The First Amendment and the Web: The Internet Porn Panicand Restricting Indecency in CyberspaceDorothy ImrichMullinDepartment of CommunicationUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraCopyright 1996, Dorothy Imrich Mullin. Used with permission.AbstractCiting government interests in making "the new Internet and informationsuperhighway as safe as possible for kids to travel" and in keepingcomputer networks from turning into a "red light district" (comments madeby Senator Jim Exon, D-NE, 1995), Congress recently passed the sweepingCommunications Decency Act of 1996 that (among other things) makes it acrime to knowingly "by means of a telecommunications device [makeavailable] any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or othercommunication which is obscene or indecent...[to any person] under 18years of age" (47 U.S.C. Section 223(a)). This bill, now signed intolaw, extends already existing prohibitions on legally "obscene" materialsand child pornography to include a ban on "indecent" content as well. Inthe wake of this broad ban, discussions have raged both online and in thepress about free speech, online pornography, and the protection ofchildren. This presentation is a discussion of the legal and social science issuescurrently surrounding content regulation of the world wide web and theInternet as a whole, with an emphasis on the indecency ban. Specifically,I address concerns that have led to legislation, including 1) theperceived pervasiveness of online pornography (i.e., what has been calledthe "porn panic"); 2) the perceived intrusiveness of online communicationand its accessibility to children and adolescents; and 3) the potentialfor societal "harms" to children or adults following exposure to onlineindecency. In each of these areas, I examine the role of social science,both in fuelling the porn panic and in potentially informing the policydebate, and I address the broad First Amendment implications of(inappropriately) applying broadcast regulation standards to onlinecommunication. An old debate in America has been recently renewed and extended in thewake of rapidly changing technology. The perceived proliferation ofsexually explicit messages across computer networks has reigniteddiscussion of adults' right of access to sexual messages versus thepossible contribution of such exposure to antisocial attitudes orbehaviors (e.g., discrimination against women, sexual assault). Moreover,the easy point-and-click nature of many online media, including the WorldWide web, has given rise to the additional concern about the availabilityof sexually-oriented materials to an audience of children and adolescents.Media attention to a (now seriously discredited) study (Rimm, 1995)proclaiming widespread and especially deviant pornography on the"information superhighway" has particularly fuelled these concerns. WhatHarper's Magazine has called "the Internet porn panic" ("HowTime," 1995,p. 11) has resulted in policy makers, parents, lawyers, feminist scholars,and social scientists all arguing about how to (or whether to) deal withoffensive content on computer networks. Traditionally, government attempts at regulation of non-electronic sexualmaterials have encountered difficulty in the courts when faced with FirstAmendment challenges. In fact, apart from prohibitions on strictly"obscene" materials, that is, materials that do not receive FirstAmendment protection if they meet the legal definition of obscenityoutlined in Miller v. California (1973),1 the courts have not upheldoutright bans on sexually explicit material in books (e.g., AmericanBooksellers Association v. Hudnut, 1986; Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 1962;Butler v. Michigan, 1957), magazines (e.g., Pope v. Illinois, 1987), orfilms (e.g., Miller v. California, 1973; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton,1973). Indeed, in Roth v. U. S. (1957), Justice Brennan stressed theimportance of protection for sexual expression: The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientificworks is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutionalprotection of freedom of speech and press. Sex, a great and mysteriousmotive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbinginterest to mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems ofhuman interest and public concern (354 U. S. at 487). Inasmuch as sexual materials on the Internet or BBSs are, like X-ratedmovies and sexually-explicit publications, available for consumption byaudience members who seek them, a similarly strict First Amendmentstandard of protection for non-obscene sexual materials might easily beapplied to computer networks as well. However, many parents and legislators have asserted