uplift the spirit.
Personally, I find pornography offensive. I would be in favor of eradicating “obscenity.” But I’m not in favor of banning Sports Illustrated or Vogue. Before I make another in a long series of pro-porn judgments against the ACLU, I’d like to see exactly what sort of literature the South Carolina prisoners have in mind.
I know that some anti-porn individuals go too far in wanting to limit or punish beyond reasonable bounds. I also know that there is no way to eliminate all potentially arousing material from society, including prisons.
As for your last comment, four in reply:
1. Choose one instance in which I’ve stated a position “antithetical” to Catholicism.
2. If you have a personal question to ask, please ask it privately.
3. You have fallen into the trap of attacking the critic rather than the criticism. Try harder to make your argument about the argument rather than your critic.
4. Just because I’ve disagreed with you here doesn’t make me a pro-porn individual. My issue with you is the way you’ve framed this news, and possibly for your lack of discernment on porn being wider than blatant obscenity.
June 2nd, 2011 | 12:07 pm
“Thanks for the sex post of the day, Joe. I predict 30 comments by midnight.”
Indeed. With fifteen of those posts authored by David Nickol and Boonton and at least one by Michael saluting their courageous witness as it reminds him of the gentle beauty of his lovingly inclusive parish.
June 2nd, 2011 | 12:11 pm
Joe, why didn’t you link to this story instead?
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1000883–lingerie-ads-lead-to-deviant-sexual-behaviour-warns-prison?bn=1
June 2nd, 2011 | 12:44 pm
Thanks for the sex post of the day, Joe. I predict 30 comments by midnight.
Thank a humanist.
They’re the ones who keep trying to overload our world with filth.
June 2nd, 2011 | 12:45 pm
2. If you have a personal question to ask, please ask it privately.
Why?
This is his blog, isn’t it?
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:08 pm
I just don’t understand why pornography makes the Right so uncomfortable. What is so bad about pornography?
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:09 pm
Todd 1. Choose one instance in which I’ve stated a position “antithetical” to Catholicism.
Here’s one: “I see no moral problem with same-sex unions.” Now it may be the case the case that what you support is non-sexual same-sex unions, such as a legal contract between two widowed sisters. But from you defense of homosexuality on these threads it seems clear that what see no moral problem with is the wedding of people who intend to engage in homosexual activity.
2. If you have a personal question to ask, please ask it privately.
That’s not really a personal question. You run a very public blog called “Catholic Sensibility” and invited us to read it. You shouldn’t be surprised when people ask you why your position on homosexual marriage is the sensible Catholic one.
3. You have fallen into the trap of attacking the critic rather than the criticism. Try harder to make your argument about the argument rather than your critic.
I wasn’t attacking you. I was asking a question about your blog. There’s nothing inherently wrong with supporting positions that are antithetical to Catholicism. I do it too, just not usually on moral issues. But it does seem peculiar for someone to identify as a Catholic and then bend over backwards to express how much they support gay marriage.
Ray Joe, why didn’t you link to this story instead?
Because I hadn’t seen it. Thanks for pointing it out, I’ve included it as an update.
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Jeremy,
Because it degrades and cheapens women. It is the precise opposite of feminism which, at least as I was taught, was about we’re more than T&A, we have a brain, etc….
But porn is entirely about how much physical benefit a man can get from objectifying a woman and using her solely for his sexual pleasure without having to afford her respect, honor, value, protection, a relationship, or even drinks and dinner.
It is about disgusting male pigs being disgusting male pigs and using women for their sick pleasure.
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Prisoners are not looking at Botticelli’s venus for it’s artistic value. They are looking at it as a substitute for porn. When one thing is prohibited, others take its place.
As for censorship, the problem is that prisoners surrender many rights when tried and convicted for a crime. There should be argument about what that means, but please don’t forget that this is incarceration. The basis for rights changes when you violate the responsibilities that come with them.
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:56 pm
“Why?”
Because I asked nicely. And because it short circuits intelligent discussion.
“This is his blog, isn’t it?”
Sure. I’m free to respond or not to such questions.
“I wasn’t attacking you. I was asking a question about your blog.”
Sure. You were changing the subject in an attempt to sway popular opinion to your side.
For the record, a same-sex union is not a sacramental marriage, or even a civil one. I think I’ve been very clear that the problematic side of human behavior is the sexual act outside of marriage. I abide by the moral law of no sex outside my marriage.
My bishops do not advocate for laws against sexual activity outside of marriage–clear sins in the Catholic tradition. Why not?
But advocates of same-sex unions are not looking for the freedom to have sex. In private, they already have that. They seek various rights and privileges which cement the non-sexual portion of their relationships: insurance, medicine, child-raising, tax incentives, and the like. I’m aware many Catholics have railed against same-sex unions, but I don’t see the moral problem outside of what everybody concedes is going on, but nobody wants to outlaw: the sexual acts.
Now, if a bishop or another Catholic theologian wants to sit me down and convince me of the error here, I’m all for it. Unfortunately, I see moral and logical problems with the movement against same-sex unions.
Getting back to the sexual issue of the day, it’s clear that the ACLU does not want to ship Hustler into the prison system of South Carolina. Joe, I applaud you for accepting the link that clarifies that. It’s not news that the ACLU will defend some distasteful things it sees as an improper infringement on the rights of citizens. It was predictable the ACLU would side with prisoners on the matter of Botticelli and the WaPo. That might be news in some quarters, but it was not new.
June 2nd, 2011 | 2:26 pm
My bishops do not advocate for laws against sexual activity outside of marriage–clear sins in the Catholic tradition. Why not?
What other group is claiming that the Church needs to be forced to accept and embrace their behavior?
June 2nd, 2011 | 2:29 pm
I just don’t understand why pornography makes the Right so uncomfortable. What is so bad about pornography?
