Making You Pay for Porn: Does Rhode Island Want to Impose Morality or Cash In?

A proposed Rhode Island bill, carrying the decidedly clunky name “An Act Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers—Internet Digital Blocking,” would impose a $20 fee to view online pornographic content. Rhode Islanders who visit porn sites would be have to pay the fee in order to lift a block and proceed in viewing any content deemed pornographic.

Pornography has been subject to debate and scrutiny since its inception, and for good reason. The problems that stem from the porn industry are vast, and arguments against pornographic content don’t come solely from the religious community. The porn industry is male-dominated, so we’re presented with content that comes predominately from the heterosexual male perspective and is often violent and objectifies women. The expectations young men gain from studying pornographic material is not conducive with the realities of healthy romantic relationships and encourages outdated ideas of gender roles. These ideas can perpetuate domestic and sexual violence and/or stunt the emotional capabilities of romantic relationships.

However, a major dilemma with porn concerns with the question of autonomy. The American Humanist Association has shown support of our personal freedom to engage with pornographic content of our own free will. So, how does one engage with such content without contributing to the plethora of problems the industry creates? Through the years there has been a call for major changes in the porn industry to create more female-friendly content. While we have seen changes in the industry from an increase in the number of women directors, better health screenings for actors, and more dominant female roles, the perpetuation of unrealistic body images, sexual situations, and relationship scenarios continue and prove the industry has a long road ahead in creating content that accommodates more than one gender.

On the surface, Rhode Island’s bill would seem to slow porn traffic, and it very well could. It would also permit the state attorney general to file suits against ISPs that don’t block child pornography, revenge pornography, and websites for prostitution or human trafficking. In fact, the funds collected from this law would be allocated to anti-trafficking efforts.

Unfortunately, this bill, even if it can be legally imposed, would affect any content online that is characterized as “sexual content and patently offensive.” The bill does not elaborate on its working definition of “offensive” or what type of sexual content would be subjected to this fee. The vague nature of this bill has some worried that it may include movies containing sex scenes, video games with sexual or adult content, or even reading material that contains sexual references or information. The big question here is: Who decides what’s offensive? In a 2012 article arguing against porn, authors Kaitlin Cottle and Gayle Tyree defend erotica while warning of the dangers of pornography:

Many people confuse porn for a cheaper, less refined form of erotica, but the two are fundamentally different. While both are forms of sexual representation, pornography is defined by the abuse and degradation of the people involved.

However, under Rhode Island’s proposed bill, both forms would be subject to the fee regardless of their differences or social impact.

But the greatest problem with this bill isn’t its targeting of pornography. This bill, and many like it that have been introduced over the years, could be the beginning of our greatest fears, nixing net neutrality. The Obama administration made it illegal to block legal internet content or impose a fee to access it. This bill is effectively taking advantage of the new net neutrality rules, and what better content to test it on than one that is highly debated? Democratic State Senator Frank Ciccone, who introduced the bill, said, “The purpose of this legislation is to first and foremost protect our children from viewing websites that could have possible detrimental effects to their psyches and developmental process.” While it’s tempting to want to block children from accessing pornographic content, this type of thinking could result in any lawmaker effectively deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for children, whether it is violence, religious content, social clubs, atheism, or any content anyone could deem to have “detrimental effects” to the psyches and developmental processes of children.

When it comes down to it, whether we individually like it or not, porn is legal. And bills like Rhode Island’s open a dangerous door that would allow lawmakers to start determining morality and imposing their own ideas onto the public. Regardless of your stance on pornography, bills like this should be opposed.