|
My Opinion on the Matter (COPA)
(05/04/2004) by Aline Zoldbrod
I am a sexuality educator and researcher, currently working on my Ph.D. in Sexuality Education at the University of Pennsylvania. I am also Managing Member of the Sexual Health Network, LLC, a small Internet based company located at sexualhealth.com. The Sexual Health Network is dedicated to providing easy access to sexuality information, education, and other sexuality resources for people with disability, chronic illness, or other health related problems.
As a member of the ACLU who is at risk of criminal prosecution under the new Child Online Protection Act (COPA), I will be serving as a witness in ACLU Vs Reno II. For the ACLU this case is about freedom of speech. For me it's about my livelihood and freedom to educate people about sexuality.
COPA prohibits any communication for commercial purposes by means of the World Wide Web that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is "harmful to minors." Violation of the COPA carries a fine up to $50,000 and imprisonment up to 6 months or both. As with the CDA, already ruled as unconstitutional, COPA is unconstitutionally vague and essentially limits free speech over the Internet to that which is suitable to children.
While I do not believe my site is "harmful to minors," I fear the vocal minority who believe children and young adults should be shielded from exposure to any explicit discussion of sexuality beyond "just say no" may lobby for action against my company or likeminded companies.
The deposing attorney from the Department of Justice tried to assure me that I had nothing to worry about under the law because my site has educational value and that individuals cannot bring action under the law, only the government can bring suit. However, I was not comforted. First, educational value has not been effective in protecting sexuality educators from being targets of prosecution or at least persecution. Secondly, while a DOJ attorney in Washington, DC might think my site does not "pander to the prurient interest of minors," a prosecutor in some other community in the US may think differently. Thirdly, if the government can force out Dr. Joycelyn Elders for implying something as reasonable as discussing masturbation in the classroom, they certainly are capable of coming after me for suggesting mutual masturbation as an alternative to intercourse when pain or positioning is prohibitive. I can not stop thinking this is the same government that passed into law a nearly half-a-billion dollar Abstinence Only until Marriage Act based on the unwarranted assumption that sexual activity outside of marriage "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." The law bars the discussion of contraception in classrooms that accept government funding for sexuality education.
As a parent, why should you care? You might argue that protecting children from harm has a greater social value than helping people with disability or illness take pleasure in their sexuality, or even protecting this "lower level" of free speech. Even my mother asked me why am I fighting this law? Don't I want to protect Jeremy, my son, from being harmed when he is using the Internet? My response was that the law doesn't really protect children from anything.
"Obscenity" and "patently offensive," like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. While explicit sexual images and words may potentially shock, embarrass, offend, or indeed "insight lustful feelings," they are not likely to "harm" anyone. Poverty is harmful to children, lack of access to health care is harmful to children, access to guns is harmful to children, and setting up barriers to reproductive health care and comprehensive sexuality education is harmful to children. This last point is evidenced by reports on comprehensive and explicit teen sexuality education in the Netherlands, France and Germany. In these countries, according to the latest SIECUS Report, adolescent sexuality is regarded as a health issue, rather than a political or religious one. Consequently, incidence of unintended pregnancies, abortions, and STIs are significantly lower there than in the United States. Notably, their teens on average have fewer sexual partners, start intercourse over one year later, and are more likely to use condoms than teens in United States.
If you are really interested in protecting children then do indeed pander to their natural interest in sex. Act as their source for reliable sexual information, be their provider of frank talk about sexuality. Cater to the normal, but what some may call their "inordinate," interest in sex. Don't encourage their ignorance by filtering or legislating out their access to affirming and potentially lifesaving sexuality information. Teach them about their bodies when they are young, model respectful relationships, affirm that we all have sexual desires and that sex can be a positive and pleasurable force if approached responsibly. Let them know the consequences of abusing sex and teach them how to protect themselves physically and emotionally. And please, if you honestly think surfing the net is going to cause your particular child harm, then be there for them when they are online. It's time that we stop exploiting our children and eroding our freedoms to advance a moral political agenda.
Mitchell S. Tepper, MPH
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Pennsylvania
Managing Member, The Sexual Health Network, LLC
This article appears in the following topics:
|
