Recently “Voice” has printed an exchange of opinions on the proposal to let sex-crime victims recover damages from pornographers if shown that the pornography was responsible for their victimization. Not only does this laudable intention shoulder an immense burden of proof, but it also revives the ancient moral debate over determinism vs. free will.
Apart from the free speech considerations already explored by columnist Clarence Page, other considerations also intrude. Let’s assume someone saw pornography before committing sexual assault. Which was the causative factor, his predisposition to assault, or the pornography? And how much of a time delay is allowed between seeing pornography and committing the assault for the cause-and-effect connection to decide the case?
Aren’t the sponsors worried that such legislation could elevate pornography to the ultimate copout: every defense attorney would plead his client innocent on the grounds that “the devil” made him do it. Good-bye free will.
Sober reflection informs us that pornography has existed in all cultures for centuries without once being named by historians as the cause of collapsed communities or empires.
Where does this lead? Maybe instead of questionable new laws, the bigger payoff awaits our ability to identify a more likely culprit: Either the psycho-social causation in our society that shapes and drives sex offenders, or why some people, even from among normal siblings and decent families, are bad eggs.