that special concernsabout online sexual and other offensive communication call for lessstringent First Amendment protection and a need for regulation. In fact,citing government interests in making "the new Internet and informationsuperhighway as safe as possible for kids to travel" (Lewis, 1995, p. 10)and in keeping computer networks from turning into a "red light district"("Junior and cyberspace," 1995) (comments made by Senator Jim Exon, D-NE,1995), Congress recently passed the sweeping Communications Decency Act of1996, which (among other things) makes it a crime to knowingly "by meansof a telecommunications device [make available] any comment, request,suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene orindecent...[to any person] under 18 years of age" (47 U.S.C. Section223(a)). Now signed into law (but facing Constitutional challenge in theD. C. Circuit courts), this act extends already existing prohibitions onlegally "obscene" materials and child pornography to include a ban on"indecent" content as well.2 This paper is a discussion of the legal and social science issuescurrently surrounding content regulation of the world wide web and theInternet as a whole. Specifically, I address the widespread concerns thathave led to online indecency restrictions, including 1) the perceivedproliferation of online pornography (the "porn panic"); 2) the perceivedintrusiveness of online communication and its accessibility to childrenand adolescents; and 3) the potential for societal "harms" to children oradults following exposure to online indecency. In each of these areas, Iexamine the role of social science, both in fuelling the panic and inpotentially informing the policy debate, and I address the broad FirstAmendment implications of (inappropriately) applying broadcast regulationstandards to online communication. The Internet Porn PanicThe obscenity arrest and conviction of California private BBS operatorsCarleen and Robert Thomas (U.S. v.Thomas, Federal District Court of Tennessee, 1994), who put visualimages online of, among other things, acts of bestiality, for many broughtto attention the existence of sexually explicit materials on computernetworks and the legal implications of dealing with these materials.Legal scholars took issue with the applicability of current law to theemerging new media (see e.g., Corn-Revere,1994; Reske,1994; Sergent,1994; Smith,1994). Network servers expressed concern about liability for contentpassing through their domains. One university, fearing bad publicity aswell as prosecution, even attempted to ban all the "alt.sex.*" newsgroupsfrom its Internet connection (widespread protest and First Amendmentchallenges from the student community, the American Civil Liberties Union,and the Electronic Frontier Foundation led to the faculty senate restoringaccess to these newsgroups) (Elmer-DeWitt,1994). Among some religious groups, the Thomas case was said "to openthe eyes of both the computer industry and Christians to the growingavailability and acceptance of sexually explicit images over the emerginginformation superhighway and the eroding control of parents over theinformation their children take in" (Zipperer,1994, p. 42). The initial proposal made by Senators Jim Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton(R-WA) for the Communications Decency Act (also known as the "Exonamendment" to telecommunications reform bill S. 652) sparked heatedarguments online and sensational coverage in the popular press. A numberof writers in computer magazines decried censorship (see e.g., Abernathy,1995a; Meeks,1995; Norr,1995), although some also expressed a need for online decency (Metcalfe,1995a, 1995b). Legal commentaries appeared in media industry tradejournals (e.g., Corn-Revere,1995a), and major American newspapers and news magazines covered theconstitutional controversy over the bill (e.g., ElNasser, 1995; Levy,1995a; Lewis,1995a; Lohr,1995; Rich,1995; Wilson,1995). Many journalists emphasized the "raunchy" aspects of sexual materials thatcan be found on the Internet or in private BBSs. For example, a coverstory about online sex in USA Today featured a color photo ofsexy (albeit clothed) computer images and their corresponding web linkstogether with the caption, "The Internet's seamy side" (L. Miller,1995, p. 1A). A New York Times headline declared that"Despite [the bill's] plan for cooling it off, cybersex stays hot" (Lewis,1995a, p. 10). The Wall Street Journal reported that onepornography database shut down due to heavy traffic downloading"electronic erotica" (Sandberg,1995). Newsweek, with a focus on the issue of children'saccess, ran "No place for kids? A parent's guide to sex on the Net" (Levy,1995b, p. 47) with a related