Fighting Pornography Everywhere: From the Internet to Washington to Fox News

In March 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees much of the World Wide Web, voted 9-3 to allow a new top-level .xxx domain. Widely seen as a victory for the global pornography industry, websites that contain pornographic content will soon be able to use .com or .xxx as part of their basic site address and homepage name.

Stuart Lawley, whose Internet Content Management (ICM) Registry has led the drive for the domain, hopes to open a “progressive new home for adult entertainment online…out of the reach of minors and as free as possible from fraud or malicious computer viruses.” By July 2011, ICM had received 900,000 expressions of interest from a myriad of sources, some for as little as $60.

Each site will have built-in components that block viruses and allow for child-protection with “100-percent efficiency,” Mr. Lawley claimed. Meanwhile, the Associated Press found that ICM “stands to take millions” of dollars with the new approval.

Leading opponents of the pornography industry object to the .xxx domain. Craig Gross—pastor and co-founder of XXXChurch.com, which aids people and families hurt by pornography—states that the domain “just adds more porn to the web and makes the web once again known for porn.” He says this domain could be a “great thing” if regulators required pornography websites to move from .com to .xxx. Unfortunately, no such mandate exists.

Patrick Trueman—CEO of Morality in Media, which uses education and jurisprudence to fight obscenity and indecency—agrees. He believes the .xxx domain will cause “even more harm to children, families, and communities, and make ICANN complicit in that harm.” He adds that the new domain is “overwhelmingly opposed by the public and governments throughout the world.”

A former top official in the Justice Department Child Exploitation and Obscenity section, Trueman says the Supreme Court has never protected “obscenity.” Yet, he notes, “The U.S. Department of Justice has given pornographers a green light by not enforcing federal laws which prohibit obscene hardcore pornography on the Internet.” This has been the case under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.

Popular arguments for and against pornography are well known. Proponents claim rights to free speech and free enterprise, noting billions of dollars and millions of viewers, websites, and other medians. Opponents cite free speech limitations, addictions, abuse, broken homes, and biblical morality. (Peter J. Leithart makes a convincing case for promoting “biblical morality” rather than merely “traditional values.” He warns against settling for what he believes to be a non-existent “universal code of sexual morality” rather than “Christian sexual morality.”) Pornography foes also cite correlations between pornography and societal, church, family, and personal crises.

Other important topics include the harms of practicing pornography, the failure of the executive branch to enforce “anti-obscenity” legislation, and the destructively relative definitions—or lack thereof—of pornography by leading conservative and liberal sources alike. It also is noteworthy that help is available for people with addictions to pornographic material.

In 2010 the Christian Post reported on a new television show, “Footnote.” The premier shared a true story about a “young girl who was curled up in a ball between takes in the production of a porn film, sucking her thumb because her mind was so blown by what she did.” The reporter also cited a porn actress who said her work “actually hurts but we have to make it look good because we have to sell the product.” Former pornography producer Donny Pauling recalled seeing “the lights go out” in the eyes of women who worked in the industry too long.

A few years ago, some 110 groups across America formed a coalition called “The War on Illegal Pornography.” The largely Christian group included congressmen from both political parties, including Sen. Orin Hatch, Rep. Mike McIntyre, and Rep. Randy Forbes. They want the Justice Department to enforce federal laws designed “to curb the production and distribution of obscene pornography, including on the internet,” since “a consistent and strong commitment to enforcing these laws can have a significant impact.”

Two major information outlets—Fox News, in an article on the history of pornography, and the Encyclopedia Britannica pornography entry—claim the definition of pornography is “famously subjective” and “subjective,” respectively. But is pornography itself subjective, or its appeal? If pornography has no objective meaning, then it cannot be regulated or even critiqued (as being “obscene” for instance). But if it is defined as morally reprehensible and legally inappropriate, despite having a subjective appeal to many—like a criminal who may be a willing burglar but not a robber—then offensive and dangerous pornographic content must be restricted.

Finally, resources abound for those who want to stay away or get away from pornography. First, the Bible is a key aid in any struggle. Second, parents or spouses can offer strong accountability. Third, helpful websites exist, such as: xxxchurch.com, pornharms.com, moralityinmedia.org, porntopurity.com, and waronillegalpornography.com.

One pastor’s wife says that her husband’s former pornography addiction was their mutual marriage problem, not just his problem. Her husband decries it as a “silent sin,” and she says she feels so relieved to be “living in truth.” She concludes, “Without Christ, our situation would have been helpless. But because we know the Great Physician…who can make all things new, we had all the hope of Heaven.”

Please pray for:

• God to rescue those involved in the pornographic industry.
• Grace for spouses, children, or parents who struggle with pornography.
• Government leaders to deal with the issue of pornography responsibly.
• God’s moral standards to prevail upon American society.

~~~~~~~~
(Originally published by The Presidential Prayer Team.)