A marriage made in heaven

I have found out from Pippi, via Sparkle*Matrix that that the pro-porn group Feminists Against Censorship now has a blog, and, shockingly, that they link to the porn-apologist site MelonFarmers. At the risk of crushing FAC’s free speech with my awesome power to censor others, I’m going to consider what this means.

Here is the mission statement of the group, as seen on the Feminists Against Censorship homepage, with my sarcy comments:

The media may have given you the impression that feminists support moves to censor sexual media, so you might be surprised to know just how many feminists out there have been actively opposing such censorship since long before there was an Internet. And we still do.

The media may have given you that impression, because it is in the media’s interest to do so. What they will not have told you, and what FAC are never going to tell you, is that the feminist position against porn is a stance firmly against the abuse of women and children that occurs in the making of porn. If there is a market for the abuse, then the abuse will continue. And we hold that the rights of vulnerable human beings to not be exploited and abused are greater than the rights of the viewer to get off on the subordination of women. Oh and while I’m here, saying you’re a feminist doesn’t make it so. There is very little on the website that even refers to women, let alone suggests that FAC is concerned with their lives.

Scare stories about the alleged new dangers of the Internet haven’t changed our minds. We still see the same dangers in censorship that we always have, and the “new” arguments really seem remarkably familiar. The equation is simple: Those who have power get to censor, and those who lack power get silenced. If you find yourself in a position to demand and get censorship, you can be sure you are among those who have the power, and you are acting to oppress others.

And who are the people who are most censored currently? I’ll give you a clue, they’re not the consumers of pornography, who are predominantly male and thus possess significant economic and social power over women. The suffering of women in the making of pornography and in the prostitution industry is so censored that in a discussion of porn, people will look straight through the women in the pictures and in the brothels. Their human rights not to be in such a position of poverty or servitude are never brought up. Instead we hear about the rights of the consumers of porn- who are the privileged.

Yes, supporting freedom of speech means you may have to hear and see expression that you don’t like. But if you cave in to censorship, you will still hear expression you don’t like – from the Powers That Be – and be left without a voice to counter it. Don’t be fooled.

Pornography is not speech. Speech is what I’m doing right now, or what the people in the conversation about pornstitution are doing, or what the guy on the street who shouts about Jesus is doing. Once you have to use the bodies of other people to speak, it is not speech. I’ve said all this before, of course. The people demanding the end of pornography and the end of sexist exploitation are not The Powers That Be. If only we were! Just to make sure, I’m going to censor the abuse of women, right… now!

Nope, it didn’t work.

These pages will tell you more about Feminists Against Censorship and other groups that are fighting for free expression, both on the net and off it, from bookstores to libraries, in Britain and America. Follow the links to essays, announcements, campaigns, history, resources, and others who wish to promote the right to speak freely. And join us.

‘Promoting the right to speak freely’ is great. But from the content of FAC’s website, the names of their various publications and their outcry about the possession of records of abuse being made illegal, it seems that that freedom belongs only to the pornographers.  

FAC’s site strikes me as strange in other ways. Despite the assertion that most feminists are on their side, there are very few names of feminists mentioned, and certainly none of feminists only giving their support to the organisation. Of course, if FAC are justified in their arguments against ‘censorship’, then it really shouldn’t matter; if you have truth on your side, that’s all you need. But the special pleading evident in FAC’s insistence that ‘other feminists’ do support them, combined with their failure to show proof of that support, suggests that they are feeling rather insecure.

Another red flag waving itself rather rudely in my face appears here, where the website states that ‘Feminists Against Censorship is unfunded by any government, church, or industry, unlike our opposition’ and that ‘we don’t have funding’. Who is the opposition? If they refer to the ‘bad’ feminists, then they’re both wrong and stupid- we don’t have squat. And the porn industry is not exactly short of cash, publicity or the means to promote and defend itself.

Who do they think they are fooling? 

Back to the MoronFarmers. One of their latest attempts as journalism has them scoffing at Eaves, the organisation that provides shelter and hope to women on a low income, to victims of rape trafficking and has done extensive research on sexual violence, for protesting Channel Five’s newest ’sitcom’ which is set in a brothel. Eaves objects to the portrayal of prostitution as ‘glamorous’ and ‘risk-free’. For this, the Morons label Eaves as a ‘women’s nutter group’.

Firstly, who would know more about the damage a sitcom about prostitution could do, Eaves or MelonFarmers? I think the answer is pretty clear, and MelonFarmers do not even attempt to argue against Eaves’ views. And secondly, what sort of a website that is interested in preventing censorship would refer to a group that has done amazing work for the most powerless and silenced women as a ‘women’s nutter group’, simply because that group took a stance that website disagreed with?

And FAC, you link to these guys?! Show me your feminism, ’cause I aint seeing it.