article's headline declaring that "withjust a computer and a modem, techno-savvy kids have access to a plethoraof cybersleaze" (p. 48). Perhaps the most prominent press attention to the sex in cyberspace debate(and resulting in the most fury online) came with the June 26, 1995release of Time magazine (its July 3, 1995 issue). Alsofocussing on the concern about sexual images available to children,Time magazine ran a cover story entitled "Cyberporn" (Elmer-DeWitt,1995), with the cover photo illustration depicting a horrified child'sface in the light of a computer screen and a headline exclaiming that "Anew study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect ourkids--and free speech?" Full-page photo illustrations accompanied thearticle, including a naked man embracing a computer and a child beinglured into a dark alley by a man with a lollipop image on a computerscreen. Widespread discussion had already been going on online, both in the network newsgroups (e.g., alt.censorship, alt.comp.EFF.talk) and at sites on the world wide web (see e.g., ), largely about the (un)constitutionality of the Exon bill and government attempts at content regulation in general. However, upon its release the Time cover story itself (Elmer-DeWitt, 1995) came under particular attack online (see e.g., HotWired's web site at ). Critics were enraged that in his story, Philip Elmer-DeWitt relied upon the findings and generalizations of a "Carnegie Mellon study" entitled "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway" (Rimm, 1995) that had been and continues to be intensely criticized by marketing researchers (Hoffman & Novak, 1995a, 1995b), a prominent computer scientist (Reid, 1995), and legal scholars with research backgrounds (Godwin, 1995; Post, 1995). The study proclaimed vast amounts and particularly deviant forms of online pornography, and the Time story touted its findings as having widespread implications for public concern and policy. The Rimm Study and the Porn PanicRigorous social science can contribute to informed social debate andpublic policy, and popular news sources like Time can givecredibility and exposure to important findings. However, substandardresearch that also finds its way to such exposure and credibility canresult in clouded debate. The latter, I believe, is the case with Rimm'sstudy. In a report published in the Georgetown Law Journal (anon-peer-reviewed legal journal), Marty Rimm (1995)examined the download patterns of images from a number of private, self-proclaimed "adult" BBSs (i.e., BBSs that require payment and proof of agebefore subscribing). He also examined the number of image postings to asmall subset of Usenet newsgroups. Despite his examination of only alimited portion of computer network activity, Rimm made a number ofalarming assertions about online pornography in general that researchershave since challenged as unsupported, misleading, or outrightmisrepresentations of his data. One now famous (mis)statement about the prevalence of computer pornographyis Rimm's conclusion that "83.5% of all images posted on the Usenet arepornographic" (Rimm, 1995,p. 1994). This proportion of Internet pornography could not appearcredible to anyone familiar with the Internet (see Levy,1995a). The percentage actually refers to numbers of images posted toa narrow subset of 32 Usenet newsgroups called "alt.binaries."Specifically, Rimm found that 83.5% of the images posted to 32"alt.binaries" newsgroups were posted to the 17 of those newsgroups thatRimm labelled "pornographic" (Post,1995). However, even this is likely an inflation, given that Rimm doesnot disclose how he counted "images" (many image files consist of multipleposts), he does not discuss how he determined which newsgroups were infact "pornographic" (in a separate table of the forty most accessednewsgroups, he labelled "alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels" aspornographic), and he does not examine whether all the images posted tothose groups were actually even sexually explicit (Hoffman& Novak, 1995b). Both Hoffman and Novak (1995b)and Post (1995)maintain that the 83.5% figure is grossly misleading. Using Rimm's ownfigures, they point out that the part of the Internet that involves Usenetnewsgroups represents only 11.5% of total Internet traffic, and of that,only about 3% (by message count) is associated with newsgroups containingpornographic imagery. Thus, they conclude that less than one-half of 1%(3% of 11.5%) of messages on the Internet is associated with newsgroupsthat contain pornography (and many of the messages in these "pornographic"newsgroups are text files that may not even be sexually explicit).Although we do not have such data about sexual explicitness in