Americans have a reputation for imposing their values upon
others. But to be “fair,” it should be pointed out that
the morality police are just as active on our own soil, defining
right and wrong and punishing accordingly. The leader of this pack
of wolves is Attorney General John Ashcroft. This former Missouri
senator and post-Sept. 11 2001 champion of “hardcore”
conservatism has now stepped up his crusade against the evils of
skin, charging pornographers with obscenity.
Earlier this week, Extreme Associates, a relatively small porn
factory, producing quality titles such as “Easy Cheeks”
and “Sperm Receptacle,” was the first company to be
charged in accordance with Ashcroft’s promise to crack down
on purveyors of adult entertainment. To be fair, this company does
sell merchandise containing questionable rape simulations, but
there is little doubt this line of prosecution will eventually lead
to indictments of more conventional forms of pornography by an
overzealous Ashcroft. The future looks bleak for the rest of
porno-land as it stands to face Ashcroft’s wrath amid a flood
of upcoming criminal prosecutions questioning the obscenity of
plain ole pornography.
And while this recent charge against bad taste seems extreme, it
is only the tip of a proverbial moral iceberg. Ashcroft, while
perhaps justified in holding terrorist suspects without trial at
Guantanamo Bay, has made other questionable decisions. He recently
announced he would be keeping track of judges who dare to use their
discretion to sentence criminals to less time than those set by
strict legal guidelines, in effect disregarding the subjective
elements of individual case. He has also “protected”
the eyes of Washington’s blind by covering the naked statue
of Justice with curtains. While none of these single-handedly seem
overly extreme, taken together they are paving the road to a
country of moral absolutism.
Perhaps I’m just naïve in my idealistic college
years, but I fail to see the dangers Ashcroft sees in nudity. While
taking a strong stance on issues, such as pornography, is
understandable, the strength in which he is forcing his opinions
upon Americans is tyrannical. The fact is that, to most people,
pornography is not criminally obscene, trials are not black and
white, and naked statues are not the end of the world. As anyone
with an Internet connection can attest to, what Ashcroft finds
morally detestable is being bought up by the public, fueling a
massive industry. As Justice Potter Stewart said on the topic of
obscenity, “I know it when I see it,” and for millions
of Americans, they have seen it, and seem to be enjoying it.
Even worse, considering the nature of the “crime,”
the strength of Ashcroft’s prosecution is at best extreme,
and at worst, absolutely insane. He has forgone justice for a
higher calling. The case at hand is not about child pornography or
a situation in which anyone is being directly harmed.
Everyone, from the creators, to the distributors, to the buyers,
is acting of their own free will. Besides perhaps being a moral
crime, there should be no reason why selling pornography should be
a federal felony. Freedom constitutes the choice of pornography as
well as morality.
Ashcroft has remained in the public’s favor, because
amidst all the elevated threats and rainbow warnings, there has not
been another falling out since Sept. 11, 2001. Tough times call for
tough actions, but we should be weary of how much we are willing to
lose in the name of one man’s morals. Let’s hope the
next time Ashcroft wants to bury justice under a moral cloak, he is
as blunderingly obvious as he has been thus far.