We must draw hard lines between toleration, temperance, and socially destructive smut.
People talk about religion becoming big business these days. But vice has been raking in profits for centuries. And in this twentieth century, vice in the form of printed obscenity—pornography—has become a multibillion dollar racket.
A National Opinion Research Center study in 1978 found that 57 percent of Americans are convinced that pornography leads to a breakdown of morals and encourages the crime of rape. Yet the pornography industry continues to grow each year. Why is it so difficult to combat its proliferation?
First, police have trouble stopping pornography because most of the time they are unable to find the producers of the material. Sometimes they can do no more than prosecute store owners, who usually only distribute the literature. Shrewd business practices and organized crime connections make it difficult for police to find the sources of smut.
Second, the Supreme Court has defined “obscenity” too vaguely for local governments to apply it effectively. The Court’s guidelines are “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Few would disagree that these are fair criteria, but inevitably the judgments they require must be subjective. Different courts can and do disagree over whether certain material has any value.
A third reason is the ignorance of many to the reality and pervasiveness of smut. Of course, most people know that advertisers use sexual images to sell products, and many have attended an R-rated movie; but many still seem unaware of the extent of the filth their fellow citizens can pick up at the corner drugstore. Neil Gallagher of the Citizens for Decency Through Law suggests that this ignorance can be cured quickly just by collecting a few pornographic magazines and showing them to one’s church or civic groups.
Fourth, many who realize the seriousness of the problem are unwilling to take the trouble to get involved. It is easier just to look the other way. The antidote for this is to educate people to the devastating consequences such widespread pornography brings our society. No Christian concerned about the moral level of his culture and the society about him dares to pursue such a selfish unwillingness to be bothered.
Fifth, Americans further soothe their consciences by labeling their moral indifference and unwillingness to get involved as “toleration.” We are a tolerant people and all of us are thankful for our tolerant society when it comes to our own deviations from the social norm. But for the sake of our entire social structure, toleration must be limited or we destroy ourselves as people. Murder or theft, if tolerated, would destroy the structure of human society. But the morally sensitive person recognizes that in the long run pornography is more devastating to society than theft. Stealing robs us of things; pornography robs us of character. Stealing destroys property; pornography destroys our humanity. In a fallen and sinful society, we cannot expect to be freed from the tension of drawing hard lines between toleration and socially destructive permissiveness.
A sixth problem we encounter as we try to rid the world of pornography is the First Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” If the courts decide to restrict pornography, why can’t they restrict certain kinds of religious expression as well? In fact, this is already happening in some areas (June 6 issue: News, p. 44; Editorial, p. 12). As Christians, we would not want the right to share our faith rescinded; but neither would we want to allow anything and everything.
Some civil libertarians feel that any restriction of expression violates the First Amendment; however, reasonable limits on obscenity do not restrict freedom of speech or press but rather extend freedom in society as a whole. The purveyor of pornography does not seek to communicate his own ideas and convictions so as to share them with others or to convince others of the truth; he is simply without conscience, selling for profit material that he would not like his own children to use. Wise laws against pornography do not inhibit the freedom to express ideas; they restrict profiteering aimed at the destruction of society.
Moreover, wise laws against pornography create a new world of freedom for women to function in society as human persons in the image of God instead of as sex objects; it frees women from fear of rape; it frees our children from a diseased view of sex; it fosters a normal and healthy view of the human body; and it strengthens the family and the beauty of sex as a noble and joyful gift of God.
Despite the difficulties, Christians can still do their part to control pornography. Here are some suggestions for action:
Urge local governments to crack down on businesses that sell porn. Supreme Court decisions seem to have given local governments the power to decide for themselves what is obscene. Pressure by citizens can lead to laws forbidding the display of dirty magazines in stores, keeping them behind the counter instead. Press for zoning ordinances that either contain porno shops to one area or forbid them from locating near residential areas or near each other. Detroit, Rochester, Philadelphia, Boston, Denver, and Dallas have established ordinances of this type.