theremaining 88.5% of the non-Usenet Internet traffic (e.g., world wide webuse), it is fair to say that only a small percentage of pornographicimagery, relative to non-pornographic content, occurs in the Usenetnewsgroups. Nevertheless, the misrepresented 83.5% is what Rimm listed inhis summary of findings (and what Time publicized). Interestingly, the 83.5% figure itself comes from the small part of Rimm'sstudy that deals with readership statistics of selected Usenet newsgroups.Most of Rimm's data concerns download patterns on selected private "adult"BBSs. Nevertheless, even with this data, Rimm obscures importantmethodological procedures: he does not make explicit how his sample ofadult BBSs was chosen to be "representative" (p. 1876), he confuses theactual numbers of image descriptors that were examined (917, 410 versus292,114, among others), and he professes both "reliability" and "validity"for his categorizing procedure without providing any data for support (Hoffman& Novak, 1995b; see also Godwin,1995). Furthermore, in his conclusions Rimm repeatedly conflates the adult BBSdata with the Usenet data, and then exacerbates this problem bygeneralizing to all of the Internet (see Hoffmanand Novak, 1995b, for a number of egregious examples). Oneparticularly outlandish claim is that "after a year of exploring theInternet, Usenet, world wide web, and computer Bulletin Board Systems(BBS), the research team discovered that one of the largest (if not thelargest) recreational applications of users of computer networks was thedistribution and consumption of sexually explicit imagery" (Rimm, 1995,p. 1861), yet Rimm does not examine "distribution" in his study andonly examines "consumption" in adult BBSs. He provides no evidence forhis sweeping conclusion about all these network resources. Despite online criticism and attempts to otherwise publicize problems withthe Rimm study (see e.g., Godwin,1995; Lewis,1995b; 1995c), many journalists have expressed concern that theTime coverage of Rimm's study, together with "the woeful faceof the child on the cover" (Webb, 1995,online), has overly alarmed parents and politicians and has generally"fed the Internet porn panic" ("HowTime," 1995, p. 11). Indeed, when Sen. Grassley (R-IA)introduced his own Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of1995, which would prohibit the transmission of any sexually explicitmaterials via computer networks, he did so with passionate rhetoricinspired by the Time article, reiterating the now infamousimplication that 83.5% of all computerized images available on theInternet are pornographic (Grassley,1995). Law professor and anti-pornography feminist Catharine MacKinnon(MacKinnon,1995) also featured the "over eighty percent" (p. 1964) figure in herresponse to the Rimm study, and she extended Rimm's argument aboutaberrant sexual behaviors, claiming that "the most violent anddehumanizing materials" (p. 1964) are the most frequent. "Pornography incyberspace," she argued, "is pornography in society--just broader, deeper,worse, and more of it" (p. 1959). Thus, although the Rimm study may have lost authority in some academiccircles and online, in much of the public and political discourseregarding cyberporn, the "83.5%" figure and the conviction that materialis particularly "deviant" seem to continue to serve as central features topleas for government regulation and protection for children.4 In a recentlocal editorial, activists Santa Barbara County Citizens AgainstPornography quoted Rimm's conclusions from Time in order toargue that computer networks are rife with images of pedophilia, bondage,bestiality, and urination (Goss &Picks, 1995). Unfortunately, where rigorous social science might have served toilluminate the public and Congress about the issue of online pornography,instead misinterpreted findings, unwarranted conclusions, and problematicresearch methods have served to cloud an already inflamed and perhapsunwarranted panic. The Nature and Pervasiveness of Computer Network SexualityFor the leaders of many antipornography groups, particularly the AmericanFamily Association and Morality in Media, any amount and kind of sexualexplicitness may be too much (Healey,1995). However, much public concern and Congressional action is duenot merely to the fact that sexual explicitness is available on theInternet, but also due to the perception that online pornography isrampant, unavoidable, and particularly unseemly. Given the numerous problems with Rimm's (1995)research, his study provides only a shaky understanding of how much andwhat type of sexual material actually appear on computer networks.Nevertheless, Rimm's data, despite his overgeneralizations, does indicatethat a very small portion of total