Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents
In Chapter 5 we discussed at length the increasing trend in the scientific research and in
general discussions of this subject to recognize that not all pornographic items are
identical. There are substantial differences in the content of such materials, and we have
tried in the rough categorization of Chapter 5 to express our sympathy with these efforts
to advance the clarity of thinking about the issue of pornography. Indeed, we hope that we
have contributed to those efforts. As the natural consequence of these efforts to
recognize the differences among pornographic materials, we urge that thinking in terms of
these or analogous categories be a part of the analysis of the total law enforcement
The categories we discussed in Chapter 5 encompass a range of materials far broader than the legally obscene, and thus, in the context of this discussion of the criminal law, a range of materials far broader than what we know can be prosecuted consistent with the Constitution. Nevertheless, these categories, with the exception of nudity not involving the lewd exhibition of the genitals, exist within as well as around the legally obscene, material that has been or could be criminally prosecuted consistent with the Miller standard, there exist materials that are sexually violent, materials that are non-violent but degrading, and materials that, although highly sexually explicit and offensive to many, contain neither violence nor degradation. In light of our conclusions in Chapter 5, we would urge that prosecution of obscene materials that portray sexual violence be treated as a matter of special urgency. With respect to sexually violent materials the evidence is strongest, societal consensus is greatest, and the consequent harms of rape and other forms of sexual violence are hardly ones that this or any other society can take lightly. In light of this, we would urge that the prosecution of legally obscene material that contains violence be placed at the top of both state and federal priorities in enforcing the obscenity laws.
With respect to materials that are nonviolent yet degrading, the evidence supporting our findings is not as strong as it is with respect to violent materials. And on the available evidence we have required more in the way of assumption to draw the connection between these materials and sexual violence, sexual aggression, and sex discrimination.
Nevertheless, these assumptions have significant support on the evidence and in our own logic and experiences, and the causal evidence remains for us strong enough to support our conclusions. None of us hesitate to recommend prosecution of those materials that are both degrading and legally obscene.
If choices must be made, however, prosecution of these materials might have to receive slightly lower priority than sexually violent materials, but this is not to say that we view action against degrading materials as unimportant.
With respect to materials in the third category we have identified, materials that are neither violent nor degrading, the issues are more difficult. There seems to be no evidence in the social science data of a causal relationship with sexual violence, sexual aggression, or sex discrimination. These three harms do not exhaust the possible harms, however, and our disagreements regarding this category reflect disagreements that abound in this society at this time. Many people believe that making sex into an essentially public act is a harm of major proportions, a harm that is compounded by its commercialization. To others legitimizing through this material either a wide range of traditionally prohibited sexual practices, or legitimizing sex without love, marriage, commitment, or even affection is the primary harm with which people should be concerned. Some people have recognized the extent to which material of this variety is likely to wind up in the hands of children, and thus to frighten children or to encourage children to model their behavior on what they have seen, and would take this to be a sufficient condition for serious concern. And some people note the importance to any society of some set of shared moral values, including values relating to sexuality, and look upon the proliferation of the material even in this category as an attack on something that is a precondition for a community. On the other hand, many people see these concerns as less problematic, or matters appropriate for individual choice and nothing more, or see in some of the use of these materials beneficial effects which ought also to be taken into account. We cannot resolve these disagreements among ourselves or for society, but the fact of disagreement remains a fact.
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong about these issues, and we do not purport to have clear, definitive, or easy answers, the substantially lower level of societal consensus about these matters is an empirical fact. To some of us, this substantially lower level of societal consensus, when combined with the absence for these materials of scientific evidence showing a causal connection with sexual violence, sexual aggression, or sex discrimination, leaves a category as to which this society is less certain and as to which one array of concerns, present with the two previous categories, is absent. More than this is necessary to recommend deregulation or even to support a recommendation not to prosecute what has long been taken to be regulable. And we will not so easily discount the substantial arguments that can be made for regulation by recommending a drastic change in what has been general practice for most of the history of this nation. Nevertheless, the factors of lower societal consensus and absence of causal connection with sexual violence, aggression, or discrimination are to some of us germane to the question of priority.
With respect, therefore, to legally obscene material within this category it seems entirely appropriate to some of us, at least in terms of long-term commitment of resources, for prosecutors and law enforcement personnel to treat such material differently from material containing sexual violence or degradation of women. Should a community wish to allocate sufficient resources to obscenity enforcement that material in this category is prosecuted as vigorously as that in the previously discussed category, we find that an entirely legitimate decision for a community to make. But if a community does not wish to devote resources to that extent, or if a community believes that the material in this category, even if legally obscene, is not cause for the stringent sanctions of the criminal law, then it would seem to some of us appropriate for that community to concentrate its efforts on material that is either violent or degrading.
On this issue we are, as would be expected given our differences with respect to the harms associated with this category, deeply divided. Some of us would strongly urge that all legally obscene material be prosecuted with equal vigor, and would not only urge the communities of which we are part to take this course, but would condemn those that did not. Others of us see the prosecution of material within this category as something that should quite consciously be treated as a lower priority matter, and still others of us see the questions with respect to this category as being primarily for the community to make, with community decisions to prosecute vigorously, or not at all, or somewhere in between, as entitled to equal respect.
Although we are divided on this question, the division is likely on the current state of the law to be more philosophical than real. Pursuant to Miller, material is obscene only if, among numerous other factors, it offends the community in which it is made available. As a result, in those communities in which material within this category is not considered especially problematic, the material will not be considered legally obscene. And in those communities in which material within this category is condemned, it will offend community standards and thus, if the other requirements of Miller are met, will be legally
obscene. As a result, therefore, the existing legal approach incorporates within the definition of obscenity the views of a particular community. The question whether to prosecute material in this category, therefore, assuming that the decision to prosecute is in effect a community decision, will turn into the question, under current law, whether the material is obscene at all.
Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents
Copyright © 2005 pornstudies.net