Banning Porn - State, National, or Both?

In light of the moral and cultural decline in Western Civilization, and America in particular, the debate on whether and how to ban pornography has been renewed. Prominent personalities, such as Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and Timothy Gordon, have given their arguments in favor of such a ban over the past few weeks. Tim Gordon in particular, with his brother David, gave their opinions on this moral issue in a recent episode of Rules for Retrogrades.

Firstly, it should be obvious that I am vehemently in favor of banning pornography. It is intrinsically evil. It makes men stupid, weak, and impotent animals. The fact that previous attempts to ban pornography have been struck down as unconstitutional, as a violation of “freedom of expression,” is a moral stain for which God shall judge America. Ironically, it’s partially true following the logic, or rather illogic, of “liberty” upon which this country was founded.

The above points, save for the last, are those upon which Tim, David, and I agree. We also agree upon the foundational principle of subsidiarity, especially as applied to government. However, I disagree with them that banning porn should be done only at the state level. There are several reasons which I will touch on below.

Their position is based on a confused understanding of American history. They seem to believe and take a more favorable view to the American Revolution, the founding fathers, and the form of the Constitution. They seem to believe that the Constitution is essentially good as well as the principles that guided the radical revolutionaries. They seem to embrace the false narrative that our current crisis is because we have abandoned the “original meaning” of the Constitution and Jeffersonian ideals.

To reiterate, I wholeheartedly embrace Catholic teaching on subsidiarity and the role and function of government. Nevertheless, the founding ideals of America are not what we should go back to. The “original” meaning is not what they assume it to be simply because the words meant different things to different people. The crisis we have today is the full flowering of the desire for a full separation of church and state and the tyranny of public opinion.

Tim stresses the Tenth Amendment and the position of state nullification that Jefferson openly backed in theory. This is the position taken by most orthodox conservatives coupled with “original meaning.” The problem is that in practical application, the Tenth Amendment is useless as is the entire Bill of Rights and therefore a useless appeal for a ban on pornography at the state level.

The Bill of Rights was only proposed as an appeasement to what many rightly saw as a grab for power by the elite. The Tenth Amendment is a clawless kitten in light of the “supremacy” and “necessary and proper” clauses that are defined by the national government. The Tenth Amendment is ambiguous as to what powers the states actually have and therefore has no effect in preventing the centralization of the national government.

Also, subsidiarity deals not only with competence but with effectiveness. I fail to see how state only bans could possibly be effective given the interstate nature of the porn industry. And since all such attempts have been struck down in the past, it would have to go to the Supreme Court and precedent overturned. Even if a state ban were to be upheld, how would they enforce it?

In arguing for the state-only position, David uses the Prohibition era as an example. But this is a bad analogy. Alcohol is not immediately addictive and isn’t evil of itself (as he admits). It only becomes so with excessive use. On the other hand, porn is both immediately addictive and intrinsically evil. Even the secular world recognizes the evil of child pornography and is enshrined in national law, which brings me to my next point.

Continuing with the Prohibition analogy, David argues that additional agencies would have to be set up in order to enforce a national ban. This is false. As I just mentioned, child pornography is already illegal and there are both national and local resources devoted to enforcing this law. All that needs to be done is an expansion of the law to include all pornography and the same resources already in place used for enforcement.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Timothy and David Gordon have a tendency to edge toward a false dichotomy when it comes to the application of subsidiarity regarding the role of the national government. The war on porn requires all hands on deck. The local levels need the support of the national and the national cannot be effective without the local.

Despite our disagreements, I hold them both in high esteem and am grateful for their contribution in the effort to restore Christendom. They and their families are both in my daily prayers.