Internet traffic (less than 1%) isdevoted to the posting of sex-related photographic images in Usenetnewsgroups. This finding is consistent with Tamosaitis' (1995)report that of over 10,000 Internet Usenet newsgroups, less than 200 arerelated to sex in any way (photographs or discussion). Thus, at least inthe realm of newsgroups, sexual content, even broadly defined, appears toaccount for only a small part of Internet activity. Rimm's study also indicates that sexually explicit photographs, of evenextreme forms such as pedophilia and bestiality, are described in anddownloaded from private "adult" Bulletin Board Systems (which requirepayment and proof of age). However, this is not surprising, consideringthat the sole purpose of such BBSs is to serve those very interests. Inother words, it is not particularly informative that pornographic pictures(or at least descriptors of such pictures, as Rimm measured) are found inpornographic online services. What we cannot determine from Rimm's data,because he only measured a selected group of BBSs, is what is the extentof explicit images relative to the totality of images available acrossBulletin Board Systems, as well as compared to images on the rest of theInternet. Without such information, using Rimm's download data on adultBBSs to make statements about the pervasiveness of "online pornography" islike using sales figures from adult book stores to make statements aboutthe pervasiveness of adult books on the literary market. According to Brian Reid, who for the last nine years has been compilingdata on Usenet use for the Network Systems Laboratory at Digital EquipmentCorporation, measuring online user behavior is very difficult (Reid,1995; see also Godwin,1995). He argues that absolute numbers are essentially meaningless(accurate only within a factor of ten), but that trends either inmonth-to-month readership percentages of given newsgroups or within-monthratios of one newsgroup to another are "meaningful enough to pay attentionto for serious scholarship" (Reid, 1995,online). Such readership trends can be generated for Usenetnewsgroups or world wide web pages. However, readership statistics onlyindicate the relative percentages of "hits" or "drop ins" each newsgroupor web page receives in a given period; that is, how often someone (thesame person or different persons?) gained access to the newsgroup or pagein this period. It is impossible to tell from such data whether or notany files were actually read or downloaded (Hoffman& Novak, 1995b; Reid,1995). Moreover, measuring relatively how often, for example, the"alt.sex" newsgroup or the Playboy web page is accessed does notnecessarily provide useful information about how pervasive sexual materialis in a given computer environment. The "alt.sex" or similar newsgroupsmay be popular (i.e., lots of lurkers) without there being a lot ofsubstantial sexual material there (i.e., multiple lurkers are all lookingat or reading the same selection). Similarly, although one web page canreceive thousands of "hits," it is still only one web page amongthousands. And although adult BBSs may have many subscribers, material onthese BBSs is only a fraction of the kinds of resources available acrossthe rest of the online universe. Thus, for researchers and policy makersinterested in how much pornography there is online, data on the popularityof sex-related newsgroups, web pages, or BBSs are not, strictly speaking,an indication of the extent of available sex-related or pornographicmaterial in these media. Little systematic investigation has been undertaken to examine the extentof available online sexual imagery or discussion. However, a number ofcursory explorations of sexual material online have generated muchanecdotal evidence, and some "guidebooks" to the Internet sexual universehave emerged. Most of these writers have focused on sex-relatedphotographic images, although a few have explored in detail the phenomenonof sexual discussion as well. Although these accounts provide only alimited understanding of how much sex-related material exists online, theyalso provide important information about the nature of different onlinesexual materials as well as fuel for the argument that there is more tosexuality online than just offensive pornographic pictures. Sex-Oriented Pictures. One journalist (Gleick,1995) attempted through his own Internet connection to find sexualmaterial, but he encountered many difficulties. Starting his explorationwith the world wide web, Gleick notes that many promising-sounding links(e.g., "Girls") resulted either in error messages, such as "Documentcontains no data" and "Connect timed out," or, given a successfulconnection, a picture that took a lunch-time to download but revealed