So there has been a bit of a brouhaha going on since TopTV announced its plans to broadcast pornographic (am I allowed to say the “p” word?) material over South African airwaves last year.
Panic stations have been erected in homes and religious institutions throughout the land and burning arrows of moral indignation launched in the pay-TV provider's direction.
It is the right of adults to view what they choose to, in the privacy of their own homes.
Bonnie Tubbs, journalist, ITWeb
The chorus of disapproval has its basis in the potential and - as protestors maintain - very real dangers posed by this wanton form of entertainment to our society. The Family Policy Institute, for example, believes TopTV has a diabolical plan up its sleeve, to “destroy lives and steal human dignity”, while the Film and Publications Board says pornographic material in the home would impinge on the safety of children.
Indeed, should the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) decide to grant TopTV's application to give its subscribers the option of adult content, it would be a first for our still-slightly-conservative country. Firsts are always scary. But in a country that boasts a democratic constitution, complete with rights such as that of freedom of choice, one would assume enforcement of the premeditated laws it is supposed to enshrine.
Pay-TV leader MultiChoice had a dalliance with the idea of sex channels too, in 2010, but it soon abandoned the idea in the face of a public onslaught. Again, protesters have nailed their colours to the mast and seem prepared to fight the advent of pornography on South African TV to the bitter end.
Uncorroborated argument
One of the arguments that have been posed is that there is a correlation between indulgence in pornography and sexual violence, primarily perpetrated by men against women and children.
Despite the feminist critique that emerged in the 70s and 80s, and extensive and ongoing research on this conjecture, no conclusive evidence exists that the two are actually related. In fact, a contrary association may even exist, if numerous studies and professional opinion are anything to go by.
In 2006, Northwestern University (US) law professor Anthony D'amato released a paper: “Porn Up, Rape Down”, in which he transcribed statistics that showed just what the title suggests: the incidence of rape in the US declined 85% over a 25-year period during which access to pornography had become freely available to teenagers and adults.
SA's own local “Dr Ruth”, Dr Marlene Wasserman (Dr Eve), Sexual Rights Committee member at the World Association of Sexual Health, and clinical sexologist, says the notion of exposure to pornography leading to sex crimes is “nonsense”.
She refers to often-cited research by Berl Kutchinsky, professor of criminology at the University of Copenhagen, which found the incidence of rape diminished or stayed relatively level as pornography became more freely accessible in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and the US. The Scientist magazine has published research showing identical findings were recorded in Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland and the Czech Republic.
Dr Eve cites the usual suspects - poverty, unemployment, inadequate healthcare and poor education - as catalysts for sexual violence, not adult entertainment.
Parental policing
Then there is the assertion that children will be at risk of exposure to the untoward telecasts.
While the protection of children is by no means to be taken lightly, I can't help but think that it is essentially the responsibility of parents to ensure their children are shielded from any form of harmful material, inasmuch as that is possible in this age of information.
Surely the protection of children is a visceral element of parenthood that doesn't require third-party assistance or interference? That being said, TopTV has put numerous measures in place to facilitate parental responsibility by ensuring that access to its adult package can only be gained by the party or parties for which it is intended.
I cannot, in my mind, reconcile how an opt-in, encrypted and protected service can be positioned as the apocalypse, when open platforms like the Internet and connected mobile phones make all kinds of dubious material available and accessible to anyone even remotely tech-savvy, at any given time. And today's kids are undeniably more knowledgeable with regards to technology than ever before.
Right to choose
At the end of the day it boils down to the freedom to choose for oneself, within the confines of the law of the country. It is the right of adults to view what they choose to, in the privacy of their own homes, as long as it does not infringe the law or the rights of others.
If I may indulge in pure semantics, an “adult opt-in” service denotes (a) a service expressly targeted at consenting grown-ups, who (b) choose of their own informed and free volition to partake in the viewing of its content.
Regardless of whether or not pornography is your cup of tea, no one should be stripped of his or her right to choose.
Anyway, as it stands, the ball is in ICASA's court. The authority's decision will only be made at the end of the month, and for all intents and purposes, it could still swing either way.
On the one hand, if protesters get their way, the issue will probably slowly subside into being but a distant memory, until a third pay-TV player cottons on to the business feasibility of adult entertainment and starts the belligerent ball rolling all over again.
On the other, if ICASA happens to grant TopTV's application, I suspect defeated protesters will fly their flags at half mast as they mourn the death of the illusion that we may one day live in a transparent society, upright in deed and thought.
Share