With the advent of the internet, pornography has flourished, opening up new markets of distribution world wide. While commercial porn has flooded the internet we have also seen a rise in “non-conformist networks” that, by and large, exist outside capitalism and partake in gift economies where they swap content.
Due to the way in which pornography had to be distributed, prior to the internet, it had strong ties to capitalism. While that is still true today there has been a shift that has decentralized the power to distribute porn to virtually anyone who has a computer or owns a web cam. This shift has resulted in kind of partnership taking place between commercial distributors of porn and the government which aims to censor and shut down non-commercial distributors that violate government sanctions of obscenity, regardless of the social or ethical codes of conduct developed by online correspondents.
The results of internet censorship can be seen to be a form of oppression directed against marginalized groups that reinforces the status quo. This is because it creates a tide of intolerance that suppresses the expression of gays, women, heretics, traitors and troublemakers. The example of this that Jacobs gives is the removal of online gay communities by commercial portals such as Yahoo, due to “obscene” content. This can be seen as directly violating freedom of expression.
The decentralization of porn has had many effects on the contents of porn as well as the way people interact with porn. One of the effects that the internet has had on the porn industry is the emergence of niche markets within online communities. These niches cover a wide variety of fetishes and cater to the various sexual interests of large online communities. The range of sexual interests that are covered by the net is immense. Virtually anything that exists has had porn made of it, which is consistent with rule 34 [1].
For those who are unaware, rule 34 is a “rule” of the internet that states that “there is porn of it, no exceptions.” The rule appeared on a list of rules about the internet long ago and although it was intended for humour the rule tends to hold true. While various other rule lists have been made the one consistent and agreed upon rule that appears on the lists is “rule 34” [1].
These online niche communities emerge through the convergence of space on the internet. Where once communities were formed based on common location they now emerge through common interests [2]. From our desktops we are connected to rest of the world and it to us. Through the medium of the internet like minded individuals can come together to form expansive online communities of shared interests or fetishes. These “other spaces” exist (at least to some extent) outside the capitalist society and tend to transcend borders.
Foucault outlined several characteristics of heterotopia, such as:
- A ‘crisis heterotopia’ - a separate space like a boarding school or a motel room where activities like coming of age or a honeymoon take place out of sight.
- ‘Heterotopias of deviation’ - institutions where we place individuals whose behaviour is outside the norm (hospitals, asylums, prisons, rest homes, cemetery).
- Heterotopia can be a single real place that juxtaposes several spaces. A garden is a heterotopia because it is a real space meant to be a microcosm of different environments with plants from around the world.
- 'Heterotopias of time' such as museums enclose in one place objects from all times and styles. They exist in time but also exist outside of time because they are built and preserved to be physically insusceptible to time’s ravages.
- 'Heterotopias of ritual or purification' are spaces that are isolated and penetrable yet not freely accessible like a public place. To get in one must have permission and make certain gestures such as in a sauna or a hammin.
- 'Heterotopias has a function in relation to all of the remaining spaces. The two functions are: heterotopia of illusion creates a space of illusion that exposes every real space, and the heterotopia of compensation is to create a real space--a space that is other [3].
Porn sites as heterotopias can be seen to embody many of these characteristics. They are:
- Places where activities take place out of sight
- They juxtapose several spaces (though their links) from a real place (computer)
- They exist outside of time, in that though the content of the site may change previous content seldom disappears or is altered
- They are not freely penetrable like a public space as many of them require membership to enter forums, download content, upload content, etc as well as an age restriction.
In the article the argument of internet censorship for the protection of children was presented. It was stated that: “If adults and children are mutually given unfettered access to adult and obscene materials via the Internet, a child’s computer is essentially converted into an adult bookstore,” however, Jacobs refutes this by stating that what we need to do is promote media literacy. My questions to you are:
- What side of the debate do you fall on? And why?
- What content (if any) should we view as obscene (worth censoring)?
- Where should we draw the line? And why?
- What impact do you think that internet access to porn will have on our society and morality?
1. "Rule 34." Urban Dictionary. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://www.easybib.com/cite/edit/CLD2_6c96e2db-8447-4aaf-a72c-%200040406c9749>.
2. Press, Larry. "McLuhan Meets the Net." Communications of the ACM 38.6 (1995): 15- 20, 8 March. 2011 <http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/articles/macl.htm>.
3. "Heterotopia (space)." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotopia_(space)>.
4. Quinn, James F., and Craig J. Forsyth. "Describing Sexual Behavior in the Era of the Internet: A Typology For Empirical Research." Deviant Behavior (2005): 191- 206. Www.hawaii.edu. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Describing_Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Era_of_t he_Internet__A_Typology_For_Empirical_Research.pdf>.
