Is the pot calling the kettle black? Or is the pot finally so nauseated by its sickening contents and the public stench it has created that it simply has no other option than to call for a halt to the madness?

The pot is Gil Reavill, a journalist who began his career with Screw magazine, and has since worked with, among others, Penthouse and Maxim. The kettle represents all those profiting from the use of sexually-explicit material in the “public commons” (the public space shared by all Americans).

In Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough, Reavill calls for cleansing the shared public space of sexually-explicit material while simultaneously affirming the necessity, in a free society, of access to pornographic materials by consenting adults. He does not wish to eliminate a person’s right to access pornographic material if he or she is an adult and chooses to do so. Consenting adults who desire to indulge in pornographic material have a right to do so in a free country. However, this should be done in private – outside the public commons. Although consenting adults have a right to indulge in pornographic material, they do not have a right to shove it in the face of adults who do not choose to partake of such materials. Even more, they have no right to push it in the face of children who are not mature enough to handle such material.

In the name of free speech, those who profit off of sexually-explicit material have argued for their “right” to do so in the public commons. Though it appears they possess the moral high-ground – Who could possibly be against free expression? – they abuse the First Amendment for their own selfish gain. They are opportunists, selfishly using free-speech guarantees to pad their bank accounts. If someone objects to their actions, they respond with an arrogant and dismissive attitude: “Tough!” In other words, “My rights trump yours” (39).

But shouldn’t the average parent, seeking to raise a civil, moral, and productive child, have a choice about the kind of world he or she lives in? In spite of the standard cliché, “Turn the channel if it offends you,” there are some “unchangeable channels” in our society. We can’t shut off the sexual assault in the public spaces – magazines, billboards, and publicly-owned television.

Having spent his entire career in the sex industry, Reavill argues that television shows (including many in the so-called “family hour”), commercials, and billboards are using the same sexually explicit humor found in magazines like Screw, Hustler, and Penthouse. In one of the more shocking examples, Reavill demonstrates how the humor in one episode of Will and Grace is similar to the puerile, sexually-charged humor of Screw magazine (45-48). This kind of humor is fine for consenting adults who choose it, but it is not appropriate in the public commons.

The major networks – CBS, NBC, and ABC – are part of our shared public space. They are licensed to use the public frequencies and thus are ultimately responsible to the public. For this reason, they have no business dishing out sexually-explicit material – especially during prime-time hours. This responsibility does not extend to cable television. Why? Cable is chosen. Those who have a problem with the programs on cable television have the option to cancel their subscription – to turn it off. This same option is not available with the three major networks.

Reavill’s argument is simple: In a free society, consenting adults have the right to access sexually-explicit material. But they do not have a right to invade the public space with sexually-explicit material, nor should they have the right to invade anyone’s personal privacy for profit. If one accepts Reavill’s argument, it transforms how we should approach change in the public square.

In a free society, there is no place to argue for the complete cessation of sexually-explicit material. One must always distinguish between one’s own personal morality, and what one believes in regard to how to legislate in a society shared by people who differ on moral issues. For some, pornographic material possesses no positive value and thus they choose to avoid it. For others, the use of pornographic material is acceptable.

I do not believe it is constitutional, or Christian, to enforce my morality through legislation. I believe in freedom. God gives us freedom to accept or reject him – and we must live with the consequences of this freedom. God does not force us to be moral. God gives us freedom to choose. In the same way, a society committed to freedom must allow people the right to do things that, to others, are morally objectionable. However, those who do so should not force their freedoms down other people’s throat. They must respect their right to not participate.

Thus, consenting adults should have the right to access sexually-explicit material if that is their desire. At the same time, the rights of those adults who do not choose to access such materials should be respected as well. Children, especially, should be protected from such material. This is for their good. When they are mature adults, they can choose whether or not to use sexually-explicit materials. Chuck D of the group Public Enemy puts it bluntly: “The assumption that children can handle anything is made by people who don't have kids or don't give a damn about them” (15).

Ultimately, Reavill’s position is not an argument for censorship; it is an argument for freedom, tolerance, and respect. It values liberty while also affirming responsibility and respect.

Any position on this issue that fails to value freedom is doomed to failure. Sadly, this is the view of most self-proclaimed Christian watch-dog groups: “A lock-'em-up, zero-tolerance approach to smut won't work, first of all, and will never garner a consensus in a society that values free speech. Groups such as Concerned Women for America, American Family Association (AFA) and Focus on the Family are passionate advocates for a world that has pretty much disappeared” (169).

One of the reasons that groups like this possess no real power is the ambiguity of the definition of “obscene speech.” Although obscene speech has no legal protection under the First Amendment, it is increasingly difficult to define it. The three common standards – prurience, offensiveness, and lack of merit– are increasingly unhelpful, especially when they are defined in accordance with “community standards.” This creates a conundrum when attempting to prosecute an obscenity charge: “when a community (the American public) pours ten billion dollars a year into an industry, can that industry reasonably be portrayed as violating community standards?” (175)

Reavill concludes his book by suggesting some action items. Parents should understand and use the V-chip technology found in almost half of all American homes. They should consult and support organizations such as Common Sense Media (“Sanity, Not Censorship”), Parents Television Council, and The Coalition for Quality Children’s Media. They can also appeal directly to the CEOs of the Big Five media conglomerates – “Richard Parsons of Time Warner. Sumner Redstone of Viacom. Michael Eisner (or whoever succeeds him) of Disney. Bob Wright of Universal. Rupert Murdoch of Fox” (185).

To prevent accidental exposure to sexually-explicit online material, Reavill advocates the top-level domain name, “.xxx”, as a catch-all for all adult content providers. “No more misspelled URLs opening mousetrapped smut barrages, since it would be difficult to mistype ‘xxx’ instead of ‘com.’ Porn would be effectively segregated but still readily available” (191).

Reavill also argues for a G rating on all forms of display in public spaces. “In fashion, on magazine covers, and on billboards, indecent sexual content intrudes into our lives whether we choose it or not... Magazine publishers can put anything they want on their covers, but in public display sexual content needs to be masked or shrink-wrapped. And billboard companies must operate on a strict G-rated-content-only policy” (196-197).

Like all arguments from the middle, Reavill will probably find few sympathizers. People tend to extremes. The right-wing apparently finds some strange satisfaction in arguing for positions that are incompatible with life in a free society. The left-wing constantly shouts “slippery slope” to any argument calling for a tolerant, respectful use of freedom. Both claim to hold the moral high ground. Neither respects the freedom of the other.

Reavill offers a solution that affirms people’s freedoms while purging the public spaces of sexually-explicit smut. One can only hope that sanity, not censorship, will prevail so that we might live in a civil society where liberty is real and freedoms aren’t flaunted.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2005