Douglas Spotted Eagle Homepage

Jaynes, Jackson, and Justice....

It's been a while since my last editorial, but recent events have spurred me to speak out on a subject on which I didn't realize I felt so much passion. In a conversation with a very conservative friend, I found myself defending certain religious elements, and this had him amazed that I'd be taking the conservative view in a very strong way.

Jeremy Jaynes has just been convicted of spamming the internet, sending literally billions of bytes out into the cyber world advertising everything from Alphamale penile enhancements to vitamins, making millions of dollars in the process.  If court commentators are correct, what did him in wasn't the porn spam. It was the amount of crap he put in our mailboxes. He got 30 years, which is certain to be reduced on appeal.

Michael Jackson, pop superstar, currently finds himself in court on charges of sexually abusing a minor. Evidence has been submitted that he shared pornography with two young boys and there is speculation that he's shared more than just pornography magazines with young boys.

Howard Stern was recently fined nearly half a million dollars for vulgar and explicit language over the radio. He was fired, and retired to the privacy of the satellite airwaves where to hear Stern, listeners must subscribe.

OK, so where is all this going? Let me preface the rest of this editorial by saying I don't believe in censorship. Not one whit. Lemme say it again in different words. CENSORSHIP IS WRONG. Period. Because if I start restricting what you can say, when will I find that long-haired, tattooed, pierced-ear people with an ethnic last name are being censored for no reason other than those descriptions in the second segment of this sentence?

In Nevada, prostitution is legal. Prostitutes follow very explicit, specific laws regarding cleanliness, safety, and taxes. It's either the way of the State or nothing at all, unless they're willing to risk jail. And from what I read, those that are legal are just as much on the lookout for those that are illegal as they are for themselves. Because they'll lose their business if they don't. Although I've never visited a prostitute, I kinda think the way their business is conducted, with regulation and controls, is a good thing as opposed to functioning without regulation and controls. The pornography industry is not regulated like prostitution is in Nevada, but they follow very specific rules and practices. However, they self regulate. There was a recent scare where a member of the industry at a low level was found to have caught HIV. The entire industry shut down for a month so they could check out what had possibly happened. A recent documentary on the life of Ron Jeremy, arguably the world's most infamous porn star, showed him getting a checkup and STD scan every 30 days. Reasonable behavior in a risky business, in my opinion. All of this happens, because if the industry doesn't self-regulate, then they'll lose their businesses.

This brings me to the meat of my rant. The pornography industry regulates it's actors and actresses, its DVDs and VHS tapes, and even has a lobby in Washington. And Washington apparently buys their marketing concepts because Congress continually strikes down laws regulating decency due to concerns of First Amendment rights. I can buy that. Because I don't believe in censorship. However, censorship and protecting the public are two very, very different things. For example, to see a Mapplethorpe exhibit, I have to make a conscious choice to go to a museum, pay my money, and go in to see it. Since I'd never, ever go see such disgusting and meaningless "art," I'm protected from seeing it. But driving down the road is a different story. I can't "turn off" or "change the channel" on the freeway. I'm forced to travel that public road, paid for with public dollars.

On a recent trip to New York City, I was slapped in the face by a big billboard showing two women kissing, advertising a nightclub. I'm no prude, but this offended me. More out of concern for kids than for my own sense of correctness.

Drive down Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, you'll see the same thing. Porn advertised everywhere, on billboards, movie theatres, and small magazines on the street. Huh? I'm confused. 30 years ago, we couldn't show a toilet on TV, but today, we can have bare breasts on a billboard today? Or images of oral sex on a billboard? Or naked rear ends? Is this progress? Or "Devolution?"

I'm no prude. Not in the least. In fact, I think porn has some healthy uses. In the right place. When it's  a choice, not a condition. When I was a kid, porn was about finding a Playboy under my best friend's father's mattress. Even MAD Magazine was considered pornographic by my parents, and I wasn't allowed to have them. Today, a child can log onto a computer in a public library and be hit by pictures of penises, breasts, bestiality, and more. This is simply wrong. The concept of "consensual, capable, adult" is gone. Now, it doesn't matter if you're an adult or a child, you're forced to experience porn. America should be outraged. But instead of screaming about it, people are silent.

When I was a kid, having those rare encounters with a Playboy, secreted away in someone's basement or garage, was a rite of passage for boys in their early teen years. We all did it. It was innocent, and an outlet for being "bad." Today, that innocence has been stripped away, and stripped at a very, very early age. Recent surveys of 10 year olds showed that they not only knew what "f****ing" was, but that they'd seen explicit pictures of it on the internet. These kids have no choice in what they see. Adults have no choice in what they see. Not any more.

One of my favorite shows is "South Park." I hadn't seen it until just recently. I'm a latecomer to the game, I guess. At a friend's house, I commented on a recent South Park episode, and his 13 year old daughter chimed in about how funny it was. I was incredulous.  This is a cartoon made for adults, but a lot of children apparently watch it. I can't fault South Park too much though, because in order to watch South Park, one has to subscribe to a cable or satellite station, so there is choice involved. So, let's look at network television. Hmmm....Janet Jackson exposes her "malfunctioning clothing" forcing all of America to view the breast of an older woman. OK, the network didn't know beforehand that the display of a nipple was going to be shown. Let's take other shows found on tap during primetime.

Reality TV shows are all about sex one way or another, at some level. We've taken Paris Hilton, self-ascribed slut Pamela Anderson, and high profile porn stars like Jenna Jameson and moved them into primetime, on the Big 3 networks.  Even former televangelist Tammy Faye (Baker) Messner has been known to crack a sex joke or two. I know, I know, we've bandied about sex in television in primetime since the revolutionary "Love, American Style" which was incredibly risqué for it's day.  But it never showed bare backsides, which is fairly common in today's television, even during mid-day broadcasting.

