The controversy over TopTV’s application to have a license to show x-rated adult films has returned. TopTV is applying to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) to have not just one, but three such dedicated channels.
The controversy over TopTV’s application to have a license to show x-rated adult films has returned. TopTV is applying to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) to have not just one, but three such dedicated channels.
So far the loudest voices in the debate are those of Christians who oppose the move on the grounds that it degrades women, harms children and has the potential to unleash moral decay into society.
On the other side, free speech and free market advocates argue that we cannot have a nanny state dictating to adults.
For its part, TopTV is just doing this for the money. Arguments around the causal link between porn and sexual violence remain complex.
I won’t focus on them here.
What I would say is I find merit in is what Christian and other child-protection advocates argue about the need to seriously consider the rights of children.
While the state certainly has no right to dictate to adults with regard to their sexual practices and consumption habits, the state does have a duty to protect children from any possible exposure to pornography.
The main thing that bothered me was this – would I let my child go to a sleepover to a home if I knew that the adults had a 24-hour porn subscription?
No ways!
This is primarily because I would be anxious about how well the access to the televised stream of porn is controlled, especially given that many families have more than one television set.
The defence mounted against this access issue is that there would be a digital code to bar access to any nosy child. Please! In this day and age children have become more tech-savvy than most adults.
Proponents would argue that there is already porn in people’s households, yet we have no qualms with sleepovers.
Well, actually, no. We always have concerns (these include guns, alcohol, poisons etc).
These are weighed up against our knowledge of existing conventions of how materials are placed beyond a child’s immediate reach.
However, the difference with a channel is obvious – it is a 24/7 stream that cannot necessarily be hidden. It is just a code away.
Usually, children encounter porn in the home by pure accident.
Most likely, they will encounter porn through older children in the family who have figured out where the stash is.
This happened to me when I was 10 and an older teen cousin stumbled upon a relative’s stash.
She made us sit and watch with her a few times. I would rather not have had that childhood experience.
Recently, a friend and I were visiting some learners here in Grahamstown.
The parent was at work.
The elder sibling felt it appropriate to watch a highly explicit film in the presence of her much younger sister, and much to my shock, did not switch it off even though we had arrived.
Even worse, we arrived around the same time as an old man, who sat transfixed for a few minutes, before I realised that I had to request the elder child to switch it off.
In spite of existing restrictions and regulations, a simple check in our families and neighbourhoods will show that children are already exposed to porn.
They are not only getting addicted, but have taken to making their own “blue movies” on cellphones.
The mind boggles as to how anyone can believe that adding a dedicated channel into the home does not increase the risk of exposure.
How on earth will another avenue of access help the existing situation?
While I would not dictate to adults, I believe that it helps that we at the least treat these films as “dirty little secrets” that are best tucked away. Adults should have to go to some effort to view them.
As I write this, some raucous neighbours are playing the sexually explicit version of Mgarimbe’s song ‘Sister Bettina’ in their children's hearing.
I hope these adults never have the option to subscribe to a 24/7 porn channel.
