Commentary: In (sad) defense of Internet pornography

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat ,  Cambridge, Massachusetts   |  Fri, 03/28/2008 1:38 AM

Point out someone who has never consumed brazen material or erotic literature, and you've probably found someone who's either ill-adjusted or socially retarded.

This is not a defense of pornography, per se. But free speech-loving Indonesians must apparently again defend "adult content" against censorship spurred on by political vogue and disingenuous righteousness.

Some obscene material is so abhorrent and inexcusable; child pornography is criminal, and the sex industry can be exploitative of women.

However, a blanket prohibition on the possession of Internet porn, as implied by the new law on electronic information and transaction, could be the grave beginnings of an Orwellian nightmare in censoring technology's diffusion of content.

As legislators moralize about making "red-light" websites inaccessible in the virtual world, red-light districts and gambling dens are readily available in the real world.

The state must protect people's safety, not their fragile sensibilities.

The Internet -- the most important democratic revolution in half a millennium -- is a unique medium, distinct from broadcast and print, which may require regulation.

Unlike traditional media where content is "forced" on the consumer, Internet porn is accessed only through solicitation. Entrance to porn sites requires deliberate affirmation often preceded by warnings of age or other legal restrictions.

It is not thrust upon them when pressing the remote or turning a page. Indonesians who observe Internet porn do so under their own conviction.

How much should we allow the state to control our most private thoughts?

Data from Google Trends collected over the last 15 months ranked Indonesia in the top four countries for the number of Internet searches conducted with the word "sex".

Sexual desire in itself is not a perverse habit. Even the World Health Organization cites it as essential to the quality of life and a health right.

Neither is it indicative of a licentious nation.

What is does signal is the growing eagerness of a once politically repressed society to seek and express subjects once considered taboo.

From novels such as Saman and Garis Tepi Seorang Lesbian to films like Arisan* and the nouveau art of "Pinkswing Park", issues of sexuality are becoming more polemic and are being addressed with greater passion.

At an age when the transfer of information -- political, philosophical and degenerate -- accelerates, our challenge is not to decelerate the flow, but rather cope through education and taking personal responsibility for the information we consume.

A "nanny state", where the government assumes moral control over our personal choices, is authoritarianism by another name.

If we fear the impact of Internet porn on our children, then parents should take responsibility.

Allowing children unsupervised access to the Internet without parental filters is as irresponsible as letting them vegetate in front of TV soaps glorifying delinquent behavior and violence.

Porn will not necessarily make bad human beings. Failure to educate against the social construct that women are beholden to men, certainly will.

Social attitudes, not naked bodies, perpetuates an over-tolerance of perversion.

There is a continuing debate about the direct impacts of pornography and its relationship to violence. The "Catharsis Theory" suggests porn may serve to channel urges. Supporters point to low sex crime rates in very liberal societies such as Scandinavian countries.

Other countries are similarly debating whether to ban Internet porn.

Rightfully, there is a consensus on banning child pornography and some countries also prohibit the viewing of porn sites on publicly funded terminals, including in government offices, schools and libraries.

Britain has debated the prohibition of sexually violent sites, while the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down the Communications Decency Act, which would have impacted Internet porn, because "governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it".

Perhaps the most worrying impact of Indonesia's new law is how it grants inquisitorial powers to authorities in our most private domains.

It is a dangerous precedent for civil liberties that could permeate and lead to further injunctions, including, for example, a restriction on ownership of political literature, such as Communist-Marxist writings, deemed unsuitable by the state.

Censorship is impossible to enforce and its value only effective eventually as a tool of persecution.

Salman Rushdie, a man who lives in the shadow of censorship and persecution, wrote in Imaginary Homelands of censorship's insidious effect in deadening the imagination.

"Where there is no debate, it is hard to go on remembering that there is a suppressed side to every argument... It becomes easy to think that what has been suppressed is valueless or so dangerous that it needed to be suppressed."

Indonesians need to be creative on the Internet to foster this most important tool of modernity. Give them the tools, not the inhibitions, to make the Internet safe for exploration.

The author, a staff writer for The Jakarta Post, is studying at Harvard University as a research fellow with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.