It isn’t pornography that is the real point of contention between left and right.
It is the idea that there should be limits. Any limits at all.
June 2nd, 2011 | 3:09 pm
“What other group is claiming that the Church needs to be forced to accept and embrace their behavior?”
None.
June 2nd, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Joe, thanks for posting the update. I’ve fallen for such misreporting in the past, and I try to find independent confirmation when possible. Especially when it comes to people or groups I’m inclined to believe the worst of; that’s where we’re all the most vulnerable.
June 2nd, 2011 | 5:29 pm
Somebody tell me, kindly, how we are supposed to retrace our steps, reconsidering the massively stupid things we have done in the name of sexual liberation, WHILE at the same time blessing homosexual pseudogamy? Please explain how you can possibly say to Adam and Eve, “You two must keep your pants on,” regardless of their commitment to any church, which may after all be weak enough, while at the same time saying to Adam and Steve, “Go for it!” Chastity is a natural virtue, not specifically a Christian commandment.
Look, if we didn’t have no-fault divorce, cohabitation everywhere, porn everywhere, casual sex in all the colleges, we wouldn’t even be talking about homosexual pseudogamy.
AND — let’s not forget the effect that the public acceptance and visibility of homosexual pseudogamy has on boys, who have a miserable enough time of it these days as it is. We cannot simultaneously try to raise boys who will make close friends easily with members of their sex, and I mean friendships such as people outside of our sex-besotted culture used to enjoy, when the homosexual movement has coopted all the territory. You cannot simultaneously have a society which celebrates male-male sex, AND a society in which a man’s arm thrown around another man means nothing.
I’m willing to be challenged on this by men who have sons 10 years old and up; nobody else.
June 2nd, 2011 | 6:49 pm
They seek various rights and privileges which cement the non-sexual portion of their relationships: insurance, medicine, child-raising, tax incentives, and the like.
Exactly.
They want the right to share the subsidies we grant to procreative couples as if they were procreative couples.
They want to legitimize adultery as a means of reproduction, and establish a “right” to use the opposite sex as parts donors and “gestational carriers” – as if there were hundreds of thousands of people out there who want nothing more than to have your baby and then get thrown out like so much trash.
How is that fair?
More to the point, how can that be reconciled with Catholicism? Don’t Catholics believe in “human dignity”? How can dehumanizing 2/3 of a biological family – reducing the child’s other parent to a thing to be used and reducing the child itself to a thing to be sold or traded – consistent with concepts of human dignity?
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:21 pm
“They want the right to share the subsidies we grant to procreative couples as if they were procreative couples.”
Not exactly. I think there are other relationships, mostly all non-sexual, that could be given benefits: aged parents living with adult children, college roommates, siblings living together, any people committed who need a break financially in this economy.
Legal rights, visitation rights, tax breaks–none of these things harm children, and some of them help.
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:23 pm
With fifteen of those posts authored by David Nickol and Boonton . . . .
DBP,
Sorry to disappoint. A comment is now unnecessary, since it turns out that “ACLU Wants Prisoners to Have Porn” is simply false.
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:54 pm
“Don’t Catholics believe in “human dignity”?”
If you believe homosexual sex is a sin, and you are Catholic, you are in the minority. 56% percent of Catholics do not believe sexual relations between two adults of the same gender constituted a sin. (source: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/03/22/survey-catholics/)
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:01 am
Jeremy, I’d argue that the poll shows rather that 56% of Catholics really don’t believe their religion. I bet if you polled the same sample on other popular sins, like premarital sex, abortion, or what have you, you get the same percent.
That kind of approach wont work. It makes being catholic meaningless.
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:10 am
If you believe homosexual sex is a sin, and you are Catholic, you are in the minority
I didn’t realize Catholics believed that what is or is not sinful was a straight majority vote.
But that’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about whether homosexuals having sex is or is not a sin. We’re talking about a different type of sin – covetousness.
The human dignity in question is not that of the homosexual, but rather that of the people he needs to use and how he uses them.
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:22 am
Jeremy,
Well then. Better forward that to the Vatican. They’ll want to change Church teaching to reflect the popular taste. After all, we all know that what a thing is depends on how we feel about it.
See you later.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:06 am
David Nickol,
No harm, no foul. This is what happens when I follow Todd’s lead, I suppose. But I’m confident that soon enough there will be another sex-related topic to which the flurry of posting may resume. I have faith in you guys.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:20 am
But I’m confident that soon enough there will be another sex-related topic to which the flurry of posting may resume. I have faith in you guys.
Every time I see my values assaulted, I say what I can to correct the misinformation.
Why do you suppose anyone should have to apologize for that? (Aside from the fact that it gets us off-topic, and the minute I am rebuked by anyone who actually has the authority to do so here, I will apologize quite sincerely for going off-topic).
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:53 pm
Blake,
As you are quoting me, I think your post might be directed toward me. I’m having trouble, however, connecting the dots between my two posts and your response.
June 4th, 2011 | 10:44 am
I’m having trouble, however, connecting the dots between my two posts and your response.
I am replying to all the people who complain about this site having “too many” sex posts.
I don’t mean to single out anything you’ve said, but to convey that if sex is coming up as a topic a whole lot, maybe it is because clashes over sex topics = currently what’s going on in the real world and therefore it’s appropriate to talk about it.
June 4th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
“I am replying to all the people who complain about this site having ‘too many’ sex posts.”
I’m not sure my stance is a complaint so much as an observation. You are right, Blake: many aspects of sex are hot topics in society. It’s very appropriate to talk about it … as long as it fits the mission and vision of FT.
June 5th, 2011 | 11:58 am
as long as it fits the mission and vision of FT.
As decided by…?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact