Another pending federal measure would forbid state or local governments from requiring any individual or inst.i.tution to perform, provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion under any circ.u.mstances. This would virtually end states'
ability to ensure abortion access for low-income women, even in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest, as required under Medicaid.
Congress and many states are now attempting to extend refusal rights to virtually anyone involved in health information or services, for any reason.
For example, a 2005 Mississippi law allows "any employee of any hospital, clinic, nursing home, pharmacy or medical school to refuse to partic.i.p.ate in counseling, diagnosis, research or administering of any type of drug, device, surgery, care or treatment by a.s.serting an objection on moral, ethical or religious grounds."40 This same law allows payers of health care to refuse to cover any service to which they object on moral grounds, which could include sterilization, HIV treatment, STD diagnosis or treatment, contraception, or even prenatal checkups for women who "shouldn't" be pregnant.
"Moral grounds." Today, that's code for s.e.x. s.e.x. "Morality" hasn't led pharmacists to demand the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs tested on animals, or drugs whose manufacture pollutes the environment, or drugs that are too expensive for anyone but the wealthy or well-insured, or drugs with awful side effects, or drugs that make children violent or adults submissive zombies. "Morality" hasn't led pharmacists to demand the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs tested on animals, or drugs whose manufacture pollutes the environment, or drugs that are too expensive for anyone but the wealthy or well-insured, or drugs with awful side effects, or drugs that make children violent or adults submissive zombies.
No, "moral grounds" means, "Makes s.e.x safer or more enjoyable."
Shockingly, most states now allow pharmacists to refuse to fill any legal prescription, and new laws protect pharmacists who then refuse to refer patients to other pharmacies that will help them. The American Pharmacists a.s.sociation wants to protect "pharmacists' rights to not dispense drugs they are opposed to." The Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom says it's un-American to ask pharmacists to sacrifice their rights for their jobs. The Family Research Council wants the Workplace Religious Freedom Act pa.s.sed to protect pharmacists' rights to uphold their "morals" at work.
Pharmacists do not have this "right. " Your Aunt Mabel does- " Your Aunt Mabel does- in private in private. Indeed, pharmacists have the same rights as your Aunt Mabel to withhold, ca-jole, persuade, and bully in order to shape your behavior-in private.
Pharmacists and pharmacies are licensed by the state to provide health care.
As such, they must adhere to standard U.S. medical practices and serve the entire community, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, height, eye color, and shoe size. Or medication requested, or condition it's designed to treat. That's the responsibility pharmacists take on in exchange for the privileges of their license. Anyone is free to believe that some people should not have access to certain medications-but acting on this belief disqualifies a person from being a pharmacist.
Battleground: Reproductive Rights 45 Reproductive Rights 45 Discrimination is dis- crimination, whether a ENFORCING MORALITY ON OTHERS ENFORCING MORALITY ON OTHERS pharmacist bases it on Shall there be any limit on people's right to enforce your your religion or religion or his. his. Re- their morality on others? If pharmacists demand this fusing to sell medication right, what about other people demanding their rights? Re- their morality on others? If pharmacists demand this fusing to sell medication right, what about other people demanding their rights?
to help a single woman These might include: have responsible s.e.x is just as bad as refusing * a cab driver refusing to take you to a Planned Par-to sell a black family a enthood clinic; house in a white neigh- * a 7Eleven clerk who won't sell you alcohol because borhood.
you shouldn't drink; The government's job * a Bloomingdale's clerk who won't let you spend any is to set standards based money on goods made in China; on science so consum- * a toy store clerk who won't let you buy toy guns or ers, who can't possibly s.e.xy Barbies; evaluate professional * a physician who won't let you have a blood transfu-competence, are safe.
sion that's against G.o.d's will; Consumers can use any * a lawyer who won't write a will leaving your money criteria they like, includ-to your lazy son; ing moral values, to de- * a high school counselor who won't help a girl get cide which medications into MIT because girls shouldn't be scientists.
and procedures to use or Since some pharmacists demand the right to with-avoid. That's That's the Ameri- hold any medication that facilitates s.e.x-related behav-can promise. the Ameri- hold any medication that facilitates s.e.x-related behav-can promise.
ior of which they disapprove, we can also expect to hear The Bible, while silent the following rationales for being refused legally pre-on abortion, repeatedly scribed medication: demands humility and compa.s.sion. Pharma- * "No, that estrogen for your s.e.x-rea.s.signment inter-cists who won't dispense feres with G.o.d's creation of men and women."
EC to a woman who has * "No, you're gay, and you'll use that v.i.a.g.r.a to have only a few hours left to abominable gay s.e.x."
prevent an unwanted * "No, treating your v.a.g.i.n.al infection will allow you to pregnancy need to have resume s.e.x-which, since you're single, you shouldn't their v.i.a.g.r.a prescrip-be having."
tio * "No, that medication will relieve the pain of a vasec-n denied, their blood to pressure medication de- my you shouldn't have had."
layed, and their eyegla.s.s * "No, antidepressants will make you a more feisty prescription confiscated.
woman, disrupting family harmony."
Since their religion * "No, Prozac will make it hard for you to e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.e, hasn't taught them com-indirectly limiting your family size."
pa.s.sio * "No, testosterone will increase your postmenopausal n, perhaps these s.e.x drive, and there's no need for that."
The s.e.xual Disaster Industry There is so much money to be made scaring the h.e.l.l out of Americans about s.e.xuality that no one on this gravy train can afford to slow it down. Any outsider who questions this juggernaut is immediately labeled insensitive, anti-family, immoral, or a pedophile.
The s.e.xual Disaster Industry (SDI) involves federal and local government, conservative religion, so-called morality organizations, right-wing think tanks, victim-parade daytime talk shows like Montell Montell and and Maury, Maury, and news programs looking for a b.u.mp ("Isn't it awful the way people go to strip clubs? Film at 11!"). Honorable mention goes to the psychotherapy profession (current motto: "You're and news programs looking for a b.u.mp ("Isn't it awful the way people go to strip clubs? Film at 11!"). Honorable mention goes to the psychotherapy profession (current motto: "You're sure sure you were never molested?") and to the nighttime adrenalin-rush crime shows like you were never molested?") and to the nighttime adrenalin-rush crime shows like CSI CSI.
Acting independently (while reacting to common cultural imperatives and personal anxieties), these inst.i.tutions daily overstate the amount of s.e.xual violence, s.e.xual danger, s.e.xual immorality, and s.e.xual freakiness freakiness around us. They've created the illusion of an enormous s.e.xual "other" living in our midst-tens of millions of s.e.xual predators, bis.e.xual sadom.a.s.o.c.h.i.s.t anarchists, satanic molesting s.e.x educators, wanton husband-stealing strippers, and malevolent shy-ster p.o.r.nographers. around us. They've created the illusion of an enormous s.e.xual "other" living in our midst-tens of millions of s.e.xual predators, bis.e.xual sadom.a.s.o.c.h.i.s.t anarchists, satanic molesting s.e.x educators, wanton husband-stealing strippers, and malevolent shy-ster p.o.r.nographers.
The Industry is continually inventing and warning us about new s.e.x-related disasters in the making. And although government, religion, and civic groups are working overtime creating more and more solutions, everyone agrees that our safety and peace of mind is further away than ever. It would seem that our s.e.x-related problems are just too big, that American s.e.xuality (actually, human s.e.xuality) is just too degenerate. That's why programs need more money, citizens need to be more vigilant, people need to give up more rights, and government has to pa.s.s ever-stricter laws.
There's a better explanation.
The contemporary American narrative of s.e.x-as-danger is a rich one. In this well-known tale, our country is filled with pedophiles and date rapists; p.o.r.nography drives people to destroy their marriages and to commit 48 48 violence and perversion; s.e.xual entertainment damages communities; s.e.x education seduces children into having s.e.x; premarital s.e.x leads to STDs, pregnancy, depression, and suicide; contraception leads to promiscuity, ruining lives; and abortion leads to breast cancer, sterility, and crippling guilt.
Almost all s.e.xual choices are morally wrong, physically dangerous (for self or others), and economically and politically disastrous. Managing one's own s.e.xuality, or the s.e.xuality of one's neighbors and community, therefore, involves reducing anxiety and minimizing danger, not maximizing intimacy, self-exploration, pleasure, or spirituality. It's a full-time job.
The SDI translates this abstract cultural narrative into tangible problems that frighten real people. Some of the alleged threats they've recently cooked up that will require our anxious attention include people watching p.o.r.n videos in the backseats of SUVs; couples who go to s.e.x clubs to meet other couples; a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer, which will, of course, encourage teens to have more s.e.x; the Gay Agenda, which intends to abolish heteros.e.xual pair-bonding and childrearing; kids hearing swear words on network and cable TV; and Amazon.com selling s.e.x toys as if they were just another consumer item. Every single one of these has been criminalized or is the target of a powerful "morality" pressure group.
Government hearings periodically bless the latest problem from which we must defend our families. Some of Washington's recent crusades involve "promiscuity," cybers.e.x, and alleged over-reliance on contraception (in the country with the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the industrialized world). The idea that the U.S. Senate would hold hearings with t.i.tles like, "The Science Behind p.o.r.nography Addiction" and "Open Forum on Decency"
sounds like a Jay Leno gag. If only.
The government selects the witnesses to these hearings who wil provide the exact outcome it wants. Junk science, like Judith Reisman's antip.o.r.n delusion about "eroto-toxins," is common. The basic qualification of many who get to testify is that they're real y real y upset. Or a reformed pervert. So ex-p.o.r.n junkies like Phil Burress create Citizens for Community Values, and demand action about p.o.r.n addiction. Concerned Women for America lectures senators about contraception causing promiscuity. Donna Rice Hughes washes out as Gary Hart's eye candy and is reborn as an expert on abstinence and Internet p.o.r.n. It's like credentialing someone as a doctor because she's real y worried about il ness, or choosing an accountant because he's flunked several audits. upset. Or a reformed pervert. So ex-p.o.r.n junkies like Phil Burress create Citizens for Community Values, and demand action about p.o.r.n addiction. Concerned Women for America lectures senators about contraception causing promiscuity. Donna Rice Hughes washes out as Gary Hart's eye candy and is reborn as an expert on abstinence and Internet p.o.r.n. It's like credentialing someone as a doctor because she's real y worried about il ness, or choosing an accountant because he's flunked several audits.
Oh, for some actual expertise: s.e.xologists, sociologists, psychologists. But expertise would contradict the media-religion-civic group-politician Disaster Axis (religion and the media terrify people, civic groups offer solutions, politicians fund them). Science, statistics, historical perspective-they might tell us that our kids, our property values, and our bodies are safer than we think.
Americans don't want this good news. Given our guilt and shame about s.e.x, The s.e.xual Disaster Industry 49 The s.e.xual Disaster Industry 49 problems and anxiety make more sense. So problem-oriented faux expertise ("Look at me, I know how dangerous s.e.x is") carries the day.
Every industry promotes basic a.s.sumptions about the world in which its customers live, and how its products improve lives. Despite a lack of evidence-despite contradictory contradictory evidence-the SDI has effectively persuaded Americans that the fol owing (unproven) beliefs are principles of modern life (which, of course, justify the very existence of the Industry): 1. Kids are damaged by exposure to s.e.xual words, pictures, and concepts. evidence-the SDI has effectively persuaded Americans that the fol owing (unproven) beliefs are principles of modern life (which, of course, justify the very existence of the Industry): 1. Kids are damaged by exposure to s.e.xual words, pictures, and concepts.
2. America is ful of s.e.xual predators-and the situation is getting worse.
3. Ultimately, people can't explore s.e.xuality safely.
4. People interested in s.e.xual stimulation, exploration, or unusual stuff, are "them," not "us."
5. Eliminating venues for s.e.xual experiences wil eliminate s.e.xual behavior.
6. Feeling scared about s.e.xuality is responsible citizenship and common sense.
Together, these six a.s.sumptions create a landscape of danger and powerlessness, in which suspicion of one's own and others' s.e.xuality is sensible. Surrounded by this much danger and potentially explosive eroticism, fear (and resentment) isn't just plausible, it seems responsible.
This is the context for the SDI's marketing of its products: programs, laws, investigations, new psychological diseases. Al egedly designed to make our lives safer, in reality they make people more frightened. And when people are more frightened, they don't ask questions about whether programs are making them safer-they just want more more of them. The constant reminders of the Amber Alert system makes parents feel more afraid, not less (while rescuing a tiny handful of kids); date-rape awareness cla.s.ses make dating scarier, not easier (while date-rape reports increase). of them. The constant reminders of the Amber Alert system makes parents feel more afraid, not less (while rescuing a tiny handful of kids); date-rape awareness cla.s.ses make dating scarier, not easier (while date-rape reports increase).
And so regardless of the al eged problem being addressed (p.o.r.n addiction, stranger abduction, date-rape drugs, blight surrounding strip clubs), the Industry's solutions (its product) always involve the same things: des.e.xualize the environment, reduce the opportunity for s.e.xual expression, increase the costs of s.e.xual activity, increase community anxiety, divide people into the s.e.xual y "safe" (us) and "dangerous" (them).
The true product of the SDI isn't safety, but fear. If it were safety, the Industry would encourage: * condom use among men and women; * comprehensive school s.e.xuality education; * regular, ongoing parent-child discussions about s.e.x; * preventing or relieving childhood guilt about masturbation; * widespread understanding that most childhood s.e.xual exploitation is done by familiars, not strangers; * making the new HPV vaccine routine for all preteen girls; 50 50 * funding actual research into the cause and treatment of childhood s.e.xual exploitation; * including s.e.xual orientation in national antidiscrimination law; * training marriage counselors and psychologists to understand, rather than demonize, p.o.r.nography use; * licensing swing clubs instead of driving them underground.
That's just for starters.
The SDI's newest product is fear of same-s.e.x marriage. It's crazy, but of course they predict disaster: straights won't marry anymore, people will demand the right to marry animals or their own children, no one will have kids anymore, children will no longer aspire to couple, too many children will be raised (poorly) by gay parents.
It's all nonsense.
If they were honest, they'd say, "We're against same-gender marriage because it's against our religion. We don't think anyone should have the right to do that." But that doesn't inflame people. The SDI doesn't want people an-noyed, it wants them frightened and angry. It can then channel those feelings into political power and financial gain. Annoyed people don't donate time or money. Angry, frightened people do.
The Religious Right's hypocrisy is astounding. They claim to care about the children, women, men, and families supposedly at risk from the s.e.x-related disasters they describe in fetishistic detail. They tell us to support this or that law, give up these or those rights. But they disappear when it comes to addressing the actual risks Americans really do face- risks that the Religious Right is creating and exacerbating every day. risks that the Religious Right is creating and exacerbating every day.
These include the child who's feeling more guilt about s.e.x, the teen who's more vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy, the prost.i.tute who's more subject to police shakedowns, the swinger who loses custody of her son, the newlywed who can't buy a vibrator, the lesbian unfairly dismissed from her job, and the couple who can't get emergency contraception. They aren't abstractions-theirs are real lives, compromised or ruined by the self-righteous, ultimately worth-less flailing about of the SDI.
The SDI's goal isn't to address the real problems of real people. It's to 1) inspire us to fear s.e.x, and 2) provide society with excuses to restrict s.e.xual expression.
No, they won't fix the problems they say they're so upset about. The only thing they fear more than s.e.x is going out of business.
Battleground: Broadcast "Indecency" Broadcast "Indecency"
Some people are so upset about what they they see on TV and hear on the radio that they'll do anything to prevent see on TV and hear on the radio that they'll do anything to prevent you you from seeing or hearing it. from seeing or hearing it.
That's not the American way, and it's not in the spirit of democracy.
But rather than shut the set, rather than change the channel, rather than use tools like the V-chip or filters, these people are using the most primitive, blunt instrument they can-destroying everyone everyone' s s right to see and hear what they want. right to see and hear what they want.
Is it just the stuff that comes into your house for free, whether you asked for it or not? No. They even want to destroy everyone's right to pay pay to see and hear what they want. And, of course, the stuff they're upset about has to do with s.e.xuality-s.e.xual health, words, themes, jokes, and relationships. to see and hear what they want. And, of course, the stuff they're upset about has to do with s.e.xuality-s.e.xual health, words, themes, jokes, and relationships.
As I write this, Congress is talking about regulating the content that can be transmitted over premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime-which you can get only if you pay for them. "Morality" groups and Congress want to criminalize s.e.xuality-related programming of all kinds. It's a new version of Prohibition, in which a small group of people decides how everyone is going to live.
Let's briefly list the kinds of "s.e.x-related programming" under fire: * s.e.xual themes in sitcoms, dramas, movies, talk shows, news shows, and cartoons (adult or children's) * Erotic activity-on or off camera, including kissing if it's two men or two women * Descriptions of erotic activity, whether poetic, funny, clinical, or dramatic * Exposure of b.r.e.a.s.t.s, b.u.t.tocks, and genitals, whether in s.e.xual context or not (e.g., autopsy in crime show, famine victims in the news, mam-mogram in health feature) * "Vulgar" or "curse" or "bad" words, or references to bathroom activities * Commercials for s.e.x-related products such as v.i.a.g.r.a, condoms, and tampons 52.If that appears to cover practical y every program and every kind of situation, you're right. They want to censor every show and every commercial you watch.
Erotophobes and government officials say they think it's al vile. They want it control ed, or, at the very least, eliminated from 6:00 A.M. to midnight, the time period that virtual y al Americans are watching or listening. That leaves midnight to 6:00 A.M. as "adult time" (how much do you use TV or radio after midnight?), although they say they want this regulated as wel -just not quite as much.
These government officials and nongovernment morality groups want something that's unknown in any other Western country-to eliminate virtually any depiction of or reference to s.e.xuality on TV and radio, whether programs are free or paid. They present this goal as reasonable, but it represents a radical change in how America is governed. And it represents the triumph of fear over freedom.
Because the war over broadcast "indecency" is a national power struggle. It's a struggle over how s.e.xuality wil be perceived: as a danger to be feared and regulated, or as an inevitable part of life that chal enges us to grow and demands to be understood and celebrated. Even more than that, the war over broadcast "indecency" is about the nature of pluralism: is it it something to be feared and regulated, or is something to be feared and regulated, or is it it a unique and precious part of our American heritage that must be continual y protected from both external and internal threats? a unique and precious part of our American heritage that must be continual y protected from both external and internal threats?
This, more than the right to see Janet Jackson's nipple, is the crucial political issue every freedom-loving American should care about. The War on s.e.x is the battlefield on which the issue of pluralism will be fought. The War on s.e.x is a Theater of Power. more than the right to see Janet Jackson's nipple, is the crucial political issue every freedom-loving American should care about. The War on s.e.x is the battlefield on which the issue of pluralism will be fought. The War on s.e.x is a Theater of Power.
The very way the public debate is framed-"the problem of indecency"-is problematic. It's similar to expressions like "the Jewish problem" or "the gay problem," which a.s.sume that the conflict is caused by the presence of Jews, gays, or alleged indecency. Such constructs dramatically limit the solutions that can be generated. I say we don't have an indecency problem. How different it would be if the contemporary discussion was about "the contrast in values problem" or "the some people's discomfort with s.e.x-related programming problem," or "the intolerance problem." Even if we did not solve such problems, this formulation would be progress-over people frantically trying to solve the wrong "problem."
WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ALLEGED HARM?.
In what way are the so-called F word (is there a more juvenile expression?), tampon commercials, and talk shows about threesomes harmful to Americans? Here's what The Parents Television Council (PTC) claims, without any doc.u.mentation whatsoever: Thousands upon thousands of clinical studies [real y?!] show a direct, causal relationship between the messages children see in the media and their behavior and development . . .
Time and time again, we see our children being disrespectful. We hear them using language that would never have been used in our grow- Battleground: Broadcast "Indecency" 53 Broadcast "Indecency" 53 ing up years, ever. We see a s.e.xual awareness that at the very least is disturbing. What wil these youngsters be like when they are adults?
Won't they exhibit the same antisocial behavior that is a part of their world today? I'm afraid that is so.1 The typical anti-indecency arguments ultimately come down to: 1. exposure to s.e.xual themes and words is dangerous for kids; 2. exposure to s.e.xual themes and words damages adult relationships; 3. the broadcast of s.e.xual themes and words forces adults to have conversations with kids that adults don't want to have; 4. s.e.xual themes and words in the media "coa.r.s.ens" our culture; 5. "moral" people deserve to have their "morality" validated, and deserve to have others' "immoral" interests eliminated from the public sphere; 6. some people are mentally unbalanced, and hearing "bad" words or seeing "bad" body parts might motivate them to commit s.e.x crimes.
Let's answer these one by one.
1. Exposure to s.e.xual themes and words is dangerous for kids.
Actually, the kind of s.e.xuality typically portrayed and referenced isn isn' t t the best for kids to see or hear-it's stupid and stereotypical and sometimes really unrealistic. But even at its stupidest, the simple fact that it's s.e.xual doesn't make it dangerous for them. the best for kids to see or hear-it's stupid and stereotypical and sometimes really unrealistic. But even at its stupidest, the simple fact that it's s.e.xual doesn't make it dangerous for them.
2. Exposure to s.e.xual themes and words damages adult relationships.
Are most adults and their relationships so fragile, so vulnerable to s.e.xual themes and words? Are adults never bored or selfish, violent, unfaithful, or imaginative without TV or radio?
As a marriage counselor for 25 years, I'm pretty familiar with the limitations of many relationships around communication and intimacy. I see this with my couples every week, and it's pretty independent of what they're listening to or watching. Seeing a breast on Howard Stern that isn't digitally covered or hearing raunchy language on a radio show makes no difference in a couple's ability to negotiate differences or trust each other. Watching a condom commercial or actors tongue-kissing may make a couple uncomfortable, but it doesn't damage them. And if their discomfort about such harmless stuff is strong enough to make them retreat from each other, the couple's problems go way deeper than what's on TV or radio.
3. The broadcast of s.e.xual themes and words forces adults to have conversations with kids that adults don't want to have.
54.Yes, that's right. And that's good; good; it's called "parenting." TV and radio offer an unending series of teachable moments, of opportunities for adults to talk with kids about s.e.xuality, relationships, decision-making, gender, and values. it's called "parenting." TV and radio offer an unending series of teachable moments, of opportunities for adults to talk with kids about s.e.xuality, relationships, decision-making, gender, and values.
This is the antidote to whatever is bothering parents about any possible harm from s.e.x on the media. The solution to dumb talk is smart talk, not no talk.
Talking with your kids about references to s.e.xuality on TV and radio isn't a problem, it's a solution. If some adults are uncomfortable with this opportunity, that's no reason to eliminate it for other parents, and no reason to punish non-parents.
4. s.e.xual themes and words in the media "coa.r.s.ens" our culture.
Our culture has indeed changed in the 58 years since television was invented. During this time America has also partic.i.p.ated in four wars and lived through the invention of the Pill, a huge increase in the number of women in the full-time workforce, a dramatic increase in the age of first marriage, a huge exodus of middle-cla.s.s people from the core of every big American city, the decriminalization of contraception, abortion, and s.e.x between unmarried people, a huge increase in the daily privacy of school-age children and teenagers, and the geographic dispersion of most families. Not to mention the invention of the Internet and cell phone. America has changed even more radically in the 90 years since the start of commercial radio.
If American culture has become coa.r.s.ened, every one of these demographic changes is responsible along with s.e.xuality themes in the media. This general trend is worrisome to many people. Feeling helpless to turn back the clock, some of them try to reduce their anxiety by attempting to censor the media.
It's a selfish and desperately retrograde strategy that hurts others, but they don't seem to care.
"s.e.xual themes in the media has coa.r.s.ened our culture" is a statement that sounds reasonable, is impossible to prove or disprove, and is a subst.i.tute for actual thinking or facts. It's just as easy to suggest that s.e.xuality in the media has enriched enriched our culture-for example, by discussing breast cancer treatments, advertising condoms, exposing s.e.xual exploitation, supporting the s.e.xual function of older people, and encouraging couples to talk with each other about their s.e.xual concerns. our culture-for example, by discussing breast cancer treatments, advertising condoms, exposing s.e.xual exploitation, supporting the s.e.xual function of older people, and encouraging couples to talk with each other about their s.e.xual concerns.
5. "Moral" people deserve to have their "morality" validated, and deserve to have others' "immoral" interests eliminated from the public sphere.
For starters, whose whose morality? People who are certain that there's only one morality have a simple answer-theirs. People who understand that there's more than one way of understanding life don't have that same cert.i.tude, and so their voices on this, unfortunately, are typically not as loud. morality? People who are certain that there's only one morality have a simple answer-theirs. People who understand that there's more than one way of understanding life don't have that same cert.i.tude, and so their voices on this, unfortunately, are typically not as loud.
The value judgment that s.e.xual inhibition equals morality is by no means a fact, and is by no means universal. More importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court Battleground: Broadcast "Indecency" 55 Broadcast "Indecency" 55 (in Lawrence v. Texas, 2004 Lawrence v. Texas, 2004) chal enged the very idea that enhancing "morality"
was a valid government function. Using government power to restrict the content of broadcast media for this reason, therefore, should be clearly seen as both inappropriate and il egal in a secular democracy.