The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
Some folks who favor suppression of sexually explicit materials are more forthright about what gives life to their censorious zeal than others. Say what you will about the old “Morality in Media” brand, back when the organization went by that moniker, everybody knew where they were coming from just by reading the sign on their door.
Perhaps because the folks at Morality in Media perceived they were limiting their demographic reach with the judgy-sounding, clunky old name, they opted for a rebrand back in 2015, becoming the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Suddenly, with the flip of a logo, they sounded less like angry Bible thumpers out to cancel your favorite sitcom and more like a serious nongovernmental agency out to prevent real harm.
You know what didn’t change when MIM became NCOSE? The president of the organization. Patrick A. Trueman ran the joint on both sides of the rebrand, from 2010 to 2023. Before that, Trueman was prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice during the administration of George H.W. Bush, which also happens to be the last time federal prosecutors aggressively enforced the nation’s obscenity laws. Trueman remains the President Emeritus of NCOSE to this day.
Just as I doubt Trueman lost his zest for cleaning up American media when his organization rebranded, I don’t buy that a lot of the organizations most strenuously supporting various age verification mandates at the state and federal level are really in it to protect minors from harmful materials online – unless one happens to define “harmful” the same way they do, of course.
Referencing remarks recently made by Rep. Leigh Finke, a transgender member of the Minnesota Legislature who has criticized elements of her state’s proposed age verification law, Rindala Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Molly Buckley, one of the organization’s legislative analysts, call attention not only to the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, but the nature of the organizations supporting Texas in the case.
“The Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized,” Alajaji and Buckley write. “They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more.”
Alajaji and Buckley add that the “coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control.”
“After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates,” the authors note. “Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview.”
The thing about appealing to people’s desire to protect children is that it works – and for a good reason. It’s a good thing to want to protect your kids. God knows they need protection, including from themselves. Parents should do all the reasonable, rational, normal things they can do to protect their kids.
But if you’re denying a gay or trans kid access to information from people who have been through the same things that kid is going through and can offer guidance, support and maybe a little solace for the kid, you’re not protecting that kid; you’re stifling, aggravating and alienating that kid. Shit, you might be killing that kid – even if you earnestly believe you’re helping.
I can also understand why the idea of age-gating the internet might sound good to people, especially frightened people who are raising kids who are online much more than their parents. But fear is a state of mind that can make people suggestible – and that’s when opportunists don their superhero capes and make a dramatic entrance, promising to make the world (wide web) a safer, better place for you and your kids—without really mentioning the part about how they’re actually in this to keep The Gays from enacting their Sinister Agenda, or whatever it is that animates some of these zealots.
I guess what I’m saying is this: You can’t save your kid from drowning by throwing someone else’s kid into the deep end of the pool with lead boots on. And some of the people promising to provide your kid a life jacket are heavily invested in lead.
