THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT:

In decades past, anti-porn Christian activists have pushed for the enforcement of obscenity laws that date back to the late 19th century as a way to combat the porn industry. Obscenity laws, though, have become notoriously difficult to prosecute since a Supreme Court ruling in 1973, Miller v. California, when the Court created what is now called the "Miller Standard" that distinguishes obscenity from other forms of protected speech based on varying "community standards" as well as "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Which is to say: Laurie is correct when she says that obscenity is still a crime, but incorrect in describing all pornography as obscene. Since the 1970s, the courts have consistently distinguished pornography from obscenity, the former protected under the First Amendment's right to free speech.

The primary strategy of the anti-porn movement in the 21st century is to use laws against sex trafficking to limit porn. The latest of these, SESTA-FOSTA, signed into law in 2018, situates all internet pornography on tenuous grounds: It amends the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to remove the protection granted to websites for the content of its users if that content is found to "promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person." In other words, under SESTA-FOSTA any website with sexual content could be feasibly held legally liable for sex trafficking, a term only loosely defined. Anti-porn activists take advantage of this.

OnlyFans' existing terms of use require that all people using the site are over 18 and that they do not display obscenity. This means the site has a long list of words that are banned, from Abduct to Zoophilia. Anti-porn activists have warned that websites with user-uploaded content, like OnlyFans, only superficially comply with the law, and that it's easy for users to thwart both age and content verifications. But it is perfectly legal for consenting adults on OnlyFans to share pornographic content. That's part of why it's a popular option for sex workers, particularly those who want to produce content independently and free from the oversight (and sometimes direct pressure and coercion) of the agents and directors in commercial pornography.

Though OnlyFans has said publicly that scrutiny from banks motivated their move to ban all sexually explicit videos, fears over government scrutiny may have also played into their decision. Its announcement came just over a week after Republican Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri sent a letter with over 100 signatures to the Department of Justice urging the Attorney General to investigate OnlyFans.com for criminal activity. The letter came at the urging of several inter-connected anti-pornography organizations, including NCOSE.

Though NCOSE touts itself as non-partisan and non-religious, the group got its start in the 1960s as "Morality in Media," an ecumenical group of clergy united in their opposition to pornography. Today, the group maintains its religious ties through a leadership of conservative Christians and alliance with Christian organizations. Still, NCOSE has benefited from alliances with anti-porn feminists concerned about women's exploitation, including Gail Dines and Julie Bindel, and secular porn addiction recovery groups, such as NoFap.

While secular feminists and many recovering porn addicts insist their problems with porn are not due to moral opposition to sexual explicitness, they have signed onto a movement that was started by and continues to be led by conservative Christians. And religious activists use these other groups to make the anti-porn movement seem more diverse than it actually is.

Tweet   @brothersjudd