It's not just TV. It's music too. Eminem, who is a fairly prolific musician, has lyrics about oral, phallical, and other other means of sex in his music videos and albums. Even the sanitized Walmart versions are fairly intense and "R" rated vs being "X" rated. I competely disagree with Tipper Gore and what she set out to accomplish, but I do believe she was on to something, because by far, the largest consumers of CDs and music downloads are the 18 year old and under crowd.

A recent walk through the halls of a Junior High School in my area revealed kids in the hallways referring to each other as "bit**," "Ho's" and other slang words commonly used in rap music today. I even heard some slang words that I've never experienced before, and I listen to just about every kind of music there is.

It's in videogames marketed to young teens. It's in music downloads. It's in aggressive marketing on the part of porn spammers. It's even in our malls, with the ridiculously masked "FCUK" clothing company selling T-shirts with the label of "Too Busy to FCUK." Even my fairly liberal mind is angry and offended.  Because society's first and foremost obligation is to itself. And society is not taking responsibility for what's thrown up in front of children or people who don't want to view, hear, or experience sexually related material.

I'm offended, for two reasons:

First, because I still hang on to the belief that the "innocent age" is 18 and younger, and a 10 year old knowing what a bl**job is definitely doesn't fit my definition of "innocence." Second, because I believe my rights, and the rights of other Americans are being violated.

Yeah, yeah, free speech and all that. I believe in free speech. But, what's ironic is that while people will scream and moan about second hand smoke, they aren't screaming and moaning about second hand sex marketing. Huh? I shouldn't have to experience someone else' smoke fumes, but it's acceptable that I be forced to view two women licking each other as I drive into one of America's flagship cities? This does not compute. It's no longer a "choice." You can't just "change the channel" because it's on every channel, everywhere, every day.  I shouldn't have to SEARCH to find a decent talk show or radio show that isn't filled with sex, sex, sex when I'm driving down the road with children. The only other choices are religion, religion, religion, and they're railing against sex. So no matter which side of the issue you're on, that side is spewing sex, either for or against. Do we really need to be this pre-occupied with sex outside the bedroom?

So, what do we do? That's a tough one. Tipper Gore is responsible in a backwards way for a lot of this. By getting the industry to use "Explicit Lyrics" labels, she created the concept that as long as the album carries a label, the music can carry basically anything and everything in it. And of course, if the kids are told they "can't have it" with the stickers being on the album, what do they immediately want? The recording that has the labels on it. My own daughter, who lives with her mother in an extremely conservative and religious household, shocks me with her collection of music when I saw what she was allowed to listen to by her mother, who is a teacher in a religious seminary. If it's getting by her mother, it's getting by most of the parents in America. So, the labels serve to sell more records than they serve to warn parents and children.

Did you know that you and I own the airwaves? That's right. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and other stations merely lease that airspace from the public. Cable and satellite are different, of course. So, your community can make a difference. Provo, Utah has made "R" rated movies illegal; your community can force broadcasters to not air shows that are risqué in nature if they're on during primetime. It's time that parents and concerned adults take a stand.

There are those that will not understand why I say what I do, especially since I've supported the DGA in their lawsuit against CleanFlix, Cleanpix, and similar violators of copyright laws. I'll explain this way. It's about choice. Buying a DVD that you KNOW contains sexual comment or images is your choice. Driving into Manhattan, watching the Superbowl, or listening to the radio where you have a right to expect some modicum of decency does not constitute a choice. It constitutes shock marketing. If we can't force this sort of crap off the screens, the least we can do is relegate it to late night. Heck, you can't watch Jerry Springer during primetime, so why are we forced to watch even more offensive material during primetime?

The Constitution of the United States guarantees a right to free speech, that's so. But what about your right, and the rights of our children to a reasonably clean environment? If it's acceptable to put up images of sexual nature, why not put up images of Dachau, or images of roadkill, feces, or other "obnoxious" or "disgusting" images? The public would hew and cry for removal in seconds. We all have rights, and that's as it should be. But in this case, the axiom of "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Free speech has the sex industry rubbing our nose in what they do, and the conservative press is rubbing my nose in their posture that sexuality is wrong. Both sides have a screw loose, in my view.

Acting like sheep and just "going along" isn't enough any more. We're well past the time for parents and concerned parents to stand up. This isn't an issue of conservative vs liberal. It's an issue of just being good people with a concern for our environment. Our environment is being dirtied, and with much longer lasting negatives than any smokestack that spews hydrocarbons.  This isn't an issue of religion vs atheism, or an issue of intelligent vs stupid. It's an issue of being concerned for the future of our social system and family values. The word "family values" has been severely distorted by politicians, most of whom wouldn't know a family value if it bit them on their butt. However, if the image is one that you as a parent wouldn't show your child, then marketers shouldn't be allowed to show it to your child without your permission either. As far as I'm concerned, this is apparently the first place that Michael Jackson made a mistake, before moving on to larger mistakes, if the press it to be accepted at face value. He showed graphic sexual images to young boys. Obviously, Jackson hasn't really been a parent, as no parent of any level of intelligence would want their child or someone else's child exposed to this sort of material. That's why it's labeled "Adult" material, and typically rated "X."

I don't know what the answer is, other than the American public going after the Jeremy Jaynes of the world, and if found guilty, harshly punishing the Michael Jackson's of the world. Writing to your local congressman and member of the Senate are good ideas. Demand your right of choice be restored to you. But mostly, do some research so that when your 6 year old asks what a "_______" (insert sexually explicit term here) is, then you've got the answer that any parent would like to have the opportunity to consider. Because if you don't have a pre-meditated answer, your child is likely to shock you with a question sooner than you're ready.