afully-clothed photo of a television actress. He found that some web sitesthat had closed down (e.g., "Femmes femmes femmes je vous aime")redirected users to a new site where "you can find naked women, includingtopless and total nudity" (p. 26), but this turned out to be the Louvremuseum. Nevertheless, he points out that he did notice many sex-orientednewsgroups and "if you look hard enough, there is grotesque stuffavailable" (p. 26), including, he argues, gun and militia groups. Another journalist (L.Miller, 1995), inspired by the Senate's initial passage of the Exonamendment, undertook (with a fellow reporter) an exploration into "theback streets of cyberspace" (p. 1A), including the world wide web,Internet Usenet newsgroups, private BBSs, and online chat. Miller foundoverall that "the proportion of raunchy material is small, but it exists.If you want to avoid sex online, that's fairly easy. But if you knowwhere it is, you can get it" (p. 1A). On the world wide web, the reporters found a number of sites for onlinemagazines, with Playboy and Penthouse featuringphotographs of nude women, Naked featuring nude men, andLibido depicting slightly more explicit "art" shots. Therewere also "sexual storefronts" with "adults only" warnings, thatadvertised sex aids, condoms, telephone sex lines, etc., and there werepersonal home pages set up by individuals that provided a range ofmaterial, from personal photos to "steamy stories" to links to other sites(e.g., to the BDSM [Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission,Sadism & Masochism] home page). Billy Wildhack, author of the guidebook Erotic Connections: Love andLust on the Information Highway (1995),argues that people seriously looking for pornography generally subscribeto the private adult BBSs rather than the open Internet, because "thequality of images is poorer on Internet Usenet groups, and there's a lotof pranking going on" (see L. Miller,1995, p. 2A). Furthermore, he argues that most of the erotic pictureson the Internet are nudes of women, "maybe tens of thousands" of them(typically copyright violations of magazine photos), but "probably lessthan 100" are of a type of hard-core depiction such as bestiality. Sex-Oriented Discussion. In her guidebook,net.sex, Computer Life columnist NancyTamosaitis (1995)goes beyond looking for pornographic photographs and takes readers on a"tour through the Usenet's red light district." She describes in somedetail the content of over 20 different "alt.sex.*" discussion groups(e.g., alt.sex.breast, alt.sex.fetish.diapers, alt.sex.watersports) andseveral other "alt" groups with sex-relevant interests (e.g.,alt.clothing.lingerie, alt.homosexual, alt.amazon-women.admirers). Shealso provides lists of the Usenet personals (personal want ads) andbinaries (pictures only) groups, and she relates the typical goings-on insexual chat rooms (Internet Relay Chat). Tamosaitis' descriptions of newsgroup content provide a useful beginningfor explaining online sexual activity beyond the mere descriptions ofvisual imagery that have been the focus of popular media and Congressionalattention, as well as of Rimm's research. Relying on newsgroup FrequentlyAsked Questions (FAQ) files, e-mail from system operators, and specificuser posts, Tamosaitis describes an amazingly diverse array of sex-relatedUsenet newsgroups, each with "a defining tone of its own" (p. 70). Probably the most widely read group, "alt.sex" (an estimated 440,000readers), for example, Tamosaitis contends consists of an abundance ofcollege students and "feels like a never-ending dormitory party, completewith overflowing beer mugs and horny men" (p. 71). Nevertheless, shenotes that "a wealth of sophisticated people who are eager to share theirknowledge" (p. 71) also frequent the group and commonly debunk sexualfallacies. Discussion and information seeking take place on a broad rangeof topics, including, among others, "how-to" information, sexual biology,sex aids, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. Apart from the "alt.sex" newsgroup itself, most of the newsgroups arehighly specialized, and people who post inappropriate messages (usuallynewcomers who have not lurked enough to know the rules) get mercilesslycriticized, or "flamed." Comments about dieting woes, for example, aretaboo in "alt.sex.fat." In "alt.sex.femdom" (an offshoot of"alt.sex.bondage" that focusses on female dominance), unsolicited requeststo start relationships ("wannas") are discouraged, because, the FAQ reads,"a dominant female looking for a partner is more than capable of makingher own specific intentions very clear" (p. 83). Tamosaitis argues that humor is a frequent part of a number of groups,particularly "alt.sex.bestiality" and "alt.sex.breast." Opposing factionsalso commonly develop within groups, as evidenced by the pro- versusanti-gay male marriage debates in "alt.homosexual," the "vaginal" versus"clitoral" orgasm discussions in "alt.sex," and the "kill Barney" versus"have sex with Barney" disputes in "alt.sex.bestiality.barney." It is important to note that, particularly among the more controversialnewsgroups, a number of posts come from people opposed to the very subjectunder discussion. Tamosaitis reports that Moral Majority spokespersonsand Christian fundamentalists "spew negativity and eternal damnation" (p.105) throughout all the homosexual-oriented newsgroups (e.g.,"alt.homosexual," "alt.sex.motss"), as well as "alt.sex.watersports"(devoted to erotic urination) and "alt.sex.masturbation.""Alt.sex.bestiality" also gets a share of critical commentary (e.g., "whydon't you name this new group, alt.sex.animals.rape?" [p. 78]), andoccasionally "law-abiding citizens appalled at...brazen illegal conduct"(p. 88) interject comments into "alt.sex.voyeurism." Ironically, "alt.sex.pedophilia," with its subject matter the mostpublicized concern about cyberspace (beyond photographs), is not carriedby most Internet providers. Tamosaitis argues that, although it may oncehave been "a feeding ground for pedophiles in the past" (p. 114), it hassince been reduced to "a few stale crumbs, soon to be swept away" (p.114). One user characterized the group's current focus as the following:One person will post flamebait. Idiots take the bait. Otherpeople make fun of the idiots. Real pedophiles try and convince everyoneit's OK to boink pre-pube kids. They get flamed. That about coversit. (p. 113)On the other hand, "alt.sex.intergen," where the North American Man-BoyLove Association (NAMBLA) posts their press releases, contains moreserious discussions about pedophilic desires, including posts on "thephilosophical differences between loving and having sexual intercoursewith, versus just raping a 12-year-old boy" (p. 111). Tamosaitis does notdiscuss the volume of activity in this newsgroup, but she does report thata great deal of controversy exists here too, including arguments aboutabuses of power and responsibility inherent in adult-child relationships,as well as more general comments about sex with children as "morallyreprehensible." Not surprisingly, most of the pro-pedophilia posts ineither of these newsgroups use anonymous mail servers that keep theiridentities hidden. Real-Time Chat. In addition to explorations of thediverse array of sex-related Usenet newsgroups, one study has begun tolook closely at the phenomenon of real-time sexual encounters online. In acase study of one commercial provider's sexual "chat" culture, Branwyn (1993)spent time "jumping in and out" of chat rooms devoted to a "curious blendof phone sex, computer dating, and high-tech voyeurism" (p. 784) known as"compu-sex," or text-based, real-time sexual exchanges. Acting as"themselves" or creating completely fictitious identities, participants"cruise" for potential partners (not unlike at a singles bar), frequentlychanging rooms, looking up other users' "biographies," and exchangingflirtatious messages. Once partners are decided, participants create"private" rooms (which are temporary text exchange windows that the restof the chat room cannot gain access to), in which they then engage in someform of sexual encounter. Although Branwyn's case study and Tamosaitis's (1995)descriptions of sex-related newsgroups are largely anecdotal, theirdiscussions provide valuable information about the rich diversity ofsexual content online. Together with the limited available data, theirdescriptions suggest that pornographic photographs and even stories do notcomprise the bulk of sexual information online, rather that a host ofdifferent discursive "communities" abound and may be a starting point forresearchers interested in how people in a number of different waysaccomplish sexual communication. In sum, pornographic pictures, including photos of acts of bestiality, doexist on computer networks, although some writers contend that "serious"pornography seekers use private, adult BBSs, rather than the open Internet(see L.Miller, 1995). The world wide web appears to contain predominantlyphotographs of nudity, although sex-oriented web sites may be growing. Anumber of sex-related Usenet newsgroups abound on the Internet, but thecontent varies widely among these groups, ranging from individuals' eroticstories to explicit discussions of a myriad of mainstream and deviantsexual techniques, experiences, and desires. Sexual chat may consist ofanything from online flirting to simulated sexual intercourse. Continue
POtHS 3 - Bible Movies - 01 - Je
2ff7e9595c
Comments