Bring local community pressure on the businesses themselves. Circulate petitions and present them to store owners. Threaten to boycott local drugstores that sell porno materials. Talk to store managers. Write letters to the home offices of stores that are part of a chain. Inform stores that do not sell porn why you are giving them your business.
Support and promote those groups that uphold the family. Author Gary North observes that “there is hardly an issue more fundamental to a community than the impact of sexual behavior on the structure of the family.” This, of course, includes strengthening one’s own family by spending time together, teaching one’s children the truths of Scripture, and getting involved in a church fellowship. But it also includes writing members of Congress to support legislation that upholds the family, and voting for the lawmakers who do so as well.
When president Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94–553 on October 19, 1976—the nation’s first comprehensive revision of our copyright law since 1909—a new awareness of the rights of copyright holders began to emerge. By the time the new law became effective on January 1, 1978, widespread abuse of the copyright law had been uncovered in churches, schools, and other organizations.
The problem has become acute in recent years because photocopy machines make duplicating music so easy and inexpensive that choir directors simply purchase one copy of music and duplicate multicopies at a much lower cost. But every time a piece of copyrighted music is illegally duplicated, the composer/arranger, author, and publisher are robbed of their rightful compensation.
In a recent copyright workshop an attorney who had been involved in the development of the 1976 copyright law stated that several music publishing companies had gone bankrupt because of the widespread illegal duplicating practices of choir directors. His final cutting comment was that churches are the prime offenders. What an indictment of the Christian church, which by example should represent the best in honest, law-abiding, and Christlike ethical practice!
It’s mystifying that such illegal practices are so blithely tolerated while at the same time churches are very scrupulous about paying for utilities, Sunday school materials, and the pastor’s services. Many try to rationalize their illegal actions with such arguments as “the church is a nonprofit organization,” “I’m not going to sell it,” “the church doesn’t give me enough money for music,” or “this is for the Lord’s work.” None of these excuses would hold up in a court of law. Of much graver import is the tarnished reputation a church’s witness may acquire by breaking the law when, on the contrary, it should work, worship, and conduct its business impeccably.
Much effort, especially by publishers, has gone into informing choir directors of the requirements of the new copyright law. Nevertheless, churches, schools, and other organizations have been so flagrant in violating the copyright law that the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and the Music Publishers Association (MPA) have recently announced a “get tough” policy with offenders. They feel that after three years’ effort to inform the public concerning the new copyright law, choir directors cannot claim honest error or innocence.
Dean C. Burtch of MPA states, “In view of this concentrated program of informing and educating, those who continue to violate the copyright law can only be looked upon as willful and deliberate offenders who have knowingly engaged in unlawful activities and are openly inviting prosecution.” Many churches are subject to the possibility of being sued for present holdings of illegally photocopied music in their choral libraries. All such duplicated music should be withdrawn from the choral library and destroyed.
The penalties for infringements can be severe. Would-be violators should give serious consideration to the high price tag of both damages and legal expenses.
Copying for the purpose of performance or for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music is prohibited. Thus, copying to avoid the purchase of music in any way is illegal. Pastors need to be aware that words as well as music may be copyrighted. A glaring abuse is the practice of printing booklets of words of contemporary gospel songs with the erroneous belief that since the music is not printed, the practice is legal. It would be expedient for church musicians to order a copy of an important publication entitled, “The United States Copyright Law—A Guide for Church Musicians,” from the Church Music Publishers Association (CMPA, Box 4329, Washington, D.C. 20012).
The end result of illegal photocopying of music is that copyright holders lose money, the cost of music escalates to help compensate for such losses, good people become cheaters, and Christian ministries become blemished. In fact, everybody loses except the manufacturers of copying machines and supplies. Although some matters regarding the law will need clarification in the courts, we have enough clear guidelines to enable us to abide easily by legal standards.
PAUL WOHLGEMUTH
Coordinator of Church Music, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Okla.
